[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



























                                                                                                                                                                                                       =          Im   Buill




















                                                                                                                                      IBM--







                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Iii  -


                                                                                                                                                                                                  - - -  =~~~~ K    -NI




                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I L   - .   - -






                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOI_                                                                                                       _
















T D_ _                                                                      _    _    __ _                                  _    _   __                               _
370                                                 ---                                                                                         _                            I
 .C5 
C4 5               -      - -_                                                                                    -                  ----_





                                                              - ~       ~               ~              ~             ~              -i









         CREDITS

         This report was producted in part though financial support from the Virginia Council
         on the Environment pursant to Virginia Coastal Resources Program Grant number
         NA-88-AA-D-CZ091 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.













                                     U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                     COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                     2234 SOUTh HOSON AVENUE
                                     CHARLESTON, SrC 29405-2413















 .
      I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-








        CHAPTER I
              Introduction                                                                   ............................................................1
        CHAPTER II
              The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the Chesapeake
I           ~ ~~~~~~Bay Preservation Area Designation and Managemenf Regulations      .      .............3
                  Purpose.............................................................3

                  Local Program Elements ..3............... 
3               ~~~~~~~~Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation Criteria and Maps .    .........4
                      Resource Protection Areas (EPA)                                         ....................................5
                      Resource Management Areas (RMA).................................6
 I                ~~~~~~~~~~Intensely Developed Areas (IDA)                                 ....................................6
                  Land Use and Development Performance Criteria.........................7
 I                ~~~~~~~~~~General Performance Criteria                                    .......................................8
                      Performance Criteria for Resource Protection Areas....................10
   3                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Allowable Development .....................................10
                             Buffer Areas Requirements ....................................1
                      Administrative Waivers and Exemptions.............................13
   I                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~Nonconforming Uses and Development Waivers................13
                             Public Utilities, Railroads and Facilities Exemptions .............13
   I                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~Exemptions in Resource Protection Areas.......................14
                             Exceptions to the Criteria.....................................14
        CHAPTER III
I            ~~~~~~~Program Development...................................................15
                      Shoreline Area Management Alternatives ............................15
                      Proposed Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance ...............22
                             Article I. Purpose., Applicability and Jurisdiction...............22
                             Article II. District Maps and Land Management Classifications ...23
                             Article III. Definitions .......................................23
                             Article IV. Grandfather Provisions.............................27
                             Article V. Development Standards ...........................28
                             Article VI. Administrative Procedures .........................37
        CHAPTER TV
I             Definitionsins..........................................................40.......4




3
                             I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I
i
I
 I

 I



  I
              I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  I
  U
        I  ;  I
     I::








         INTRODUCTION
I       ~~~The coastal and maritime resources of the    actions for Virginians was the enactment
          Chesapeake  Bay  have  for  many    of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act,
          generations been a valuable economic,    which  provides   for  the  local
I        ~~~environmental and recreational resource    administration of programs to include
          to Virginians and many others.  As    water quality protection measures into
I        ~~populations have grown in the Bay    land use planning in the Tidewater
          region, and pressures on these resources    region. 
          have intensified, stresses on this fragile Thspawih ncuemp,
I      ~ ~ecosystem have mounted.Thspawihncuemp,
                                                  proposed  ordinances  and  other
          The deteriorating conditions in the Bay -    implementation tools, presents the local
I      ~ ~its lowered productivity, its algal    program for the City of Suffolk in
          blooms, increased concentrations of    establishing the land use regulations for
U        ~~~toxins  - were  documented  in a    its Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas,
          seven-year study conducted by the    pursuant  to the Chesapeake  Bay
          Environmental Protection Agency and    Preservation Act, Section 10.1-21-3 and
          finished in 1983. This study confirmed    10.1-2107 of Chapter 21, Title 10.1 of the
          that these conditions were caused by    Code of Virginia.
          point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
          The Chesapeake Bay Agreement, entered    This plan is intended to be consistent
          into   by   Virginia,   Maryland,    with .the   guidelines   of   the
          Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia,    Commonwealth of Virginia as presented
I        ~~~the U. S. Environmental Protection    in the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
          Agency, and., the Chesapeake Bay    Manual. The Manual contains technical
          Commission, acknowledges the stake    information and should be used as a
I       ~ ~~each participant has in the Bay's    guidance document in implementing or
          resources and accepts responsibility for    revising this plan.
          reversing the decline Iof Bay water
          quality. Included in its goals are the
          reduction and control of point and
          nonpoint sources of pollution to attain
          water quality conditions necessary to
          support the living resources of the Bay.
I        ~~The Chesapeake Bay Agreement marked
          the formal beginning of action by both
3        ~~~public and private agencies at local, state,
          regional and national levels to protect
          water quality in the Bay and ensure its
I       ~ ~continued productivity for future
          genera tions. One of the most significant


          Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                    REVISED) DRAFT -January 26,1990
3         ~~~City of Suffolk, Virginia            IRedman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








            City Of Suffolk, Virginia





               I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I:









     I~~~~~~~~~-~-t C___in

   I~~~~~~hspek a aese


                  ~~~~~~~~~Cheaek a rsrainPormRVSDDAT-aur 619
~~~~~~ityo    ufl, Vri                i                 ,Ld



U



I                                           A
               I
                    I
I         :i








                  !   :i'l 'ï¿½ r
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
                  ï¿½~~~~il ~ . ,'ii       
            I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:I:                    :     :
       I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:i::

   I                            I      ï¿½   


                           I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 








THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PERSERVATION ACT
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PERSERVATION AREA DESIGNATION
AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act           permit all reasonable public uses and will
mandates  all Tidewater  Virginia             support the propagation and growth of all
localities to establish programs, plans,      aquatic life, including game fish, which
and ordinances to protect and improve         might reasonably be expected to inhabit
Bay water quality. These local programs       them;
must conform with the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area Designation and           Cosafeal       th  frs oflthe
Management Regulations adopted by
the Virginia Legislature in September,
1989.
           1989.                            *~~~~~~~~~~ prevention of any increase in pollution;
PURPOSE                                     ï¿½ reduction of existing pollution; and
The purpose of the Act is to protect and
                                            -promotion of water resource conserra-
improve the water quality of the              tion in order to provide for the health,
Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and          safety, and welfare of the present and
other state waters by minimizing the          future citizens of the Commonwealth.
effects of human activity upon these
waters-.    The   Chesapeake  Bay    The Regulations establish the criteria that
Preservation Act provides for the    local governments shall use to determine
definition and protection of certain lands    the extent of the Chesapeake Bay
called Chesapeake Bay Preservation    Preservation  Areas  within  their
Areas, which if improperly used or    jurisdictions. The Regulations establish
developed may result in substantial    criteria for use by local governments in
damage  to water quality  of the    granting,  denying,  or modifying
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. requests to rezone, subdivide, or to use
                                          and develop land in Chesapeake Bay
GOALS                                      Preservation Areas.  The Regulations
Local governments are required to    identify the requirements for changes
develop measures, or local programs,    which  local  governments  shall
necessary  to  comply  with  the    incorporate into their comprehensive
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and    plans,  zoning   ordinances,  and
Regulations. In conjunction with other    subdivision regulations to protect the
state water quality programs, local    quality of state waters pursuant to the
programs shall encourage and promote:    Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.

   protection of existing high quality state    LOCAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS
   waters and restoration of all other state    The Regulations require that the City of
   waters to a condition or quality that will    Suffolk establish a local program which


Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                     REVISED DRAFT - January 26,1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia               3                Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








will contain the elements listed below.     G. A plan of development process
Elements A and B shall be adopted              prior to the issuance of a building
concurrently  and  no  later  than             permit to assure that use and
September 20,1990. Elements C through          development  of land  in  the
G shall be in place by September 20,1991.      Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas
                                              is accomplished in a manner that
 A. A map delineating Chesapeake Bay           protects the quality of state waters.
    Preservation Areas.
                                          CHESAPEAKE, BAY PRESERVA-
 B. Performance criteria for land use
                              twithin  TION   AREA   DESIGNATION
    Chesapeake Bay Preservation
    Areas.
                                          As part of its Local Program for
 C. A comprehensive plan or revision    Chesapea         y   eservaton,   e
    that incorporates the protection of    of Suffolk designates lands in the James
    Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas    River watershed as Chesapeake Bay
    and of the quality of state waters    Preservation Areas  (PA).   These
                                          Preservation Areas include, but are not
 D. A zoning ordinance or revision that    limited to the following waterbodies and
    (i) incorporates measures to protect    their tributary streams:
    the quality of state waters in
    Chesapeake  Bay Preservation             James River    Nansemond River
    Areas, and (ii) requires compliance      Hoffler Creek   Streeter Creek
    with all performance criteria for        Knotts Creek   Bennett Creek
    land use and development.                West Creek    Shingle Creek
                                             Cohoon Creek  Burnetts Mill Creek
 E. A subdivision ordinance or revision      Cedar Creek    Campbell Creek
    that (i) incorporates measures to        Lake Meade    Lake Kilby
    protect the quality of state waters in   Lake Cahoon   Chuckatuck Creek
    Chesapeake  Bay Preservation             Lake Prince    Lake Burnt Mills
    Areas, and (ii) assures that all sub-    Cedar Lake    Quaker Neck Creek
    divisions in Chesapeake Bay Preser-      Lone Star Lakes Speights Run
    vation Areas comply with the             Western Branch Reservoir
    performance criteria for land use
    and development.                      Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas in
                                          the City of Suffolk have been delineated
 F. An erosion and sediment control or-    on overlays of U. S. G. S. 7.5 minute
    dinance or revision that requires    quadrangles, at a scale of 1:24,000, or
    compliance with performance    1"=2,000'. The quadrangles mapped are:
    criteria for land use and develop-    Buckhorn, Windsor, Benn's Church,
    ment.                                 Newport News South, Bower's Hill,
                                          Suffolk and Chuckatuck. These maps
                                          have been designed to be used in


Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                    REVISED DRAFT - January 26,1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia               4               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








           conjunction with the U. S. C. S.    Resource Protection Areas
3         ~~~quadrangles  and  with  National    Resource Protection Are as WRAS)
           Wetlands Inventory overlays -as land    consist of sensitive lands at or near the
                    planin tols  Th  Ciy f Sffok ay    shoreline that have an intrinsic water
U        ~ ~~exercise judgement in determiningqultvaedetoheclgilan
           site-specific boundaries of Chesapeake    qultvaedetoheclgilan
           Bay Preservation Area components and    biological processes they perform, or are
I        ~ ~~in making  determinations of the    sensitive to impacts which may cause
                     applcaton  f te Ac's  eguatins, degradation to the quality of State
                     applic~~~~~~~~~aters. In thei nActuralrcondition, hs"
           based on more reliable or specific  wandrs poIdefo thei natural, conduction,ths
           informnation gathered from actual fieldladprvefothrmvleucin
           evaluations of the parcel, in accordance    or assimilation of sediments, nutrients,
           with  development  plan  review    and potentially harmful or toxic
           requirements.  An accurate delineation    substances in runoff entering the Bay and
           of site specific  elements  of the    its tributaries, and minimize the adverse
                                                     effects of human activities on state waters
ï¿½         ~~~Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area shall
           be made during site development    and aquatic resources.
           review, as provided for in the Proposed    The Resource Protection Areas (RPA)
           Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area    icue
           Ordinance. icue
                                                      1. Tidal wetlands,
           The seven Map Overlays which delineate
           the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas       2. Non-tidal wetlands connected by
           in the City of Suffolk are an integral part    sraefo  n  otgost  ia
I        ~ ~~of this Local Program. Adoption of this    s ufaetflowands orntriguustor stidals
           Program shall include adoption of these wtad rtiuaysras
I         ~~~Map Overlays.                             3. Tidal shores;

           Land designated as Chesapeake Bay           4. Such other lands necessary to
           Preservation Areas are further classified
           as either Resource Protection Areas            poetheqaItyo  tt  aes
           (RPAS), Resource Management Areas           5. A buffer area not less than 100 feet
3         ~~~(RMAs), or Intensely Developed Areas         iwidth located adjacent to and
           (IDAs). Technical descriptions and other       landward of the components listed
           information pertaining to these areas and      in items 1 through 4 above, and
3         ~~~their components are described in the        along both sides of any tributary
           Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance                Stream. The full buffer area shall be
           Manual. This Manual should be used as          designated as the landward com-
I        ~ ~~a resource with this Plan.                   ponent of the RPA notwithstanding
                                                         the presence of permitted uses or
                                                         equivalent measures in compliance
                                                         with performance criteria for land


           Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                    REVISED DRAFT - January 26,1990
3         ~~~City of Suffolk, Virginia             5               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.







 I             ~~~~~use and development. Designation    Protection Areas.  The five elements
               of these areas shall not be subject to    above were analyzed for the City. The
 *             ~~~~reduction unless based on site-   soil types which can be considered
               specific information.                 highly erodible, highly permeable or
                                                    hydric are shown in Tables 1-3. Because
I        ~ ~~~Resource Management Areas               they comprise a signficant portion of the
                     Resourc  Manageent Ares (RMM)   City's land area, effective protection of
           include land types that, if improperly    water quality and implementation of this
                    usedor eveoped hae apotetia fo   plan will be best achieved by including
           cusedingeelpd siniiave wapternqualityr   the entire watershed of the-James River
Idegradationg orfosiminishicngt wtherult in a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
           degradtionalrvalrediminishinsource    district. As provided in the Ordinance,
           PrIotection Area. RMAs shall encompass    an accurate delineation of site specific
           a land area large enough to provide    elements shall be provided during site
           significant water quality protection    development review.,
           through the employment of performance    Intensely Developed Areas
I        ~ ~~criteria for land use and development.
                                                    The City designates Intensely Developed
           The Regulations have stipulated that a    Areas  (IDAs)  as  an  overlay  of
           Resource Management Area shall be    Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas
           provided contiguous to the entire inland    within its jurisdiction. 1DMs shall serve
           boundary of the Resource Protection    as redevelopment areas in which
I        ~ ~~Area and that the following land    development has existed as of September
           categories will be considered by the City    20, 1989.  Areas so designated shall
           for inclusion in the RMAs:                comply with established performance
                      1. Floodplain;                ~~~~criteria for redevelopment.
                                                     In exercising this option., the City of
            2. Highly erodible soils, including    Suffolk has examined the pattern of
               steep                soe;residential, commercial, industrial, and
                                                     institutional development within
                      3. Higly pereable oils;Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas.
            4. Non-tidal wetlands not included in    Areas of existing development and in-fill
                         the esorce rotctio Aras-site s where  little of the: natural
                         the Rsoure Prtecton Aeas;environment remains may be designated
          3  5. Suc  other lnds necesary to          as IDAs provided at least one of the
               protect the quality of state waters.  floigcniin  xss
           Water quality protection objectives shall   1.Dvlpethseeryatrd
I         ~~~be satisfied in the City of Suffolk bythnaulsaeofherasuc
                      designting a  Resouce Mangementthat it has more than 50 percent im-
I       ~ ~~~Areas all lands in the James River           pervious surface.
           watershed not designated as Resource


           Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                    REVISED DRAFT - January 26, 1990
3         ~~~~City of Suffolk, Virginia            6               Redman /Johnston Associates, Ltd.









E ~ (2) HIGHLYERODIBLE SOILS                       TABLE1   (5) OTHER LANDS HYDRIC SOILS                TABLE 3

                                 Slope      Length Slope       Soil Map Unit            Hydric Soil Criteria
        Soil Map Unit              (,              (ft)                            Frequent Flooding  Saturated Soils
        Alaga loamy sand            5.0%          100           Bohicket                   X               X
        Dogue fine sandy loam       3.0%          50            Levy                       X               X
        Emporia fine sandy loam     3.0%          50            Rains                                      X
        Eunola loamy fine sand      4.0%          200           Tomotley                                   X
                                                             Weston                                    X
        Goldsboro fine sandy loam   4.0%         250
                                                             Source: National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils,
        Kalmia fine sandy loam      3.5%          100                   1987
        Nansemond loamy fine sand    3.0%         100
        Nansemond fine sandy loam    3.0%         100           2. Public sewer and water is con-
        Rumford loamy fine sand     45%          150                structed  and currently serves the
                                                                 area by October 1, 1989. This condi-
        State fine loamy sand       3.0%          50
        State -ine loamy     Rand   3.0%          50                tion does not include areas planned
        Suffolk loamy sand          3.0%          50                for public sewer and water.
        Tetotun fine sandy loam     3.0%          50
                                                              3.  Housing  density is equal to or
        Source: Suffolk Soil Conservation District 1989             greater than four dwelling units per
                                                                 acre.
    (3) HIGHLYPERMEABLE SOILS i                    TABLE 2
      r3) HIGHLY.PERMFABLE    SOILS TABLE2   The City of Suffolk establishes Intensely
                                               Depth of      Developed Areas as mapped  in the
                                Permeability   term Layer
        Soil Map Unit    Symbol    (in/hr)          (in)       Cheapeake Bay Preservation Area Maps.
        Alaga             1B         >6.0         0 - 80
                                                            LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
        Kalmia        10    A       6.0-20       34-72         PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
                         1OB
        Kenansville       11        6.0-20        0-23         The  purpose  of these performance
                                   6.0 -20      48-72         criteria is to achieve the goals of the
        Nansernond        15B       2.0 -20       0-19         Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and to
                         15E      6.0 -20       66-70        implement the following objectives:
        Nansemond         16A       6.0 - 20     66 - 70
                          16B                                   * prevent a net increase in nonpoint source
        Pactolus          17        6.0- 20       0 -80            pollution from new development;
        Rumford           20A        >6.0         0 -10
                         20B        >2.0        36-72          * achieve a 10 percent reduction in non-
         Suffolk          22B       2.0 -20      38-65             point source pollution from redevelop-
                          22B 2.0 - 20           38 -65
        Tetotum           23A       0.6 -20      65 -85            ment;
                          23B
        Torhunta          25        6.0 -20      30 - 65
        Source: City of Suffolk Soil Survey 1981



            Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                               REVISED DRAFT - January 26,1990
            City of Suffolk Virginia                        7                  Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








   and, achieve a 40 percent reduction in    riodic maintenance in order to con-
   nonpoint source pollution from agricul-   tinue their functions, such main-
   tural and silvicultural uses.             tenance will be ensured by the City
                                             through a maintenance agreement
In order to achieve these goals and           with the owner or developer or
objectives, these criteria establish          some  other  mechanism  that
performance standards to minimize             achieves an equivalent objective.
erosion and sedimentation potential,
reduce land application of nutrients and   4. All development exceeding 2,500
toxics, maximize rainwater infiltration,      square feet of land disturbance will
and ensure the long-term performance of       be accomplished through a plan of
the measures employed.                        development review consistent
                                              with the Code of Virginia.
These criteria will become mandatory
upon  the City  of Suffolk Local           5. Land development will minimize
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program           impervious cover consistent with
adoption date. They are supplementary         the use of development allowed.
to the various planning and zoning
concepts employed by the City in           6. Any land disturbing activity that ex-
granting, denying, or modifying               ceeds an area of 2,500 square feet
requests to rezone, subdivide, or to use      (including construction of all single-
and develop land in Chesapeake Bay            family houses, septic tanks and
Preservation Areas.                           drainfields, but otherwise as
                                              defined in Section 10.1-560 of the
General Performance Criteria                  Code of Virginia) will comply with
It must be demonstrated  to the               the requirements of the local sedi-
                                              ment and erosion control ordinance.
satisfaction of the City of Suffolk that any
use, development, or redevelopment of      7. On-site sewage treatment systems
land in Chesapeake Bay Preservation           not requiring a Virginia Pollutant
Areas meets the following performance         Discharge Elimination System
                                              (VPDES) permit will:
 I. Nomore land will be disturbed thant 
                                              a. Have pump-out accomplished
    isnecessary to provide for the               for all such systems at least once
    desired use or development.                 every five (5) years;
 2. Indigenous vegetation will be             b. Fornewconstruction,provide a
    preserved to the maximum extent              reserve sewage disposal site
    possible consistent with the use and         with a capacity at least equal to
    development allowed.                         that of the primary sewage dis-
 3. Where the best management prac-site. This reserve sewage
    tices utilized require regular or pe-        disposal site requirement will
                                                 not apply to any lot or parcel


Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                   REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia              8               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.







I                                   :
                    recorded prior to the effective       practices will not exceed the existing
                    date of these regulations, and        load of nonpoint source pollution in
                    which lot or parcel is not suffi-     surface runoff.
                    cient in capacity to accom-
                    modate  a reserve sewage              a. The  following  stormwater
                    disposal site, as determined by          management options will be
                    the local Health Department.             considered to comply with this
                    Building will be prohibited on           subsection of these regulations:
                    the area of all sewage disposal          (
                    sites until the structure is served          Incorporation on the site of
                                                                best management practices
                    by public sewer or an on-site
                    sewage treatment system which                that achieve the required
                                                                control;
                    operates under a permit issued
                    by the State Water Control               (2) Compliance with a locally
                    Board.  It is a policy of the
                    Southeastern Virginia Planning               stormwater management
                    District Commission to dis-                  program  incorporating
                    courage private package plants               prorata share payments
                    which discharge to surface
                               which discharge to surface        pursuant to the authority
                    waters. All sewage disposal site             provided       in   Section
                    records will be administered to              15.1466(j) of the Code of
                    provide adequate notice and en-              Virginia that results in
                    forcement.
                                                                achievement of equivalent
              8. Stormwater management criteria                   waterqualityprotection;
                 which accomplish the objectives of           (3) Compliance with a state or
                 these regulations will apply.  For              locally     implemented
                 development, the post-develop-                  program of stormwater
                 ment nonpoint source pollution                  discharge permits pursuant
                 runoff load will not exceed the pre-            to Section 402(p) of the
                 development load based upon                     federal Clean Water Act, as
                 average land cover conditions.                  set forth in 40 C.F.R. Parts
                 Redevelopment of any site not cur-              122,123, 124, and 504, dated
                 rently served by water quality best             December 7,1988;
                 management practices will achieve
                 at least a 10 percent reduction of           (4) For a redevelopment site
                 nonpoint source pollution in runoff             that    is    completely
                 compared to the existing runoff load            impervious as currently
                 from the site.  Post development                developed,  restoring a
                 runoff from  any  site to be                    minimum 20 percent of the
                 redeveloped that is currently served            site to vegetated open space.
                 by water quality best management


             Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                   REVISED DRAFT - January 26,1990
             City of Suffolk, Virginia              9               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








           b. Any maintenance, alteration,          and document installation of best
               use, or improvement to an exist-      management practices and will
               ing structure which does not          monitor the in-stream impacts of
               degrade the quality of surface        forestry operations in Chesapeake
               water discharge, as determined        Bay Preservation Areas.  In the
               by the City, may be exempted          event that, by July 1, 1991, the
               from the requirements of this         Department of Forestry programs
               subsection.                           are  unable  to  demonstrate
                                                     equivalent protection of water
            c. Stormwater   -management              quality consistent with the Act and
               criteria for redevelopment will       regulations, the Department of
               apply to any redevelopment,           Forestry will revise its programs to
               whether or not it is located
                                                     assure consistency of results and
               within an Intensely Developed         may require implementation of best
               Area designated by the City.          management practices.
        9. Land upon which agricultural ac-       11. The City of Suffolk will require
            tivities are being conducted, includ-
                                                     evidence of all wetlands permits re-
            ing but not limited to crop                quired by law prior to authorizing
            production, pasture, wiland dairy and    grading or other on-site activities to
            feedlot operations, will have a soil
            and water quality conservation           begin.
            plan.  Such a plan will be based    Performance Criteria For Resource
            upon the Field Office Technical    Protection Areas
            Guide of the U.S. Department of    The following criteria will apply
            Agriculture Soil Conservation Ser-
            Agiculture SoiliConservataion Ser-   specifically within Resource Protection
            vice and accomplish water quality    Areas (RPAs) and supplement the
            protection consistent with the    generalperformance criteria.
            Preservation Act and regulations.
            Such a plan will be approved by the   Allowable Development
            local Soil and Water Conservation
            District by January 1, 1995.          A water quality impact assessment will
                                                  be  required  for  any  proposed
         10. Silvicultural    activities    in    development in accordance with the
            Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas     provisions of the Chesapeake Bay
            are exempt from these regulations     Preservation Act and regulations.
            provided that silvicultural opera-    Land development may be allowed
            tions adhere to water quality protec-  only if it (i) is water dependent or, (ii)
            tion procedures prescribed by the     constitutes redevelopment.
            Department of Forestry in its "Best
            Management Practices Handbook         1. A new or expanded water-depend-
   ; 0      for Forestry Operations."  The            ent facility may  be  allowed
            Department of Forestry will oversee      provided that:


       Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                   REVISED DRAFT -January 26, 1990
3  i0i City of Suffolk, Virginia              10               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








    (a) It does not conflict with the      least the equivalent of the 100 foot
       Comprehensive Plan;                 buffer area may be employed in lieu of
             (b It comlis   it ththe 100 foot buffer. The following
    (b) It complies with the perfor-       additional performance criteria will
       mance criteria set forth in this    apply:
       part;
                                           1. In order to maintain the functional
    (c) Any non-water dependent corn-         value of the buffer area, indigenous
       I  ponent is located outside of        vegetation may be removed only to
       Resource Protection Areas;             provide for reasonable sight lines,
                                              access paths, general woodlot
    (d) Access will be provided with the
                                              management, and best manage-
       minimum disturbance neces-, a 
                                              ment practices, as follows:
       sary. Where possible, a single
       point of access will be provided.      (a) Trees  may  be  pruned  or
                                                 removed as necessary to provide
 2. Redevelopment will conform to ap-             for sight lines and vistas
    plicable stormwater management
                pf ~ ~ ~~~~ .   .                provided that where removed,
    and erosion and sediment controled 
               criteria in this part.            they will be replaced with other
                                                 vegetation that is equally effec-
 Buffer Area Requirements                         tive in retarding runoff, prevent-
                                                 ing erosion, and filtering
To minimize the adverse effects of               nonpoint source pollution from
 human  activities  on  the  other                runoff.
 components of the Resource Protection
 Area, State waters, and aquatic life, a       (b) Any path will be constructed
 100 foot buffer area of vegetation that is       and surfaced so as to effectively
 effective  in  retarding  runoff,                control erosion.
 preventing erosion, and filtering
 nonpoint source pollution from runoff        (c) Dead, diseased, or dying trees or
 will be retained if present and                  shrubbery may be removed at
 established where it does not exist. The         the discretion of the landowner,
 100 foot buffer area will be deemed to           and silvacultural thinning may
 achieve a 75 percent reduction of                be conducted based upon the
 sediments and a 40 percent reduction of          recommendation of a profes-
 nutrients.  Except as noted in this              sional forester or aborist.
 subsection, a combination of a buffer
                                              (d) For shoreline erosion control
 area not less than 50 feet in width and           o
 appropriate best management practices
 located landward of the buffer area              vegetation may be removed,
                                                 necessary control techniques
 which collectively achieve water
                                                 employed, and appropriate
 quality protection, pollutant removal,
 and water resource conservation at               vegetatonestablshedtoprotect
                                                 or stabilize the shoreline in ac-


Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                    REVISED DRAFT - January 26, 1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia              11               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








       cordance with the best available       removal, and water resource conser-
       technical advice and applicable        vation.
       permit conditions or require-
       ments.                              4. On agricultural lands the agricul-
                                               tural buffer area will be managed to
 2. When the application of the buffer        prevent concentrated flows of sur-
    area would result in the loss of buil-    face water from breaching the buffer
    dable area on a lot or parcel             area and noxious weeds (such as
    recorded prior to the effective date      Johnson .grass, kudzu,- and multi-
    of these regulations, modifications       flora rose) from invading the buffer
    to the width of the buffer area may       area. The agricultural buffer area
    be allowed in accordance with the         may be reduced as follows:
    following criteria:
                                               (a) To a minimum width of 50 feet
    (a) Modifications to the buffer area         when the adjacent land is en-
       will be the minimum necessary             rolled in a federal, state, or local-
       to achieve a reasonable buil-             ly-funded agricultural best
       dable area for a principal struc-         management practices program,
       ture and necessary utilities;             and the program is being imple-
                                                   mented, provided that the com-
    (b) Where possible, an area equal to         bination of the reduced buffer
       the area encroaching the buffer           area and best management prac-
       area will be established else-             tices achieve water quality
       where on the lot or parcel in a           protection, pollutant removal,
       way to maximize water quality             and water resource conservation
         protection;                  Xat least the equivalent of the 100
                                                  foot buffer area.
    (c) In no case will the reduced por-
       tion of the buffer area be less        (b) To a minimum width of 25 feet
       than 50 feet in width.                    when a soil and water quality
                                                  conservation plan, as approved
 3. Redevelopment within Intensely
    Developed Areas may be exempt                by the local Soil and Water Con-
                                                  servation District, has been im-
    from the requirements of this sub-
                                                  plemented on the adjacent land,
    section. However, while the imme-            plemented on the adjacent land,
    diate establishment of the buffer            provided that the portion of the
                                                  plan being implemented for the
    area may be impractical, the City
                                                  Chesapeake Bay Preservation
    will give consideration to im-
                                                  Area achieves water quality
    plementing measures that would es-
                                                  protection at least the equivalent
    tablish the buffer in these areas over
    time in order to maximize water               ofthatprovidedbythe100foot
                                                  buffer area in the opinion of the
    quality  protection,  pollutant
                                                  local Soil and Water Conserva-
                                                  tion District Board. Such plan


Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                    REVISED DRAFT - January 26, 1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia              12               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.









                  will be based upon the Field Of-       existing   structures    within
                  fice Technical Guide of the U.S.       Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas
                  Department of Agriculture Soil         from occurring as a result of casual-
                  Conservation Service and ac-           ty loss unless otherwise restricted
                  complish water quality protec-         by City ordinances
                  tion consistent with the Act and
                  these regulations.                  Public Utilities, Railroads, and
                                                       Facilities Exemptions.
               (c) The buffer area is not required     1. Construction, installation, opera-
                  for agricultural drainage ditches      tion, and maintenance of electric,
                  if the adjacent agricultural land       gas, and telephone transmission
                  has in place best management           lines, railroads, and public roads
                  practices in accordance with a          and their appurtenant structures in
                  conservation plan approved by          accordance with the Erosion and
                  the local Soil and Water Conser-       Sediment Control law (Section 10.1-
                  I  vation District.                    560 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia)
                                                          or an erosion and sediment control
          Administrative Waivers and Exemp-
          tions                                          plan approved by the Virginia Soil
                                                          and Water Conservation Board will
            Nonconforming Use and Development             be deemed to constitute compliance
          Waivers,                                         with these regulations.
            1. The City may permit the continued
               use, but not necessarily the expan-    2. Construction, installation, opera-
               sion, of any structure in existence on     tion, and maintenance of water,
               the date of local program adoption.        sewer and local gas lines will be ex-
               The City may establish an ad-              empt from the criteria in this part
               ministrative review procedure to           provided that:
               waive or modify the criteria of this
                    paive or sdftheucturesileria ofnthis  (a) To the degree possible, the loca-
               part for structures on legal noncon-          tion of such utilities and facilities
               forming lots or parcels provided
               that:             0                           should be outside Resource
                                                             Protection Areas.
               (a) There will be no net increase in
                                                          (b) No more land will be disturbed
                  nonpoint source pollutant load;
                                                             than is necessary to provide for
               (b) Any development or land dis-              the desired utility installation.
                  turbance exceeding an area of
                  turbance exceeding an area of          (c) All such construction, installa-
                  2,500 square feet complies with            tion and maintenance of such
                                                             tion, and maintenance of such
                  all erosion and sediment control
                  requ i   rerosi  and sedments cofoal      utilities and facilities will be in
                  requirements of this: part.
                                                             compliance with all applicable
            2. It is not the intent of these criteria to     state and federal permits and
               prevent the reconstruction of pre-            designed and conducted in a


           Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                    REVISED DRAFT - January 26,1990
           City of Suffolk, Virginia               13              Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.
I     S     ;So  f              









       manner that protects water
       quality.

    (d) Any land disturbance exceeding
       an area of 2,500 square feet com-
       plies with all erosion and sedi-
       ment control requirements of
       this part.

Exemptions in Resource Protection
Areas.
 The following land disturbance
 activities in Resource Protection Areas
 may be exempt from the criteria of this
 part provided that they comply with
 items 1 and 2 below: (i) water wells; (ii)
 passive recreation facilities such as
 boardwalks, trails, and pathways; and
 (iii)  historic  preservation  and
 archaeological activities.

 1. The City will establish administra-
    tive procedures to review such ex-
    emptions;

 2. Any land disturbance exceeding an
    area of 2,500 square feet will comply
    with the erosion and sediment con-
    trol requirements of this part.

 Exceptions to the Criteria
 Exceptions to the requirements of these
 criteria may be granted, provided that:
 (i) exceptions to the criteria will be the
 minimum necessary to afford relief,
 and (ii) reasonable and appropriate
 conditions upon any exception granted
 will be imposed as necessary so that the
 purpose and intent of the Act is
 preserved.  The City will design an
 appropriate process or processes for the
 administration of exceptions.



Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                    REVISED DRAFT - January 26, 1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia               14              Redman/JohnstonAssociates, Ltd.



I
I                                            A
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I                                         . .7
I
I
I       .    Ki .








U         ~PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
           This Chesapeake Bay Preservation    Intensity and Use Restrictions
           Program shall be amended to the City of      DniyRsrcin
           Suffolk  Comprehensive   Growth DniyRsrcin
I        ~ ~~Management Plan.  Designation of           Conventional zoning and subdivision
           Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas as         ordinances can regulate development
           mapped and performance criteria will be      densities on or near sensitive natural
I        ~ ~~incorporated into The  City of Suffolk     resources. This specific application of
           Zoning   Ordinance,   Subdivision            zoning and subdivision ordinances is as
           Regulations, and Erosion and Sediment        easy to administer and enforce as the
           Control Ordinance.  The City will also       everyday process of these regulations.
           establish a plan of development review       The more densities are reduced,
           and approval process for building permit     however, the less palatable this option
           issuance for development within             becomes because property values are
           designated       Chesapeake        Bay       affected.
U       ~ ~~Preservation Areas. Finally, the City will
           also establish administrative and           While density restrictions will tend to
           enforcement procedures as part of its        reduce the total amount of impervious
I       ~ ~overall Local Program for Chesapeake         surface   and   lower   the   total
           Bay Preservation.                            concentration of on-site wastewater
                                                       disposal areas, it can be argued that in
           SHORELINE AREA MANAGEMENT                   many instances, increasing lot sizes
           ALTERNATIVES                                 does nothing to preserve resources or
                                                       limit adverse impacts. In waterfront
           Three tests may be considered for land       areas, the most desirable locations for
           use management  approaches  and              residential building are often the most.
           regulatory tools:                            sensitive areas; hence the size of the lot
                                                       affords no protection to sensitive
              Will the regulations gain political ac-  shoreline areas.  Roads need to be
 3           ~~~~ceptibility?                           longer, and the disturbance of resources
                        Are the legaly defesiblein building these, may in fact result in
                                                       higher impacts than with small lots. In
                        Do  the   have   dminisrative  addition, as lot sizes increase, areas
              feasibility?                             cleared for lawns and outside activities
                                                       often increase, which eliminates the
           The following are the regulatory             habitat diversity of wetlands and
           approaches which may be considered for       woodlands. ,In most cases, therefore,
           the City of Suffolk.                         while this is easy to implement, this
                                                       option can be subjected to charges Of
                                                       exclusionary zoning, with little

                                                       resulting protction of local resources.


           Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                     REVISED DRAFT - January 26, 1990
           City of Suffoilk, Virginia              15               Redman /Johnston Associates, Ltd.








           Land Use Classification                   As discussed before, this alternative
                      Natralreouresmaybeproeced otrequires a high commitment  to
                      Natual esorcesmaybe rotetednot  planning and constructing the needed
           only by the intensity of development, as pbi evcs n loigtehge
           regulated in densities, but also in the   pbi  evcs  n  loigtehge
                      types o  develoment.  Lnd Use   densities which help to make them pay.
                                                     The locations and extent, both present
           Categories, such as Conservation, may     and future, of development service
I        ~ ~~be delineated to guide zoning and other  districts are difficult to designate
                      land use regulations.equitably.  Once this designation is
           The effectiveness of this approach in     made, however, they are easy to enforce
           protection of sensitive natural areas or  through zoning procedures.  Urban
           resources depends on the specific         Service Districts have been designated
I        ~ ~~requirements or allowable activities,    Ciys ComrehensDevePlopmnt.rab h
           such as recreational use, in the          Ct'  opeesv  ln
           protection zone. This requires careful    Rsuc   vra  oe
1         ~ ~attention  to  detail  in  drafting
           ordinances. Effectiveness also depends    These zones are superimposed on
           on adherence to these land use            existing zones,  and  follow  the
I           d~~~cassifications in zoning decisions and  boundaries of natural resources which
            appeals.                                  require protection. They therefore add
                                                     an extra layer of regulations within the
            Urban Growth BoundarieIs and Urban        overlay  zone,  which   can  be
            Service Districts                         cumbersome in enforcement review
            Intensive uses and future growth          and  administration.    Proposed
            require public facilities - water and     development in the overlay zone
            sewer.  'These can be planned within      should conform to use and density
            specified service districts and phased to  restrictions applying in the base zone
            promote orderly development in a          and to the added restrictions or
            compact  pattern  which  can  be          performance standards such as extra
            efficiently served with  these facilities.  setbacks, clustering or buffers.
            This  technique  protects natural         The effectiveness of these overlay zones
            resources indirectly through attracting   in protecting natural resources will
            growth away from delineated sensitive     depend  on  the  restrictions  or
            areas located outside the service         performance standards, and on the
            districts. To be effective, it should be  correct delineation of boundaries.
            combined  with other protection           Because development will probably not
            measures, such as reducing allowable      be absolutely restricted from these
            densities outside the service areas, in   zones, but regulated in its ~location,
            order to deter development' which         form or quality, this alternative is

            would affect sensitive areas.             usually   highly   acceptable   to


          Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                    REVISED DRAFT` - January 26, 1990
          City of Suffolk, Virginia   ~16                         Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








landowners. These regulations would       adhered to. However, because of the
be implemented by an addition to the     intrusion of people into the open space,
 current codes, instead of a revision or  even if it is designated for passive forms
 restructuring, and are therefore easier  of recreation, this will not effectively
 to adopt.  Maryland's Critical Area      protect  habitats   sensitive  to
 Programs have been implemented,          disturbance, such as critical species
 using this approach, through an          habitats. This is also a localized form of
 overlay zoning amendment to local        protection, limited to the extent of the
jurisdictions' zoning and subdivision     parcel boundaries, and will not
 ordinances.                              effectively protect environmental
                                           resources which are affected by
 Clustering                               regional development.

 development    shifting  overall         Density  Bonuses and Development In-
 development,   shifting   overall        centives
 permitted density on a parcel to a small
 portion of the parcel, leaving the       These  provisions are voluntary
remainder in open space.  The open        incentives to developers to incorporate
 space would contain the natural          natural resource protection features
 resource targeted for protection, such as  into project location, as in clustering,
 wetlands, large forested areas, or        and design. A developer who meets
 stream valleys with steep slopes.        these criteria would be allowed
 Clustering provisions may either be       densities above those permitted for the
 voluntary or mandatory. A voluntary      site. The design criteria may include:
 clustering provision can use a density   setbacks from sensitive features,
 bonus (see below) to encourage its use    preservation of forest tracts, and
 and create site designs which will       management of natural vegetation in
 protect natural resources in the         buffer zones. These criteria may also
 designated open space area.              include those which enhance use by the
                                           community   at-large,  such   as
 The effectiveness of clustering as a     community piers and dock facilities or
 protection technique depends on its use   parks.
 - if it is voluntary, what promotes its use
 - and on its design - what are the overall  The stringency and specification of
 densities permitted that allocate        design criteria which must be met to
 sufficient area to open space and still    allow higher densities will determine
 make a development project viable?       the viability of this alternative.
 This can very effectively protect        Percentage remaining in open space is
 shorelines and water resources, steep     easy to calculate and apply to increased
 slopes and other linear features because  densities.  The more complex the
 of the setbacks which can be achieved,   criteria are, the more difficult this
 as long as performance standards for     alternative will be to administer and
 open space activities are strictly       enforce. If the market for the higher


Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                   REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia             17               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.

 0~~~~~~~~~~ I :;  ;0;::   0   ;0   ::0    :0:0:i0   0t;tX\: 0    : Xo, 0 l   i 








          earned densities is not present, there   Such standards require qualified
          will be no incentive for applying these  review of engineering applications for
           criteria.  Furthermore, the cost of      compliance  with the standards.
          providing specialized design or          Enforcement will require financial
           construction techniques mustbe metby     resources since noncompliance is
           the increased value of added density.    difficult to detect and quantify.
           There is also a trade-off between the
           localized  protection  of natural        Buffers
           resources and the higher impacts -   Natural vegetation can be-maintained
           associated with higher densities of
                                                    and managed in buffer zones to achieve
           -: development.                 V        the objective of protecting natural
         Performance Approaches                     resources by controlling nonpoint
                                                    water pollution, enhancing scenic
         These alternatives are standards against   vistas, or screening habitats from
         which impacts can be measured.             development.  These buffers are
                                                    usually located between the developed
           IStormwaer Drainage Standards        0 area and the sensitive feature, and may
           Runoff from developed areas during       entirely screen one from the other,
           storms can degrade water quality         provide limited views, but not physical
           because of the decreased potential for   access, or allow limited physical
           infiltration and purification by natural  entrance.  Their effectiveness will be
           processes. The longer stormwater can     determined by their placement,
           be retained, more of it can infiltrate into  components and especially width.
           ground  water  systems.   When           Specified widths may be fixed or
           performance standards for stormwater     variable;  fixed widths are easiest to
           are applied, they can specify that the   implement and enforce, but variable
           size of retention structures should be   widths, defined by the presence of
           based on the statistical frequency of a  critical  features, may  be  more
           certain storm size. Alternatively, these  functionally effective.  The minimum
           standards may specify an absolute        width necessary to protect certain
           quantity of water which must be          features such as water resources has
           retained during a specified period at the  been extensively researched, but few
           beginning of the storm, since it is the  generalizations have been successfully
           first flush which removes the most       tested. Examples of widths which have
           pollutants and contains the highest      been implemented in various states
           water quantities. These standards are    range from 25 feet to 1000 feet.
           being increasingly modified by local     Virginia's    Chesapeake         Bay
           jurisdictions to attain water quality    Preservation Act Criteria ask for a 100
       I  improvement objectives as well as         foot buffer adjacent to tidal wetlands
           reduction of water quantity.             and tributary streams as part of
                                                    Resource Protection Areas.



          Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                   REVISED DRAFT - January 26,1990
          City of Suffolk, Virginia             18              Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.
:I  









            Buffers are similar to setbacks, which is  Clearing Controls
            a concept well accepted in zoning
            regulations.  Buffers differ from        Preserving forested areas, especially
                  setbacks in that their effectiveness  old-growth forests, is essential to
            setbacks in that their effectiveness.
                                                J     preserving wildlife habitat and
            depends on how well they are managed     preserving wildlife habitat and
                                                      promoting water quality in watersheds
            in natural vegetation which has the
                                 ntual   v       Vatisn w hate  where nonpoint source pollution is a
            greatest potential forsatisfying waterproblem.  Forests also contribute to
            quality  and  habitat  protection        rural character. Performance controls
            objectives.  Residents may object to
                                                      can limit the amount of land that is
            buffers because they feel that this
                                                      cleared for development, and can
            natural vegetation is unsightly, or that
                     it screens scenic views.  Landowners  require replanting to replace cut over
            it screens scenic views. Landowners
                                                      areas or to increase the absolute amount
            may objectbecause the size and location      re
                                      of;  .aurl r   mof forest cover. This standard is easy to
                                      f natural buffers may  restrict  impose, review and monitor. Bonding
            development potential.
                                 deveopmntptnia       may  guarantee  compliance  by
            Erosion and Sediment Controls             developers.  Removal of trees which
                                                      have been planted and allowed to
            Erosion and sediment control programs    mature for at least 15 years is expensive
            require that before development          enough to deter disturbance unless
            disturbs a site, a plan be prepared      there is immediate financial profit from
            which controls the loss of soil from     their harvest.
            runoff and the sedimentation of nearby
            surface waters. When these plans are     Impact Assessments and Mitigation
            implemented as approved, and the
            erosion control measures maintained,
                                                      applicants may be required to submit
            this performance technique can be very    sa   s         
                       effective. However, ensuring statements which quantify impacts
            compliance requires close monitoring
                                                      water quality or forested land. Truly
            during the construction period and                         f        . 
                              during th consruction perobjective quantified analysis can be a
            after when soil stabilizing vegetation, if
                 planted, is being .established.  One  financial burden which will ultimately
                                                      be transferred to the buyer of
            common problem in rural areas is the
                             r      of s             edientencedeveloped property. Unfortunately the
            breaching of sediment fences by
                                 Vbrea chingofsedi t  means for objectively evaluating
            off-road vehicles.
                                 off-road v          ehicles. impacts of development on complex
            The City of Suffolk has adopted an       ecological systems have not been
            Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance      sufficiently refined to be useful in all
            which  requires an erosion and           development projects.  Appointed or
            sedimentation control plan for any       elected officials must then sort through
            development disturbance of greater       all the data testimony and accept,
            than 10,000 square feet of land area.    modify or reject statements of impact.


           Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                   REVISED DRAFT - January 26,1990
           City of Suffolk, Virginia             19               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.
:U








These impact assessments can be linked   provide property owners with existing
to  prescriptions  for  mitigative       buffers.  This guideline approach
measures, which then become the          requires an atmosphere of negotiation
performance standards for the project.   between   City   reviewers   and
An example of this is the estimation of  developers, since it suggests that
the number of acres of emergent          quality development can be obtained
nontidal wetland which will be           by negotiation. The guidelines can also
disturbed by road construction, and as   become  the  basis  for  revising
a mitigative prescription, the creation of  subdivision regulations to -incorporate
an equal area of emergent wetland        them as site design standards which
which performs the same habitat and      may not only satisfy natural resource
water quality protection functions.      protection  objectives,  but  also
Such standards require capable           agricultural and rural character
technical review of the impact analysis  preservation and protect aesthetic
 and proposed mitigation measures.        standards.
 Bonding will help to guarantee 
 compliance.                             Land Acquisition
                                          Conservation Easements and Purchase
 The Virginia Code provides for           of Development Rights
 environmental protection advisory
 commissions to be established at the     An increasingly popular approach to
 local, level. These have the power to    natural resource preservation is the
 review any development proposal to       purchase of less than fee simple
 determine whether it will cause          interests in land or the acceptance of
 environmental degradation and to         donations of these interests.  These
 advise the local board or planning       programs often involve a state or local
 commission   on   environmental          plan, often administered by private
 problems.                                non-profit agencies such as The Nature
                                          Conservancy, to acquire or accept these
 Design Guidelines                        development rights to certain classes of
 I  While not, strictly a performance     land, allowing the owner to retain basic
                   standard, this alternative provides  ownership but relinquishing the right
                                          to develop or intensify its use.
 measures against which a developer's     to develop or intensify its use.
 site design may be compared and states   Conservation easements can very
 the jurisdiction's expectations for the  effectively protect natural resources for
 quality or appearance of developyment by future generations, since
 An example of this applied to natural    the easement is attached to the land.
 0 X   0 0 resource protection; would be the t 0 Since it is voluntary, it is however not a
 maintenance of hedgerows in drawing      systematic protection of resources
 lot lines, which would retain existing   throughout a jurisdiction.  When
 wildlife  corridors 4 or  cover  in      easements are purchased, the financial
 abandoned agricultural fields, and       expense is high, particularly since


Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                   REVISED DRAFT - January 26, 1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia             20              Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








         speculative pressures are often intense:   elsewhere. The receiving area for the
         where protection is most needed.         transferred development rights would
                                                   allow higher densities with proof of
         Fee Simple Acquisition                   purchase   of  the  rights   and

         Land on which sensitive natural          documentation that the seller had
         resources are located may be purchased   placed a conservation easement on the
         by government or by a specialized        land from which the rights were sold.
         organization which owns and manages      TDR mainly operates to offset the
         this type of resource. Although this can  devaluation of land as -a result of
         be very effective in protecting natural  downzoning  whether it is used for
         resources on specific sites, and can     agricultural  protection,  natural
         satisfy recreation and open space        resource protection or other growth
         objectives as well, it is a very high cost  management objectives.
         alternative.  Additionally, this land
                                                   Implementation of a TDR program
         must be managed to perform functional
                      tti            A  .         requires substantial public education
             ..resource pro.t.eton    objectivs iit is to since the concept is relatively untested,
         small to maintain high quality habitats
                                                   and applies with varying amounts of
         by natural processes. Unless fee simple  success in different communities.
         acquisition by government agencies is
 I       acquisition by government agencies is    Detailed studies of sending and
         coupled with conservation easements      receiving areas a nd political and
                                                   receiving areas and political and
         and a management program, the land
                                                   financial support for the increased
         may represent a public burden and mayublic services they
                                                   densities and public services they
         be sold at any time to recoup losses.
                                                   require are also necessary.
        Conservation Incentives
                                                   Several of these techniques are
         Transfer of Development Rights           recommended to achieve water quality
                                                   protection objectives for the City of
         This incentive, which usually operates   Suffol  Theyare
                                                   Suffolk. They are:
         on the open market, and has not yet
         been codified in Virginia's planning         Resource Overlay Zones
         enabling legislation, can also be applied
         to natural resource protection.  This       Performance Standards, including
         alternative can either require or permit    those for Stormwater Management,
         transfer of allowable densities from one     Buffers, and Forest Clearing
         location  where  development  is
0I :Irundesirable to receiving locations              Impact Assessments and Mitigation
         where development is desirable.
                                                  Adoption of an interim standalone
         Features such as stream valleys and                
                                                  zoning ordinance is recommended to
         special habitats would be TDR sending    zoningordinance is recommended to
                                                  implement these changes.
         areas.  Landowners of these areas    implement th
         would be allowed to sell development
         rights to someone wishing to develop


        Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                   REVISED DRAFT - January 26, 1990
        City of Suffolk, Virginia             21              Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








PROPOSED  CITY  OF  SUFFOLK                 Section 1003. Relationship to Other
CHESAPEAKE   BAY   PRESERVA-                             CityOrdinances
TION AREA ORDINANCE                         The requirements of this Ordinance
                                           supplement   the   City's   land
Article I. Title, Purpose, Authority,       development codes, including existing
          Applicability and Jurisdic-      zoning and subdivision ordinances and
                                           regulations.  It imposes specific
 Section 1000. Title                       regulations for development and other
 This Ordinance shall be known as and      land use within the City of Suffolk
 1maybe referred to as the "City of        Preservation Area.  In the event of
 Suffolk Chesapeake Bay Preservation 0   inconsistency between the provisions of
 Area Ordinance."                          this Ordinance and the provisions
                                           established  in other  applicable
 Section 1001. Purpose                     ordinances, the more restrictive or
                                           stringent provisions shall apply.
 The purpose of the Preservation Area
 Ordinance  is  to  establish  the         Section 1004. Applicability
 Preservation Area District and to
  pr'ovide special regulatory protection   A. No person shall develop, alter, or
 for the land and water resources located     use any land for residential, com-
 within   the   Chesapeake   Bay              mercial, industrial, or institutional
                                              uses, nor conduct agricultural,
 Preservation Area in the City of Suffolk.    uses, nor conduct agricultural,
 Land. use development standards and             fishery or forestry activities in the
 requirements are established herein folk Preservation Area
 the purpose of implementing the goals,       except in compliance with the City
                                              of Suffolk Preservation Area Pro-
 objectives, criteria and standards set        of Suffolk Preservation Area Pro
 forth in the City of Suffolk Preservation     gram and the applicable provisions
 Area Program.
 Section 1002. Authority                   B. No development or resource utiliza-
                                              tion activity shall be permitted until
 This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to         the applicable approving authority
 VR  173-02-01,  Chesapeake  Bay              shall make  findings that the
 Preservation Area Designation and            proposed development or activity is
 Management Regulations, under the             consistent with the goals and objec-
 authority of Sections 10.1-2103 and          tives of the City of Suffolk Preserva-
 10.1-2107 of Chapter 21, Title 10.1 of the   tion Area Program.
 Code of Virginia, known as the
 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, and      Section 1005. Jurisdiction  -  The
 implements  the City of Suffolk                         Chesapeake Bay Preser-
                                                         vation Area
 Preservation Area Program.
                                           A. This Ordinance shall only apply to
                                              the City of Suffolk Preservation


Proposed Interim Standalone Zoning Ordinance           REVISED DRAFT - January 26, 1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia              22               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








            Area, hereafter referred to as the       1. Intensely Developed  Area
            Preservation Area District.                 (IDA);

         B. The Preservation Area District shall     2. Resource Management Area
            include all lands and waters within          (RMA); or
            the James River watershed, as
            delineated on official maps as stated    3. Resource Protection Area (RPA).
            below in Section 2000.
                                                  B. Maps delineating the Preservation
       Article II. Establishment of Official         Area Boundary and the Land Use
                 Preservation Area District          Management Classifications of all
                 I  Maps and Land Manage-            properties in the City of Suffolk
                 ment Classifications
                                                     Preservation Area shall be main-
         Section 2000. Official Preservation         tained in the Department of Plan-
          I:  ;         Area District Maps           ning and Zoning.
         The City of Suffolk Preservation Area
         shall be  delineated  on  Official       C. (Optional) Except as provided in
                                                      Section ** the land use management
         Preservation Area District Maps,
                                                      classification shall be based on the
         prepared as part of the City of Suffolkland-use as of October 1
         Preservation Area Program.  The
                                                      and mapped according to rules for
         Preservation Area District Maps shall 
                                                      making such determination as es-
         be maintained in force as Official Maps
                     the Ci    The Preservation Area  tablished in the City of Suffolk
         of the City. The Preservation Area
                                                      Preservation Area Program.
         District maps shall delineate the extent
         of the Preservation Area District in the    Article III. Definitions
         City of Suffolk which is as defined in the
         City of Suffolk Preservation Area        Section 3000. Purpose
         3  Program.                              It is the purpose of this Article to define
                                                  words, terms and phrases contained in
         Section2001. Establishment of the
                      Preservation Area Land      this Ordinance and other applicable
                      Use Management Dis-         terms.   For the purpose of this
                      trict Classifications       Ordinance, the following definitions
         A. All land within the City of Suffolk   describe the meaning of the terms used
            Preservation Area District shall be   in the Ordinance.   Definitions
            assigned one of the following land    applicable to terms used in the
I  0;t   t;0 0use management classifications as    Preservation Area District not already
            determined in the City of Suffolk     contained herein shall be the same as
            Preservation Area Program which       those contained in the Chesapeake Bay
            shall be shown on the Preservation    Preservation Area Designation and
            Area District Maps.                   Management Regulations, Section 1.4.




        Proposed Interim Standalong Zoning Ordinance          REVISED DRAFT -January 26, 1990
        City of Suffolk, Virginia             23               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








  Section 3001. Word Usage                   K. The words "Recorder" and "Re-
                                               corder of Deeds" shall mean the City
  In the interpretation of this Ordinance,      Cler of Deeds" shall mean the City
  the provisions and rules of this section
  shall be observed and applied, except      L. In case of any difference of meaning
  when the context clearly requires             or implication between the text of
  otherwise:                                    this Ordinance and any caption, il-
                                                 lustration, or table, the text shall
  A. Words used or defined in one tense         control.
      or form shall include other tenses
      and derivative forms.                  M. All provisions of this Ordinance
            U| andderiuativeiomu.                shall be construed to be in addition
  B. Words in the singular number shall
        B.nWordsdin the singural number  , sha n    to all other applicable laws, or-
      include the plural number, and             dinances and rules of the federal
      words in the plural number shall
                                                 government, the Commonwealth of
      include the singular number.
                                                 Virginia or City of Suffolk; and in
I  C. The masculine gender shall include         case of any conflict between this Or-
      the feminine, and the feminine             dinance and any such other law, or-
      gender shall include the masculine.        dinance or rule, the more restrictive
                                                 shall prevail. Reference in this Or-
  D. The word "shall" is mandatory.             dinance to any law, statute, or-
                                                 dinance, rule or regulation in force
  E. The word "may" is permissive.              on the date of enactment of this Or-
                                                 dinance or as amended and in force
  F. The word "person" includes in-             at the time to which such reference
      dividuals, firms, corporations, as-        relates.
      sociations, trusts, and any other
      similar entities.                      N. The words "include" and "includ-
                                                 ing" mean include or including by
  G. The word "City" shall mean City of         way of illustration and not by way
   Suffolk, Virginia.                            of limitation.

  H. The word "Board" shall mean the         Section 3002. Definitions
      Board of Zoning Appeals of City of     When used in this Ordinance, the
                                              Suffolk.  following terms shall have the meaning
  I. The word "Department" shall mean        herein ascribed to them:
      the City of Suffolk Department of
                                              A. Best management practice. A prac-
      Community Development.
       sCommunity Development.                   tice, or combination of practices,
  J. The words "MPanning Commission"            that is determined by a state or
      shall mean the City of Suffolk Plan-       designated area wide planning
        I 0 ~  ning Commission.:~ j              agency to be the most effective,
                                                 practicable means of preventing or


 Proposed Interim Standalone Zoning Ordinance            REVISED DRAFT - January 26,1990
 City of Suffolk, Virginia               24               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.






I:

                  reducing the amount of pollution         placement of fill or dumping;
                  generated by nonpoint sources to a       storage of materials; land excava-
                  level compatible with water quality      tion; land clearing; land improve-
                  goals.                                   ment; or any combination thereof,
                                                           including the subdivision of land or
               B. Buffer Area. An area of natural or       action that results in construction,
                  established vegetation managed to        modification, extension or expan-
                  protect other components of a            sion of buildings or structures;
                  Resource Protection Area and state       placement of fill or-dumping;
                  waters from significant degradation      storage of materials; land excava-
                  due to land disturbances.                tion; land clearing; land improve-
                                                            ment; or any combination thereof,
               C. Buffer Management Plan. A
                  prescribed course of action to be fol-ding the subdivision of land.
                  lowed by the developer of any site    F. Development Review.  A process
                  within the Resource Protection Area      for site plan review as described in
                  when disturbance to the 100 foot         Section 6004 of this Ordinance
                  buffer area is proposed. Such a plan     designed to ensure compliance with
                  must be written in accordance with       subsection  10.1-2109  of  the
                  the standards outlined in the buffer     Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
                   requirements subsection of this or-      and the Chesapeake Bay Preserva-
                   dinance.  It should include a            tionAreaDesignationandManage-
                   description of what is being             ment Regulations prior to the
                   proposed as well as an explanation       approval of any plan for develop-
                   of why such action is necessary.         ment or redevelopment.

               D. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area.     G. Floodplain.  All lands that would
                   Any land designated by the City          be inundated by flood water as a
                   pursuant  to Part III of the             result of a storm event of a I00-year
                   Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area         return interval.
                   Designation and Management
                   Regulations  10.1-2107  of the        H. Grandfathered. The term describes
                   Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.         the status accorded certain proper-
                   A Chesapeake Bay Preservation            ties and development activities that
                   Area shall consist of a Resource         are of record prior to the date of
                   Protection Area and a Resource           adoption of this Ordinance or
                   Management Area.                         provisions of this Ordinance.
               E. Development or Development Ac-        I. Highly erodible soils. Soils (exclud-
                   tivities  (includes  the  term           ing vegetation) with an erodibility
                   "develop").  Any construction,           index (EI) from sheet and rill erosion
                   modification, extension or expan-        equal to or greater than eight. The
                   sion of buildings or structures;         erodibility index for any soil is


              Proposed Interim Standalong Zoning Ordinance          REVISED DRAFT - January 26, 1990
              City of Suffolk, Virginia             25               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








    defined as the product of the for-        soil. Impervious surfaces include,
    mula RKLS/T, as defined by the            but are not limited to; roofs, build-
    "Food Security Act (F.S.A.) Manual"       ings, streets, parking areas, and any
    of August, 1988 in the "Field Office      concrete, asphalt, or compacted
    Technical Guide" of the U.S. Depart-      gravel surface.
    ment of Agriculture Soil Conserva-
    tion Service, where K is the soil      M. Nontidal wetlands. Those wetlands
    susceptibi/lity to water erosion in the   other than tidal wetlands that are
    surface layer; R is the rainfall and      inundated or saturated by surface or
    runoff; LS is the combined effects of     ground water at a frequency and
    slope length and steepness; and T is      duration sufficient to support, and
    the soil loss tolerance.                  that under normal circumstances do
                                              support, a prevalence of vegetation
J. Highly permeable soils. Soils with         typically adapted for life in
    a given potential to transmit water       saturated soil conditions, as defined
    through the soil profile. Highly per-     by the U. S. Environmental Protec-
    meable soils are identified as any        tion Agency pursuant to section 404
    soil having permeability equal to or      of the federal Clean Water Act, in 33
    greater than six inches of water          C.F.R. 328.3b, dated November 13,
    movement per hour in any part of          1986.
    the soil profile to a depth of 72 in-
    ches (permeability groups "rapid"t    N. Redevelopment.  The process of
    and "very rapid") as found in the         developing land that is or has been
    "National Soils Handbook" of July,        previously developed.
    1983 in the "Field Office TechnicalResource  Management  Area
    Guide" of the U.S. Department of
                                              (RMA). That component of the
    Agriculture Soil Conservation Ser-
    3vice.             :Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
    vice.
                                              that is not classified as the Resource
 K. Intensely Developed Areas (IDA).           Protection Area.
    Those areas designated by the City
     Those areas desiated by the City o    P. Resource Protection Area (RPA).
    of Suffolk  as an overlay of
    f Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas o     That component of the Chesapeake
    Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas
    within the City's jurisdiction. IDA's     Bay Preservation Area comprising
                                              lands at or near the shoreline that
    shall serve as redevelopment areas
    sh in which     redevelopment  is  con-  have an intrinsic water quality value
    centrated as of the local program         due to the ecological and biological
    adoption date.                            processes they perform or are sensi-
    adoption date. ttive to impacts which may result in
 L. Impervious cover. A surface com-           significant degradation to the
    posed of any material that sig-           quality of state waters.  In their
    nificantly impedes or prevents            natural condition, these lands pro-
    natural infiltration of water into the    vide for the removal, reduction, or


Proposed Interim Standalone Zoning Ordinance           REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia              26               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.




I

                     I                                                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A
                   asimilation of sediments, nutrients,     7-1/2 minute topographic quad-
                   and potentially harmful or toxic         rangle map (scale 1:24,000).
                   substances in runoff entering the
                   Bay and its tributaries, and mini-    U. Use. An activity on the land other
                   mize the adverse effects of human        than development, including, but
                   activites on state waters and aquatic    not limited to agriculture, horticul-
                   resources. The Resource Protection       ture, and silviculture.
                   Area includes tidal wetlands, non-
                                                          V. Water-dependent facility. A
                   tidal wetlands connected by surface   V. Water-dependent facility. .A
                                                              development of land that cannot
                   flows and contiguous to tidal wet-delomnofadthtcnt
                               andcontiguous to tida wet-    exist outside of the Resource Protec-
                   lands or tributary streams, tidalrea and must be located on the
                              shore, suc  othe land unde  thetion Area and must be located on the
                   shores, such other lands under the
                                                              shoreline by reason of the intrinsic
                   provisions of subsection 3.2 A of the
                                                              nature of its operation. These
                   Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
                                                              facilities include, but are not limited
                   Designation and Management
                              Designatio  and Management     to (i) ports; (ii) the intake and outfall
                   Regulations (VR 173-02-01) neces-
                                                              structures of power plants, water
                   sary to protect the quality of state
                              than 100 feet in. Widthtreatmenta-  plants, seage stoream ents;(
                   waters, and a buffer area not less       treatment plants, sewage treatment
                                                              plants, and storm sewers; (iii)
                   than 100 feet in width located ad-
                                                              marinas and other boat docking
                   jacent to and landward of any of
                                                              structures; (iv) beaches and other
                   these components and along both
                 sides of any tributary stream               public water-oriented recreation
                   sides of any tributary stream.
                                                              areas, and (v) fisheries or other
                Q. Substantial alteration.  Expansion        marine resources facilities.
                   or modification of a building or
                                                         Article IV.Lots of Record in the Preser-
                   development which would resultin               vation  Area  District
                                                                    vation Area District -
                   a disturbance of land exceeding an              Grandfather Provisions
                   area of 2500 square feet in the
                                                           Section 4000. Qualifying Lots or Par-
                    Resource Management Area only      -               cels
                R. Tidal shore or shore.  Land con-       A. An individual lot or parcel of land
                   tiguous to a tidal body of water be-     located within the City of Suffolk
                   tween the mean low water level and       Preservation Area District may be
                   the mean high water level.               improved with a single family
                *I:~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~dwelling, if a dwelling unit does not
                S. Tidal wetlands. Vegetated and non-
                                                              already exist on the site, in the
                   vegetated wetlands as defined in         Resource Protection Area (RPA)
                                                              Resource Protection Area (RPA)
                   62.1-13.1 of the Code of Virginia.
                                               Virginia.     and otherwise developed in accord-
                                                              ance with the uses and standards
                T. Tributary stream  Any perennial           ance with the uses and standards
                                                              applicable in the Resource, Manage-
                   stream that is so depicted on the        applicable in the ResureManage-
                                                              ment. (RMA) or the Intensely
                   most recent U.S. Geological Survey       ment (RMA)or the Intensely
                                                              Developed Area (IDA) provided

I
               Proposed Interim Standalong Zoning Ordinance          REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
               City of Suffolk, Virginia             27               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








    they meet one of the following                conditional modifications to the
    criteria:                                     Buffer, as specified in Section
                                                  5003 C.2, is October 1,1989.
    1. Any legally buildable residential
       single lot or parcel of record es-  B. The provisions of this ordinance do
       tablished and recorded in City         not apply to building permits ap-
       Land Records prior to Septem-          proved by the Department of Plan-
       ber 20,1989 may be improved or         ning that have not expired.
       developed with a single family
       residence if a dwelling unit does    Article V. Development Standards in
                                                     the Preservation Area Dis-
       not already exist on the lot or              trict
       parcel. Any other new develop-
       ment on lots recorded prior to    The following standards shall apply to all
       September 20, 1989 will be for    development   activities   in   the
       water dependent facilities in the    Preservation Area District.
       RPA.
                                            Section 5000. General Provisions
    2. Any lot on which development        A. In those zones and under all condi-
       activity has legally progressed to     tions as may be specified elsewhere
       the point of pouring foundation        inthisOrdinance,timberharvesting
       footing or installation of struc-      activities or other cutting or clearing
       tural members, prior to the effec-     of forested land are permitted in the
       tive date of this ordinance will be    Preservation Area provided such
       permitted to complete construc-        activities are conducted in accord-
       tion as per existing development
                                               ance with all applicable provisions
                                               and standards set forth in the City of
       A;  mit).      |                   X 0  Suffolk Preservation Area Program.
    3.: Development may take place on      B. In those zones and under all condi-
       lots created prior to adoption of      tions as may be specified elsewhere
       this ordinance subject to the          in this Ordinance, agriculture ac-
       V X 0   limitations on permitted uses  tivities are permitted in the Preser-
       0; 0    contained in this ordinanceï¿½. 4 vation Area provided all agriculture
       I  Development on land legally         activities and land management
       subdivided prior to adoption of        practices are conducted in accord-
       ;; 0this ordinance must comply S       ance with all applicable provisions
       S with the provisions of Section       and standards set forth in the City of
       6000.                                  Suffolk Preservation Area Program.
    I  :  4. The effective date for lots of i C. All development, alteration, or use
       ; 00 0 00   i      record to establish sewage  of any land for residential, commer-
       I  reserve capacity as specified in    cial, industrial, or institutional pur-
       ;  \   ;  Section 5001 C.4 and for certain  poses, or agricultural, fishery or


Proposed Interim Standalone Zoning Ordinance           REVISED DRAFT - January 26, 1990
City of Suffolk Virginia                28              Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








   forestry activities in the Preserva-     2. All land disturbance activities
   tion Areashall onlybe done in com-          exceeding an area of 2,500
   pliance with the City of Suffolk             square feet, including construc-
   Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area            tion of single family houses, in-
   Program.                                    stallation of septic drainfields
                                                but otherwise as defined in Sec-
Section 5001. Development Standards
              in:Section5001. Denl  Stanealds Deve e  tion 10.1-560 of the Code of Vir-
              in Intensely Developed
             Areas                             ginia, shall comply with the City
                                                of Suffolk Erosion and Sediment
A. Permitted uses                               Control rdinance.

    Uses permitted within areas desig-       3. On-site sewage treatment sys-
    nated Intensely Developed shall be           tems in development  and
    those permitted within the ap               redevelopment whichdonotre-
    plicable underlyingbase zoning dis-          quire a Virginia Pollutant Dis-
    trict. All uses shall be subject to the      charge Elimination System
    following development standards              (VPDES) permit shall:
    and/or conditions in addition to
    those established in other sections of       a.  Ensure   through  such
    this ordinance.                                 instruments as decided by
                                                    the Planning Commission
 B. Density           ;                             that pump out shall be
    The density of development and                  performed at least once
    minimum lot sizes permitted within              every five years.
    Intensely Developed Areas shall be          b.  For development proposals,
    governed by provisions within the               a reserve sewage disposal
    underlying base zoning district.                area with a capacity not less

 C. Site Development Performance                     than that of the primary
    0   Standards                      0-           sewage disposal area shall
            XI~ ~~~~~~~ f                             ~~be provided.
    Development and redevelopment
    in those areas designated Intensely         Any lot or parcel recorded prior
    Developed shall be subject to the           to October 1, 1989 is not subject
    following standards.                        to this requirement.

    1. All development exceeding a           4. No structure or uses associated
       disturbed land area of 2,500             with development within Inten-
       square  feet  shall  be  ac-             sely Developed Areas shall be
      complished through a develop-             permitted within 100 feet of
       ment review as stated in Section         the shorefront or tributary
       6004.                                    stream, or within 50 feet where
                                                 appropriate best management


Proposed Interim Standalong Zoning Ordinance          REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia             29               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








      practices are used landward of                 planting plan, indicating
      the Buffer, and no removal of                  placement of planted
      natural vegetation shall be per-               areas and species shall be
      mitted in the Buffer, except for               submitted for approval
      permitted water-dependent                      as part of the develop-
      facilities or except as provided               ment review, Section
      for in Section 5003 C.2.                       6004.

   5. Development and redevelop-              b. New development shall
      ment shall be required to iden-             demonstrate that practices
       tify stormwater management                  for           stormwater
       practices appropriate to site               management will produce
       development which achieve the               pollutant loadings equal to
      following standards.                        or        less       than
                                                  pre-development pollutant
       a.  Redevelopment proposals                 loadings.
          shall demonstrate that the
          best management practices            c. Redevelopment           or
          for stormwater assure a 10               development projects which
          percent   reduction   of                cannot demonstrate they
          pre-development pollutant                meet the requirements of a.
          loadings.                               or  b.  above  may  be
                                                  approved only if it can be
          1. Where appropriate best               demonstrated          that
             management practices                 mitigation measures or
             are already in place at              offsets will be provided to
             pre-development,  it                 achieve equivalent water
             shall be demonstrated                quality benefits elsewhere in
             that post-development                 the same watershed.  A
             runoff does not exceed               mitigation plan shall be
             the existing load of non-            submitted  as  part  of
             point source pollution in            development review as
             surface water runoff.                specified in Section 6004.

          2. Where a redevelopment             d. Methods of determining
             site   is   currently                mitigation      measures
             developed in imper-                  necessary   to  achieve
              vious surfaces, a mini-              compliance outlined in a.
             mum of 20% of the site               and  b.  above  or  in
             restored to vegetated                determining alternative
             open space shall be con-             offsets required in c. above
              sidered to comply with               shall be consistent with
              the above standard.  A               methodologies such as that


Proposed Interim Standalone Zoning Ordinance         REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia             30             Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








                  outlined by the Chesapeake            recordation of development. A
                  Bay   Local  Assistance               shore erosion protection plan,
                  Department          when              containing complete specifica-
                  applicable.                           tion for proposed shore erosion
                                                        work, including information on
               e.  Where best management                 design storm, calculated wave
                   practices are used, their             runup, required stone weight,
                  maintenance in operating              and/or data as required by the
                   condition shall be ensured            Department of Community
                   through   the   use   of              Development, shall accompany
                   appropriate instruments               all development proposals
                  such as recorded restrictive          where applicable.
                   covenants and maintenance
                   agreements as approved by          8. A minimum twenty five (25) foot
                   the City.                             buffer shall be established
                                                         around non-tidal wetlands out-
            6. All development and redevelop-            side Resource Protection Areas.
               ment projects shall delineate             The Planning Commission may
               those site areas not covered by           require that this buffer be ex-
               impervious surfaces to be main-           panded to include contiguous
               tained or established in vegeta-          sensitive areas on the parcel if it
               tion. Where vegetation is not             is determined that development
               proposed the developer shall              or disturbance may impact the
               demonstrate why plantings for             wetlands. The expanded buffer
               such portions of the site are im-         must be shown on plans re-
               practicable.  Types of planting           quired for such development.
               and vegetation proposed shall
               be in accordance with guidelines       9. Proposed development shall be
               established by the City.                  done so as to protect the
                                                         hydrologic regime and water
            7. Where needed on the site for              quality of identified non-tidal
               development vegetative shore              wetlands, either on or off the site,
               erosion control measures (where           by providing that development
               feasible and where appropriate)           activities and other land distur-
               shall be installed. Where control         bances in the drainage area of the
               of shore erosion cannot be ac-            wetlands will minimize altera-
               complished  by  vegetative                tions to the surface or subsurface
               measures the use of structural            flow of water into and from the
               measures may be approved by               wetland and not cause impair-
               the City. Completion of shore             ment of water quality or the
               erosion control work must be              plant and wildlife and habitat
I  0 X    ;   0 0 guaranteed by a Public Works            value of the wetland.
               Agreement as a condition of


       Proposed Interim Standalong Zoning Ordinance           REVISED DRAFT - January 26,1990
       City of Suffolk, Virginia              31               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








 Section 5002. Development Standards            a. When forests or developed
              mentAreas
                                                   and proposed development
 A. Permitted Uses                                 requires the cutting or
                                                   clearing of trees, areas
    Uses permitted within areas desig-             proposed for clearing shall
    nated Resource Management shall                be  identified  on  the
    be those permitted within the ap-              proposed  development
    plicable underlyingbase zoning dis-            plan. These plans shall be
    trict except as provided below. All            submitted as part of the
    uses shall be subject to the develop-          development        review
    ment standards and/or conditions               process as outlined in
    of this section, unless otherwise              section 6004.  A grading
;I  noted.                                          permit shall be required
                                                    prior to any clearing or
 B. Density
                                                    cutting associated with
    Uses permitted shall be those per-             proposed development.
    mitted in the underlying base              b. Total site disturbance shall
    zoning District.  The density of
                                                    not exceed the percentage as
    development and minimum lot                    follows:
    sizes permitted within Resource
    Management  Areas  shall be                      Size          Maximum
    governed by prescriptive densities              Proer           iturbance
    and lot size within the applicable             <.25 acres         75%
    underlying base zoning districts.              .25 ac- .50 ac     50%
                                                    .51 ac -1 ac      40%
 C. Site Development Performance                   1.1 ac-2 ac        30%
    Standards                                      2.1 ac - 5 ac      20%
    Development and redevelopment                  > 5 acres          15%
    in those areas designated Resource             unless  the  developer
    Management shall be subject to the             demonstrates  that  the
    following standards.                           underlying base zoning
                                                    densities permitted cannot
     1. All sites for which development             densities permitted cannot
                                                    be achieved with these
        activities are proposed shall be
       I  subject to the requirements in In-
        tensely Developed Areas.                c.  Surety in the form of a
                                                    performance bond or other
    2. Forest and developed wood-
                                                    means acceptable to the
        lands shall be created orartment of Community
                                                    Department of Community
        protected in accordance withe               Development  shall  be
        following standards:


Proposed Interim Standalone Zoning Ordinance         REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia            32              Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








              provided in an amount          B. Density
              suitable to assure forest
              replacement as required.           The density of redevelopment and
                                                minimum lot sizes permitted within
           d. Forests  and  developed            Resource Protection Areas shall be
              woodlands required to be          governed by prescriptive densities
              retained or created through       and lot size within the applicable
              afforestation  shall  be          underlying base zoning districts.
              maintained       through          Only  site redevelopment  or
              restrictive   covenants,          development of new water depend-
              easements,  or  similar           ent facilities will be allowed.
              instruments in a form
              approved by the Planning       C. Site Development Performance
              Commission.                       Standards
                                                In addition to the general perfor-
        3. Development on slopes greater
                                                mance criteria outlined in Section
           than 15 percent shall be
           prohibited unlessrc   such develop-   5000, development and redevelop-
                        pro.bite unlsssment in those areas designated
           ment is demonstrated to be the
           enl ct        a isdemonstrated  tao be theResource Protection shall be subject
           only effective way to maintain or
                                                to the following standards:
           improve;slope stability.
        4. Impervious surfaces shall be. Allowable Development
           limited to 20 percent of the gross       Land development   in the
           site area.  If the developer             Resource Protection Area may
           demonstrates that the underly-           be allowed only if it (i) is water
           ing base zoning density per-             dependent or, (ii) constitutes
          3  mitted cannot be achieved with         redevelopment.   A  Water
           the 20 percent impervious sur-           Quality Impact Assessment will
           face limitataion, he shall meet          be required in accordance with
           the requirements of section 5001         the   provisions   of   the
           C.6.                                     Chesapeake Bay Preservation
                                                   Act and regulations. This as-
     Section 5003. Development Standards
                 in Resource Protection            sessment should, as a minimum,
                 Areas                              include the following informa-
     IA. Permitted Uses .tion:  a description of the
     A. Permitted Uses
                                                   proposed development, an in-
        All uses are prohibited in the RPA           ventory of any potential pol-
fI    ; 0with the exception of the following:        lutants to be stored, used, or
                                                   produced on the site, and the
        1. Water dependent facilities.              measures proposed to protect
                                                   against an accidental spill, leak,
        2. Redevelopment of a site.


    Proposed Interim Standalong Zoning Ordinance          REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
    City of Suffolk, Virginia             33               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








                  or discharge  of any  such                shall be retained if present and
                  material.                                 established where it does not
                                                            exist. The 100 foot buffer area
                   a.  A   new   or  expanded                shallbedeemedtoachievea75%
                      water-dependent facility              reduction of sediments and a
                      may be allowed provided               40% reduction of nutrients. Ex-
                      that:                                 cept as noted in this subsection,
                                                            a combination of buffer area not
                      i. It does not conflict withf
                                                            less than 50 feet in- width and
                          the comprehensive plan;
                                                            appropriate best management
I1~ ~     i ;          ii. It complies with the per-          practices located landward of
                          formance criteria set              the buffer area which collective-
                          ; i    forth " in this part;  0ly achieve water quality protec-
                                                            tion, pollutant removal, and
                      iii. Any non-water-depend-            water resource conservation at
                          ent component is located           least the equivalent of the 100
                          outside of Resource                foot  buffer  area  may  be
                          Protection Areas;                  employed in lieu of the 100 foot
                                                            buffer.  This equivalency shall
                      iv. Access will be provided           be determined by the Peanut Soil
                          with the minimum dis-              and Water Conservation Dis-
                          turbance  necessary.               trict. The following additional
                          Where possible, a single           performance criteria shall apply
                          point of access will be            in the buffer area:
      ;  0 ;t    0        provided.
                                                            a.  In order to maintain the
                   b.  Redevelopment    shall                    functional value of the
   3      :            conform  to applicable                    buffer area, indigenous
                       stormwater management                     vegetation may be removed
                       and  sediment  control                    only   to  provide   for
                        criteria in Section 5001 C.              reasonable sight lines, access
                                                                paths, general woodlot
                2. Buffer Area Requirements
                              1   2, buffer   Requirements ;management,  and  best
                   To minimize effects of human                  management practices  as
                   activities on the other com-                  follows:
                   ponents of the Resource Protec-
                                                                i. Trees may be pruned or
                   tion Area, state waters, and
                                                                    removed as necessary to
                   aquatic life, a 100 foot buffer area             provide for sit lines
                   of vegetation that is effective in
                                                                    and vistas, provided that
                   retarding runoff, preventing                     where removedthey
                   erosion, and filtering nonpoint
                                                                    shall be replaced with
                   source pollution from runoff


           Proposed Interim Standalone Zoning Ordinance           REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
           City of Suffolk. Virginia              34               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.









              other vegetation that is           b.  When the application of the
              equally  effective  in                 buffer area would result in
              retarding       runoff,                the loss of buildable area on
              preventing erosion, and                a lot or parcel recorded prior
              filtering nonpoint source              to the adoption of this
              pollution from runoff.                 ordinance, modifications to
                                                     the width of the buffer area
           ii. Any path shall be con-                 may   be   allowed   in
              structed and surfaced so               accordance   -with   the
              as to effectively control              following criteria:
       aI erosion.
                                                     ii. Modifications to the
           iii. Dead, diseased, or dying                 buffer area shall be the
              trees or shrubbery may                     minimum necessary to
              be removed at the discre-                  achieve a reasonable
              tion of the landowner,                     buildable area for a prin-
              U  and silvicultural thin-                 cipal  structure  and
              ning may be conducted                      necessary utilities;
              based upon the recom-
              mendation of a profes-                 ii. Where possible, an area
              sional   forester   or                     equal  to  the  area
              arborist.                                  encroaching the buffer
                                                        area shall be established
           iv. For shoreline erosion                     in indigenous trees or
              control projects, trees                    woody vegetation else-
              and woody vegetation                       where on the lot or parcel
              may be removed, neces-                     in a way to maximize
              sary control techniques                    water quality protection;
              employed,  and  ap-
              propriate vegetation es-               iii. In no case shall the
              tablished to protect or                    reduced portion of the
              stabilize the shoreline in                 buffer area be less than
              accordance with the best                   50 feet in width.
              available technical ad-
                                                 c.  Redevelopment  within
              vice and applicable per-
              ;  mit   conditions   or               Intensely Developed Areas
               0  0  requirements.     i              may be exempt from the
                                                     requirements   of   this
           v. Any such action must be                 subsection.  Requests for
              performed in accordance                 such an exemption shall be
              with an approved buffer                made  as  part  of  the
              management plan.                       development review as
                                                     described in Section 6004. If


Proposed Interim Standalong Zoning Ordinance            REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia               35               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








                   the           immediate                      water resource conserva-
                   establishment of the buffer                  tion   at  least  the
                   area  within  IDA's  is                      equivalentof the 100 foot
                   impractical, measures that                   buffer area in the opinion
                   establish the buffer in these                of the Peanut Soil and
                   areas over time in order to                 Water  Conservation
                   maximize water quality                       Board.
                   protection,    pollutant
                   removal, and water resource              ii. To a minimum width of
                   conservation   will   be                    25 feet when a soil and
              U    required.  Such measures                     water quality conserva-
                   shall be included in a buffer                tion plan, as approved
                   management plan.                             by the Peanut Soil and
                                                               Water Conservation Dis-
               d. On agricultural lands the                    trict, has been imple-
                   agricultural'buffer area shall               mented on the adjacent
                   be managed to prevent                        land, provided that the
                   concentrated  flows  of                     portion of the plan being
                   surface    water    from                     implemented for the
                   breaching the buffer area                    Chesapeake Bay Preser-
                   and noxious weeds (such as                   vation Area achieves
                   Johnson grass, kudzu, and                    water quality protection
                   multiflora  rose)  from                      at least the equivalent of
                   invading the buffer area.                    that provided by the 100
      ;       ;   The agricultural buffer area                  foot buffer area in the
                   may be reduced as follows:                   opinion of the Peanut
                                                               Soil and Water Conser-
                   i. To a minimum width of                     vation District Board.
                      50 feet when the adjacent                Such plan shall be based
                      land is enrolled in a                    upon the field Office
                      federal, state, or locally-              Technical Guide of the
                      funded agricultural best                 U.S.  Department  of
                      management practices                     Agriculture Soil Conser-
I                     program, and the pro-                     vation Service and ac-
                      gram is being imple-                     complish water quality
                      mented, provided that                    protection consistent
                      the combination of the                   withtheChespeakeBay
                      reduced buffer area and                  Preservation Act and
3       Q                0 0 X t 0 best management prac-        Chesapeake Bay Preser-
                      tices i achieve  water                   vation Area Designation
                      quality protection, pol-                 and       Management
                      lutant removal, and                      Regulations.


        Proposed Interim Standalone Zoning Ordinance          REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
        City of Suffolk, Virginia             36               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.






I~                                                                                :


                     iii. The buffer area is not re-  Section 6001. Public Utilities, Rail-
                         quired for agricultural:                   roads, and Facilities Ex-
                                                                     emptions
                         drainage ditches if the 
                         adjacent agricultural        1. Construction, installation, opera-
                         land has in place best          tion, and maintenance of electric,
                         management practices in         gas, and telephone transmission
                         accordance with a con-          lines, railroads, and public roads
                         servation plan approved         and their appurtenant structures in
                         by the Peanut Soil and          accordance with the Erosion and
                3ï¿½      Water Conservation Dis-          Sediment Control law (Section 10.1-
                         trict.                          560 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia)
                                                          or an erosion and sediment control
          Article VI. Administrative Procedures          plan approved by the Virginia Soil
           Section 6000. Nonconforming Use and           and Water Conservation Board will
                         Development Waivers             be deemed to constitute compliance
                                                          with these regulations.
           1. The City may permit the continued
              use, but not necessarily the expan-    2. Construction, installation, opera-
        I     sion, of any structure in existence on     tion, and maintenance of water,
               the date of the adoption of this or-       sewer and local gas lines will be ex-
               dinance.  The criteria of this part        empt from the criteria in this part
              may be waived or modified for              provided that:
              structures on legal nonconforming
               lots or parcels provided that:             a. To the degree possible, the loca-
                                                              tion of such utilities and facilities
               a. There will be no net increase in           should be outside Resource
        3    0 j nonpoint source pollutant load;            Protection Areas.
               b. Any development or land dis-            b. No more land will be disturbed
                  turbance exceeding an area of              than is necessary to provide for
                  2,500 square feet complies with            the desired utility installation.
                  all erosion and sediment control
                  requirements of this part.             c. All such construction, installa-
                                                              tion, and maintenance of such
           2. It is not the intent of these criteria to     utilities and facilities will be in
               prevent the reconstruction of pre-            compliance with all applicable
               existing   structures   within                state and federal permits and
               Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas             designed and conducted in a
              from occurring as a result of casual-         manner that protects water
               ty loss unless otherwise restricted           quality.
               X  by City ordinances.



          Proposed Interim Standalong Zoning Ordinance            REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
          City of Suffolk, Virginia               37              Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








      d. Any land disturbance exceeding      submission for development review,
         an area of 2,500 square feet comrn-  Section 6004.
         plies with all erosion and sedi-
          ment control requirements of       Section 6004. Development Review
         this part.                          All  development  not otherwise
                                             exempted by the provisions of this
  Section 6002. Exemptions in Resource 
   ;: I0 ~Protection Areas              ordinance must be approved through a
                                             process of development review.  The
  The  following land disturbance           procedures for developmentreview are
  activities in Resource Protection Areas   as follows:
  may be exempt from the criteria of this
  part provided that they comply with       1. The developer must submit a site
  items 1 and 2 below: (i) water wells; (ii)    development or redevelopment
  passive recreation facilities such as         plan. Such plans shall be prepared
  boardwalks, trails, and pathways; and         in accordance with the require-
  (iii)  historic  preservation  and           ments of Section 31-902.3 of the
  archaeological activities.                    Zoning Ordinance for the City of
                                                 Suffolk.
  1. Any such land disturbance must be
      approved by the City of Suffolk        2. The location of all wetlands as field
      Department   of  Community                delineated, and floodplains, highly
      Development.  A plan indicating           erodible soils and highly permeable
      the area to be disturbed shall be sub-    soils shall be indicated on the site
      mitted for approval as part of the        plan.
      development review, Section 6004;,
                                             3. Supportive materials should be in-
   2. Any land disturbance exceeding an          cluded to indicate which, if any, ex-
      area of 2,500 square feet will comply     ceptions are being requested and
      with the erosion and sediment con-        why such exceptions are justified.
      trol requirements of this part.
I      ;                f                    4. Any planting, buffer management
   Section 6003. Exceptions to the Criteria      mitigation or similar plans or infor-
                                                 mation as required elsewhere in this
Exceptions to the requirements of these             i
                                                 ordinance shall be included as part
   criteria may be granted, provided that:       of the site plan submission.
   (i) exceptions to the criteria will be the
   minimum necessary to afford relief,    5. The location and type of all required
   and (ii) reasonable and appropriate           vegetated buffer areas shall be indi-
   conditions upon any exception granted         cated on the site plan.
   will be imposed as necessary so that the:
   purpose and intent of this ordinance is    6. Copies of all necessary federal, state,
   preserved. Any request for exception          or local permits required to allow
  must be indicated as part of the


 Proposed Interim Standalone Zoning Ordinance           REVISED DRAFT - January 26, 1990
 City of Suffolk, Virginia              38                Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.





I   :



                   the development shall be submitted        inspector's office and all building
                   with the site plan.                       and occupancy permits shall con-
                                                               form to the provisions of said site
                7. The Director of the Department of          plan.
                   Community Development shall
                   coordinate the review of all affected  11. Approval of the site plan shall be
                   City agencies. This review shall be       void unless a building permit has
                   completed within fifteen (15) work-       been issued or use of the land has
                   ing days from the time of acceptance      commenced within one hundred
                   by the Department.                        eighty (180) days from the date of
                                                               approval. Upon request, revalida-
                8. The Department shall act upon the          tion of the site plan may be granted
                   site development plan and related         for an additional ninety (90) days if
                 materials as submitted by the ap-            all factors of the original site plan
                   plicant, or as modified during the        review are the same; provided writ-
                   site plan review process, within thir-    ten notice requesting revalidation is
                   ty (30) working days unless exten-        received by the director prior to ex-
                   sive modification to the plan or          piration of the original one hundred
                    extenuating circumstances require         eighty-day period.
                    additional time.  If approved, the
                    Director of the Department of Com-
                    munity Development shall certify
                    its approval and state the conditions
                    of such approval, if any, or if disap-
                    proved, shall indicate its disap-
                    proval and the reasons therefor.

               9. The action of the Department shall
                    be noted on all copies of the site plan
                    to be retained in the record, refer-
                    enced and attached to any changes
                    or conditions determined necessary.
                    One such copy shall be returned to
                    the applicant, and others retained as
                    required for records or further ac-
                    tion of the department or other af-
                    fected agencies of the city.

                10. Building permits, when applicable,
                    shall be issued in accordance with
                    approved site plans. A copy of the
                    approved site plan shall be retained
                    in the records of the building


               Proposed Interim Standalong Zoning Ordinance           REVISED DRAFT -January 26,1990
               3  City of Suffolk, Virginia            39              Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.



r
*                                              &
II
I
II
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I                                          *
                    E
                              K.  - *           iy








DEFINMONS

 The following words and terms used in      "Department" means the Chesapeake
this plan have the following meanings,      Bay Local Assistance Department.
unless the context clearly indicates 
otherwise. These definitions are those      "Development" means the construc-
given  by   the  Cheapeake   Bay            tion, orsubstantialalterationofresiden-
Preservation Area Designation and           tial,   commercial,    industrial,
 Management Regulations.                    institutional, recreational, transporta-
                                            tion, or utility facilities or structures.
 "Act" means the Chesapeake Bay
 Preservation Act found in Chapter 21       "Director" means the "Executive Direc-
 (10.1-2100 et seq.) of Title 10.1 of the   tor of the Chesapeake Bay Local Assis-
 Code of Virginia.                          tance Department.

 "Best management practice" means a         "Floodplain" means all lands that
 practice, or combination of practices,     would be inundated by flood water as
 that is determined by a state or desig-    a result of a storm event of a 100-year
 nated area wide planning agency to be      return interval.
 the most effective, practicable means of
                         preve n  o. r n    "Highly erodible soils" means soils (ex-
 preventing or reducing the amount of
    pollution generated by nonpoint sour-   cluding vegetation) with an erodibility
                                            index (EI) from sheet and rill erosion
 ces to a level compatible with water
              X~ality .   '            : s.equal to or greater than eight.  The
 0  quality goals-.          ;                0erodibility index for any soil is defined
  "Board" means the Chesapeake Bay          as the product of the formula RKLS/T,
 Local Assistance Board.                    as defined by the "Food Security Act
                                             (F.S.A.) Manual" of August, 1988 in the
 "Buffer area" means an area of natural     "Field Office Technical Guide" of the
 or established vegetation managed to       U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
 protect other components of a Resource     Conservation Service, where K is the
 Protection Area and state waters from      soil susceptibility to water erosion in
 significant degradation due to land dis-   the surface layer; R is the rainfall and
 turbances.                                 runoff; LS is the combined effect of
                                             slope length and steepness; and T is the
  "Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area"         soil loss tolerance.
 means any land designated by a local
 government pursuant to Subsection          "Highly permeable soils" means soils
  10.1-2107 of the Act. A Chesapeake Bay     with a given potential to transmit water
 Preservation Area shall consist of a       through the soil profile. Highly perme-
  Resource Protection Area and a             able soils are identified as any soil
 Resource Management Area.                  having permeability equal to or greater
                                             than six inches of water movement per
                                             hour in any part of the soil profile to a


Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                              DRAFT -January, 1990
City of Suffolk Virginia                40               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.









 depth of 72 inches (permeability groups  ground water at a frequency and dura-
 "rapid" and "very rapid") as found in    tion sufficient to support, and that
 the 'National Soils Handbook" of July,   under normal circumstances do sup-
 1983 in the "Field Office Technical      port, a prevalence of vegetation typical-
 Guide" of the U.S. Department of         ly adapted for life in saturated soil
 Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.   conditions, as defined by the U. S. En-
                                           vironmental Protection Agency pur-
 "Infill" means utilization of vacant land  suant to 404 of the federal Clean Water
 in previously developed areas.           Act, in 33 C.F.R 328.3b, dated Novem-
                                           ber 13,1986.
 "Intensely Developed Areas" means
 those areas designated by the local      "Plan of development" means any
 government pursuant to Subsection 3.4    process for site plan review in local
 of the Regulations.                      zoning and land development regula-
                                           tions designed to ensure compliance
     "Imperious cover" means a surface    with Subsection 10.1-2109 of the Act
 composed of any material that sig-
  composed of any material that sig-      and the Regulations, prior to issuance
 nificantly impedes or prevents natural
 infiltration of water into the soil. Im-    a building permit.
 pervious surfaces include, but are not    "Redevelopment" means the process of
 limited to; roofs, buildings, streets,   developing land that is or has been pre-
 parking areas, and any concrete, as-     viously developed.
 phalt, or compacted gravel surface.
                                           "Regulations"  means   the  Final
 "Local governments" means counties,      Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
 cities, and towns.  The Regulations      Designation and Management Regula-
 apply  to local  governments in          tions adopted in September, 1989.
 Tidewater Virginia, as defined in 10.1-
 2101 of the Act, but the provisions of the  "Resource Management Area" means
 Regulations may be used by other local   that component of the Chesapeake Bay
 governments.                             Preservation Area that is not classified
                                           as the Resource Protection Area.
 "Local program" means the measures
 by which a local government complies      "Resource Protection Area" means that
 with the Act and Regulations.             component of the Chesapeake Bay
                                           Preservation Area comprising of lands
 "Local program adoption date" means      at or near the shoreline that have an
 the date a local government meets the    intrinsic water quality value due to the
 requirements of subsections A and B of   ecological and biological process they
  2.2 of PartIIof the Regulations.        perform or are sensitive to impacts
                                           which may  result in significant
 "Nontidal wetlands" means those wet-     which may  result in significant
 lands other than tidal wetlands that are  degradation to the quality of state
                                           waters.
 inundated or saturated by surface or


Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                            DRAFT -January, 1990
City of Suffolk, Virginia             41               Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.








               "Substantial alteration" means expan-      water-oriented recreation areas, and (v)
               sion or modification of a building or      fisheries or other marine resources
               development which would result in a        facilities.
               disturbance of land exceeding an area
               of 2500 square feet in the Resource
               Management Area only.

               "Tidal shore" or "shore" means land
               contiguous to a tidal body of water be-
               tween the mean low water level and the
               mean high water level.

               "Tidal wetlands" means vegetated and
               nonvegetated wetlands as defined in
               Subsection 62.1-13.1 of the Code of Vir-
               ginia.

               "Tidewater Virginia" means those
               jurisdictions named in Subsection 10-1-
               2101 of the Act.

               "Tributary stream" means any peren-
               nial stream that is so depicted on the
               most recent U.S. Geological Survey 7-
               1/2 minute topographic quadrangle
               map (scale 1:24,000).

               "Use" means an activity on the land
               other than development, including, but
               not limited to agriculture, horticulture,
               and silviculture.

               "Water-dependent facility" means a
               development of land that cannot exist
               outside of the Resource Protection Area
               and must be located on the shoreline by
               reason of the intrinsic nature of its
               operation. These facilities include, but
               are not limited to (i) ports; (ii) the intake
               and outfall structures of power plants,
               water treatment plants, sewage treat-
               ment plants, and storm sewers; (iii)
               marinas and other boat docking struc-
               tures; (iv) beaches and other public
I .
              Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program                              DRAFT - January, 1990
              City of Suffolk, Virginia               42              Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.





                                                              NHDES-WSPCD-89-9        i  Al








                                      NEW HAMPSHIRE
                                 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
                                     MANAGEMENT PLAN












                                      NEW HAMPSHIRE
                            DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
                        WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION


                                      DECEMBER 1989







                                                   . "k~   r   NEW HAVMPSHIREm
                                                                DEPARTMENT OF
                                                     Envlronmental
                                              .---:*   -Servmces


I





                NEW HAMPSHIRE
                 DEPARTMENT OF
    Environmental
                 Services







                                       NEW HAMPSHIRE

                                 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

                                      MANAGEMENT PLAN






                                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                   COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                   2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                   CHARLESTON, SC 29405-24 13




                                   STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
                            DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

                         WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION






  m.




                                       DECEMBER 1989


                               property of CSC Library

Ic



I
I
I
I                                                             -.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I                            -                       Judd Gregg
                                                     Governor
                                               State of New Hampshire
 I
 I
 I














   NH NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION MANAGEMENT PLAN












NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

   WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION

                  6 HAZEN DRIVE

          CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE  03301

          ROBERT W. VARNEY, COMMISSIONER
   GEORGE A. MOLLINEAUX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER







            Prepared by: E. Ann Poole
           Assistant Planning Director
                December 26, 1989











            Printed on Recycled Paper









                                ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


    This document was prepared by the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services' Water Quality, Permits and Compliance Bureau in
cooperation with other state, federal, and local agencies and environmental
organizations in accordance with Section 205(j)(5) of the Water Quality Act of
1987.  The-report was written by E. Ann Poole, Assistant Planning Director
with assistance from Richard Flanders, Supervisor of the Water Quality
Section.  Clerical assistance was provided by Tina Kelley.


    The members of the Nonpoint Source Advisory Committee organized by the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Water Quality Bureau have
 provided ongoing guidance, review, and support of this effort.  The members of
the committee are:  Tom Ballestero, Ph.D., UNH-Water Resources Research Ctr.;
C. Tattersall Smith, Jr., Ph.D., UNH-Dept. of Forest Resources; Sheilagh
Connelly, Resource Conservation Services; J.B. Cullen, DRED-Division of
Forests and Lands; Rick DeMark, North Country RC&D. Randy Ferrin, USDA Forest
Sevice; Sharon Francis, NH Natural Resources Forum; Arthur Hoffman, President,
NH Water Pollution Control Assoc.; Dave Kibbey, NH Assn. of Septage Haulers;
Kim Koulet, Regional Planning Directors; Sandy Lamontagne, Home Builders
Assn.; Bob Morehouse, USDA/EPA Region I; Daniel Morrissey, USGS-WRD; John
Oudens, NHDOT; Steve Taylor, NHDA; and Charles Thoits, NH Fish and Game.


    In reviewing the Nonpoint Source Management Plan, the following advisory
committe members and individuals provided invaluable assistance and comments:
Pete Davis, NH Association of Conservation Districts; Francesca L. Dupee,
Office of State Planning; Gerald Lang, SCS State Conservation Engineer; John
Minnick and Frank Mitchell, Water Quality Coordinators for Soil Conservation
Service and Cooperative Extension Service, respectively; and Marjory Swope, NH
Association of Conservation Commissions.


    Funding for the development of this report was provided by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under the 205(j)(5) nonpoint source program.




            I  o~~~~~            State of New Hampshire
                     DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
          3 l  ,~:i          OFFICE of the COMMISSIONER
                         6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
                                       603-271-3503
   ROBERT W VARNEY                    FAX 603-271-2867
     COMMISSIONER

GEORGE A. MOLLINEAUX, RP.E.
   ASSISANT COMMISSIONER


                                  December 29, 1989





   Mr. David Fierra, Director
   Environmental Studies, Water Quality Branch
   JFK Federal Building
   Boston, MA 02203

   Re: FINAL NPS POLLUTION MANAGEMENT PLAN

   Dear Mr. Fierra:

       Transmitted herewith is the Final Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution
   Management Plan for your review and approval.

       This plan outlines an implementation program which addresses the primary
   nonpoint. pollution sources of concern identified in the August 1989 Nonpoint
   Source Assessment which was approved by your office on August 22, 1989.  The
   Plan presents existing nonpoint source control programs, management needs,
   management resolutions, and a proposed implementationschedule.  Further, the
   Plan outlines public participation and intergovernmental coordination, how it
   relates to the state's Clean Water Strategy, and consistency with other
   federal programs. It is a working document which will be subjected to an
   iterative process as implementation of the Plan develops.

       We would like to thank Region I staff for their assistance and support.

                                           3   rds,



                                              W. Varney
                                           Commissioner
                                           Department of Environmental Services

   RWV/cd
   cc: George Mollineaux, DES
        Raymond P. Carter, P.E., Admin., WQ Permits & Compliance
        William Beckwith, EPA
        Bart Hague, EPA
   5608D 0







         THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CERTIFICATION OF ADEQUATE
          LEGAL AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW HAMPSHIRE
            NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION MANAGEMENT PLAN


     I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as Attorney General
of the State of New Hampshire and in accordance with Section
319(b)(2)(D) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly
referred to as the Clean Water Act), that in my opinion the laws of
the State of New Hampshire provide adequate authority to carry out
the "New Hampshire Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan"
submitted by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services. I neither certify nor make any representations as to the
availability of funds to implement such Plan.

     The specific authorities provided, contained in state statutes
fully effective as of this date, include the following:

     N.H. RSA Ch. i2-E ("Mining and Reclamation").

     N.H. RSA Ch. 21-0 ("Department of Environmental Services").

     N.H. RSA Ch. 24 ("County Conventions").

     N.H. RSA Ch. 148 ("Protecting Water and Ice Sources").

     N.H. RSA Ch. 149 ("Water Pollution and Disposal of Wastes").

     N.H. RSA Ch. 149-E ("Sewage Disposal Systems").

     N.H. RSA Ch. 187-A ("State College and University System").

     N.H. RSA Ch. 218 ("Director of Forests and Lands and Parks and
     Recreation").

     N.H. RSA Ch. 430-B ("Conservation Districts").




Date:            /x / 5~                             /
                               John P. Arnold
              ;I~~ ~Attorney General
                               State of New Hampshire














                       -I  S   Div








                               TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                            Page


TITLE PAGE                                                                  i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                                                             ii
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL                                                       iii
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CERTIFICATION                                            iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                           vi
LIST OF TABLES                                                              vii
LIST OF APPENDICES                                                          vii


Chapter I     Executive Summary                                             I-1
Chapter II    Introduction                                                  II-1
Chapter III   NH Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Goals                 III-1
Chapter IV    Priority Waterbody Designation                                IV-1
Chapter V     Existing Nonpoint Source Control Programs                     V-1
Chapter VI    Nonpoint Source Management Needs, State Strategies,
              and Action Plans                                             VI-1
Chapter VII   Nonpoint Source Program Implementation Schedule               VII-1
Chapter VII-I  Potential Funding Alternatives and Strategies                VIII-1
Chapter IX  -Consistency Review                                             IX-l
Chapter X     Public Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination    X-1
Appendices








                                 LIST OF TABLES


Table No.        Description                                                  Page


   1     Major Nonpoint Source Pollution Categories & Subcategories          II-2
   2     Preliminary List of High Priority Surface Waters                    IV-3
   3     Regulatory Control, and Technical & Financial Assistance            V-3
   4     State Laws Relating to NPS Pollution                                V-5
   5     NPS-Related Bills Adopted by the 1989 New Hampshire Legislature  V-7
   6     Pollutant Concentrations Found in Storm Generated Discharges        VI-38





                               LIST OF APPENDICES


   A     Prioritization Process                                                A-1
   B     Comprehensive Summary of Federal, State, and Local NPS-Related
            Programs                                                           B-1
   C     Comprehensive Summary of Federal, State, and Local NPS-Related
            Agencies                                                            C-1
   D     Findings & Recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee        D-1
   E     Funded Nonpoint Source Projects in New Hampshire                      E-1
   F     Summary of Agencies' Water Quality Activities                         F-1
   G     Existing BMPs and Control Benefits                                    G-l
   H     Abbreviations                                                         H-I








                                  CHAPTER I
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Overview


    The goal of this Nonpoint Source (NPS) Management Plan is to present a
strategy and implementation program to control NPS's of pollution to ensure
that surface and ground water quality standards are met and that legislative
classifications of waterbodies are attained and maintained.  NPS pollution
does not result from a distinct discharge such as at a pipe, but is caused by
diffused sources such as land runoff and primarily involves excess bacteria,
siltation, nutrients and other organic and inorganic contaminants.


    The Department of Environmental Service's Water Supply and Pollution
Control Division, the state's designated lead agency for NPS controls, has
been involved in program development and implementation efforts for a number
of years. Based on the findings of the Division's Nonpoint Assessment Report
completed in July, 1990, the primary categories of NPS, in order of concern in
New Hampshire are:
                    o Landfills
                    o Construction Activities
                    o Subsurface Disposal Systems
                    o Junkyards
                    o Urban Runoff
                    o  Sludge and Septage Disposal Sites
                    o Agriculture
                    o Silviculture
                    o Road Salting


    The severity and extent of these NPS pollution-sources have not been well
documented and will remain the focus of ongoing state efforts.








Tarqeted Waters


    The following list of waters were among those identified as impaired or
threatened in the Assessment Report and, based on prioritization criteria
presented in this Plan, represent targeted high priority surface waters:


                    o  Lake Winnipesaukee Drainage
                    o Lamprey River Watershed
                    o  Sugar River Watershed
                    o Coastal Drainage
                    o Great Bay Drainage
                    o  Beaver Brook Watershed                                          I
                    o  Blackwater River Watershed
                    o  Upper Contoocook River Watershed
                    o  Baker River Watershed
                    o  Cocheco River Watershed
                    o  Exeter River Watershed
                    o  Spicket River Watershed
                    o  Newfound River Watershed
                    o  Nashua River Watershed
                    o  Mascoma River Watershed
                    o  Souhegan River Watershed
                    o  Warner River Watershed


    This Plan also recognizes the critical importance of groundwaters,
wetlands, lakes and ponds, and shellfish waters. Methodologies for
prioritizing these waterbodies are being or are to be developed from which
priority lists will be made.  Accurate listing of these waterbodies will
require additional information and water quality monitoring.


Plan Goals


    To achieve the goals of the Nonpoint Source Management Plan over the next
four years, the-state shall:
                    o  Screen, verify, rank-, and update the NPS information
                       on a continuing basis.


                                      1-2








                   o Prioritize the remaining sensitive surface waters using
                      a NPS impairment/threat analysis.
                   o  Focus the Plan on preventative or proactive NPS
                      controls, rather than rely exclusively on restoration
                      projects.
                   o Consolidate existing NPS data on a retrievable data
                      base system and digitize mapped information using a
                      geographic information system.
                   o Implement an abatement or remedial action program where
                      there are impacted or impaired surface watersï¿½
                   o Continue to provide technical assistance and public
                      awareness programs to local communities and interest
                      groups.
                   o Revise or promulgate state regulations to address NPS
                       control issues.
                   o Promote increased enforcement actions addressing
                      nonpoint sources of pollution with added emphasis
                      on sediment and erosion control practices for
                       construction sites near sensitive receiving waters.
                   o Encourage communities to initiate local NPS
                       prevention.
                    o Establish a management system which will not only serve
                       to focus the efforts of other state agencies, but also
                       act as a liaison to these agencies thus enabling the
                       State to maximize the effectiveness of limited
                       resources, and to ensure consistency of management
                       objectives.
                    o Explore alternative funding mechanisms.


    The NPS control measures, best management practices (BMP's), and other
actions outlined in this Plan are to be established and implemented through
the NPS Program and State Clean Water Strategy.  The Clean Water Strategy will
incorporate this Plan as well as the Groundwater Protection Strategy and
describe how the State will integrate its efforts given funding and resources
to address problems in targeted waterbodies.



                                     1-3







Funding


    Chapter VI provides a number of actions which. are targeted for
implementation. However, it must be emphasized that increased federal aid,
increased state resources, and local support are needed to move forward with
program implementation. It is estimated that full funding of the state's
portion of the Plan over a four year period would require $8.2 million. The
State's expected level of participation over the next four years is $1.9
million. To initiate the first year of the Plan, a total of $510,000 from
various federal programs would be required.


Recommendation


    To initiate implementation of this Plan, it is critical that the support
of all cooperating state agencies be provided. To accomplish this, it is
recommended that this Plan be submitted to the New Hampshire Council on
Resources and Development (CORD). CORD should prepare and submit to EPA an
overall policy statement supporting the short and long term goals of the Plan
as well as the various targeted actions and recommendations contained herein,
within the overall context of availability of resources.

























                                     1-4








                                  CHAPTER II
                                 INTRODUCTION


      Although the overall quality of New Hampshire's water is excellent,
point sources of pollution are a major factor presently affecting designated
uses of surface water.  As point sources are being eliminated or controlled
through conventional treatment processes, nonpoint sources of pollution are
becoming more recognizable.  Consequently, the Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program has taken on greater significance.  The Water Supply and
Pollution Control Division (Division) of the Department of Environmental
Services recognizes that nonpoint sources remain a threat to the full
attainment of water quality standards.  The purpose of the Nonpoint Source
Management Plan is to present a strategy and implementation program to control
nonpoint pollution sources (NPS), to insure that the water quality standards
are met and maintained and that legislative classifications of waterbodies are
attained.


      Nonpoint source pollution is caused by diffuse sources that are not
regulated as point sources and is usually the result of a man-induced
alteration or use of the land resulting in an adverse impact to the chemical,
physical, or biological integrity of the water.  NPS pollution does not result
from a discharge at a specific location such as at a pipe, but generally
results from land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, or
percolation.  The impact to receiving waters is usually directly dependent on
precipitation. The listing of categories and subcategories of point and
nonpoint sources of pollution recognized by EPA which may result in
nonattainment of federal fishable and swimmable water quality goals is
presented in Table 1.  Legal and regulatory decisions have resulted in certain
sources being assigned to either the point or nonpoint source categories
because of considerations other than the manner of discharge, i.e. combined
sewer overflows are considered point sources, while urban runoff is considered
a nonpoint source problem.


      Land: use is directly related to nonpoint source pollutants of concern in
any given watershed.  If, for example, a watershed is completely urbanized,
there is little concern for agricultural or silvicultural NPS problems.


                                     II-1






                                    TABLE 1
     MAJOR NONPOINT SOURCE (NPS) POLLUTION CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES*



10   Agriculture                           60  Land DisDosal (Runoff/Leachate)
     11: Non-irrigated crop production         61: Sludge
     12: Irrigated crop. production            62: Wastewater
     1'3: Specialty crop: production           63: Landfills
          (e.g. truck farms :and orchards)     64:. Industrial land treatment
     14: Pasture land                          65.: On-site wastewater systems
     15: Range land                                  (septic tanks, etc.)
     16: Feedlots- all types          -        66: Hazardous waste
     17: Aquaculture
     18: Animal holding/management areas  70 "Hvdroloqic/Habitat Modification
                                               71: Channelization
20   Silviculture                "              72: Dredging
     21: Harvesting, reforestation,            73: Dam construction
          residue management'                  74: Flow regulation/modification
     22: Forest management.                    75: Bridge construction
     23: Road construction/maintenance         76: Removal of riparian vegetation
                                              77: Streambank modification/
30   Construction                                    destabilization
     31: Highway/road/bridge
     32: Land development                  80  Other
                                              81: Atmospheric deposition
40   Urban Runoff                               82: Waste storage/storage tank
     41: Storm sewers (source control)               leaks
     42: Combined sewers (source control)      83: Highway maintenance and runoff
     43: Surface runoff                        84: Spills
                                              85: In-place contaminants
50   Resource Extraction                       86: Natural
     51: Surface mining
     52: Subsurface mining                 90  Source Unknown
     53: Placer mining
     54: Dredge mining
     55: Petroleum activities
     56: Mill tailings
     57: Mine tailings




     *Source: US EPA.  Guidelines for the PreDaration of the 1988 State Water
              Oualitv Assessment'(305(b) ReDort). April 1, 1987, p.lg9.











                                     II1-2








Conversely, if a watershed is completely forested, construction or
agricultural problems would probably be of little consequence. Few watersheds
in New Hampshire fall into such extremes; most watersheds contain a
combination of the major land uses which directly relate to NPS categories of
concern in New Hampshire. For example, NPS categories of concern statewide
include: land disposal (landfills, subsurface disposal systems, etc.), urban
runoff, construction activities, agriculture, and "other". "Other" includes
road salt-associated practices, hazardous materials, and leaking underground
storage tanks. While the presence of one or more of these categories in a
watershed may be reason enough to consider it as a potential nonpoint
pollution source, other factors were included in developing the list of
impacted watersheds. Existing water quality data, designated use category,
severity or risk of impairment, pollutant type, and professional expertise
were incorporated into the impaired or threatened watershed determination. An
effective nonpoint source control program will, therefore, require the control
of land use as well as runoff.


      In order for the goals of the Clean Water Act to be met, NPS control
programs are to be established and implemented through the Nonpoint Source
Management-Program and the Clean Water Strategy. The Management Plan provides
an overview of the state's existing and proposed NPS control programs and
presents the state's intentions for addressing NPS problems in conjunction
with point sources over the next four fiscal years and beyond. The state's
Groundwater Protection Strategy, currently being prepared by DES' Groundwater
Protection Bureau, provides a more detailed coverage of groundwater related
elements mentioned in this Plan. Through the State Clean Water Strategy, the
state will integrate efforts to control point and nonpoint sources of
pollution to both surface and groundwaters.


NPS Assessment Report


      The Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, finalized in July, 1989,
identifies the nature and extent of water quality problems caused by NPS
pollution. Surface and groundwater quality was assessed in order to identify:







       - impaired waters needing restoration;
       - threatened waters needing protection; and
       - deficiencies in water quality information which may serve as the basis
         for ongoing or future water quality data collection activities.

     The six steps used in identifying NPS impairments of or threats to
wetlands, surface, and groundwaters during the assessment process were:

       -to obtain and utilize existing data or water quality information;
         evaluate the quality or reliability of data and information;
       - differentiate the surface waters of New Hampshire into "waterbodies"
         to be used for planning purposes;
       - identify waters which do not attain or maintain water quality
         standards or support designated uses due to NPS pollution;
       - identify high quality waters where potential degradation from NPS due
         to proposed or actual changes in cultural activities is a threat; and
       - identify the cause(s) of impairment and the source(s) of pollution.

      Based on a preliminary statewide assessment of nonpoint source pollution
and public participation, the primary nonpoint pollution sources of concern in
New Hampshire are landfills, construction activities, urban runoff, subsurface
disposal systems, sludge/septage disposal sites, junkyards, agriculture,
silviculture, and road salting. These findings were affirmed by the Nonpoint
Source Advisory Committee made up of statewide public interest groups,
researchers, state and federal agencies, consultants, and other informed
individuals.

      Sources of pollution identified in the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report
which have not been specifically addressed in this plan include combined sewer
overflows (CSO's) and acidic deposition during precipitation events.  Both
pollution sources are under the authority of existing regulatory programs. A
draft Combined Sewer Overflow strategy has been submitted to the EPA for
review. Atmospheric deposition from primarily out-of-state sources threatens
the water quality of New Hampshire's lakes and rivers which are sensitive to
the effects of acidic precipitation. Necessary long-term regional initiatives
and mitigation programs need to be resolved at the national level.

                                     II-4








      NPS Management Plan


            The Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan (Plan) presents existing
      and proposed nonpoint source control programs which address the NPS categories
     - of concern. It also presents lead and supporting agencies, as well as levels
      and sources of funding needed and anticipated to fully implement the program.
      Further, the Plan outlines the public participation efforts undertaken and to
      be continued, how it relates to the state's Clean Water Strategy, and
      consistency with other federal programs.  A more detailed discussion of the
      public participation and intergovernmental coordination elements of the
      program development process is provided in Chapter X of this report.


            During the initial 208 activities in New Hampshire in the late 1970's,
      several technical advisory committees (TAC's) were organized as well as a
      Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). These groups involved a mix of public
      agency, industrial, and- private interest representation. Input from these
      advisory groups not only shaped NPS program policies and procedures but also
      provided guidance and support for the development of best management practices
      (BMP's).  In 1987, a new NPS Advisory Committee (NPSAC) was assembled to
      assist in updating the existing 208 NPS information, review assessment data,
      and assist the NPS Program staff in developing a refocused NPS Management Plan
      emphasizing implementation activities.  Projects funded through the NPS
      program shall investigate, evaluate, and implement corrective actions.
      Projects will focus on preventative measures including the validation of
      existing best management practices, the development of educational programs,
      and the application of water quality models to determine the impact of
      proposed activities on-specific watersheds.


            Nonpoint source control activities are not a new initiative in New
3 0:    Hampshire.  The major industries (e.g. construction/development, silviculture)
      have-been involved either by voluntary compliance or through regulation for
      some time.  With new emphasis being placed on NPS controls at the state and
      national levels, existing and traditional measures to control certain
      activities may change.  As the nonpoint program progresses through
      implementation, additional land use information and water quality data must be
      collected to improve upon the assessment and make it more meaningful as a


                                           11-5






measure of the effectiveness of the NPS projects.  Attainment and maintenance
of designated uses for all surface and groundwaters is the ultimate goal of
this effort, and it can only be achieved with the cooperation of all parties,
including.landowners and developers, in the state.




























                                     . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~








                                 CHAPTER III
                NH NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION MANAGEMENT GOALS



    It is the objective of the Department of Environmental Services' Water
Supply and Pollution Control Division to control and prevent nonpoint sources
of pollution and to restore impaired and protect threatened waterbodies
identified in the state's nonpoint source pollution Assessment Report.
Priority surface waterbodies of particular concern are drinking water
supplies, fish and shellfish waters, wildlife habitat, and recreational
waters. As stated in the NPS Assessment Report, the DES' Groundwater
Protection Bureau will address groundwater quality in its Groundwater
Protection Strategy as it relates to nonpoint sources of pollution.


    The goals of New Hampshire's Nonpoint Source Management Program are to
prevent further loss of water uses due to nonpoint source pollution and to
restore water uses and achieve water quality standards in impaired waters. To
achieve these goals the State shall:


     - strengthen existing regulatory programs to augment control of
       nonpoint sources of pollution and promote the enactment of new state
       regulations to address nonpoint sources of pollution not presently
       regulated;
     - increase inspection and enforcement of state laws governing nonpoint
       sources of pollution, and in particular, sediment and erosion control
       practices on construction sites near sensitive receiving waters;
     - encourage cities and towns to establish local initiatives to ensure
       protection of water resources by increasing technical assistance and
       public outreach efforts.
     - establish closer liaison with other regulatory and non-regulatory
       agencies to maximize the effectiveness of limited resources and to
       ensure consistency of management objectives;
     - communicate the need for increased state and federal support of NPS
       control activities and staff in order to move forward with program
       implementation;








- expand the investigation and assessment of nonpoint sources of
pollution in order to determine the significance of evaluated source
categories such as stormwater and urban runoff and solid waste disposal
sites including junkyards;
- document and update nonpoint source assessment information on a
continuing basis;
- perform consistency reviews of state and federal programs and
projects; and
explore alternative funding mechanisms.









































                              III-2







                                       CHAPTER IV
                             PRIORITY WATERBODY DESIGNATION



         In July 1989, the Water Supply and Pollution Control Division (WSPCD)
     completed a Nonpoint Source Assessment Report. That report identified
     impairments of and potential threats to waterbodies throughout the state by
     nonpoint source pollutants and established the magnitude and scope of the NPS
     problem on a statewide basis. In order to respond to the variety of nonpoint
     source problems in a meaningful and effective manner over the next four fiscal
     years and beyond, a prioritization method has been developed.


         Three objectives are considered vital in prioritizing future nonpoint
     source management efforts in New Hampshire.  They are:


          - protection and restoration of waters providing greatest public benefit
            or having highest significance value;
          -management of nonpoint sources causing the greatest environmental/public
            health risks or posing the greatest potential threat; and
          - implementation of best management practices offering the greatest
            benefits relative to the overall evaluation of nonpoint sources of
            pollution to New Hampshire's waters and having high probability of
            success.


         Based upon these three objectives, a procedure has been developed to
     prioritize state water resources identified as threatened or impaired by
     nonpoint sources of pollution and target certain water resources of primary
     concern.  Preliminary criteria have been established to evaluate the value of
     the affected water resources as a Class A or drinking water supply, severity
     or risk of impairment, type of pollutant(s), and natural, cultural, and
     recreational significance of the waterbody. Within each of these categories,
3.-   numerical values have been assigned to reflect the potential degree of benefit
     gained or the resource's value. The waterbodies have been ranked
     independently of one another in an effort to limit any subjective judgement
     that one of these uses is of greater importance to the public than the other.
     This subset or list of targeted waters is the subject of a strategic,


                                           I V-'I







multi-year action program to restore water uses or protect uses from becoming
impaired from either point or nonpoint sources of pollution.


    Appendix A contains the criteria used to prioritize the state's surface
water resources as impaired or threatened by nonpoint sources of pollution and
a description of the procedure used to apply the criteria.  It should be noted
that multiple-use waterbodies have been ranked in each category that is
relevant. For example, if a waterbody which is designated as a Class A water
supply resource also has habitat significance, as reflected by its status as
being a cold water fishery, then this resource would be ranked independently
in each category.


    Table 2 presents, in order of priority, the preliminary list of high
priority surface waters.  The waters included on this list are among those
identified as impaired or threatened by nonpoint sources of pollution based
upon information available to DES at the time the assessment was performed.
Due to lack of information, not all surface waters of the state were included
in this initial assessment. This priority list may change as more information
is obtained. Targeting surface water resources of lower priority has yet to
occur. Similar methodologies for prioritizing groundwaters, wetlands, and
estuaries need to be developed and applied for future targeting purposes.


    The New Hampshire Clean Water Strategy will describe how the State will
focus its implementation programs to address water quality problems in
targeted waterbodies. Administrative and fiscal resources will dictate the
number and order of restoration or protection activities.
















                                     IV-2








                                            TABLE 2
                      PRELIMINARY LIST OF HIGH PRIORITY SURFACE WATERS

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 BASIN                       WATERSHED                            CODE
           1.   Merrimack               Lk Winnipesaukee Drain.                01070002-010
           2.   Piscataqua              Lamprey River                          01060003-100
           3.  Connecticut              Sugar River                            01080104-100
           4.   Piscataqua              Coastal Drainage                       01060003-140
           5.   Piscataqua              Great Bay Drainage                     01060003-120
          6o  Merrimack                 Beaver Brook                          01070002-240
           7.   Merrimack               Blackwater River                       01070003-050
           8.   Merrimack               Upper Contoocook River                 01070003-010
          9.   Merrimack                Baker River                           01070001-070
           10.  Piscataqua              Cocheco River                          01060003-090
           11.  Piscataqua              Exeter River                           01060003-110
           12.  Merrimack               Spicket River                          01070002-280
           13.  Merrimack               Newfound River                         01070001-110
           14.  Merrimack               Nashua River                           01070004-120
           15.  Connecticut             Mascoma River                          01080104-070
           16.  Merrimack               Souhegan River                         01070002-170
           17. Merrimack                Warner River                           01070003-040



           During the next two years, this initial listing will be updated and the
       remaining waterbodies will be prioritized using a nonpoint source
       impairment/threat analysis. The waterbodies listed under each resource
       category will be evaluated and grouped according to whether they are impaired
       or threatened by nonpoint sources of pollution. Targeting waterbodies for
       future nonpoint source management efforts is facilitated by distinquishing
      waterbodies in this manner.  Threatened waters typically have a greater
       potential for responding to preventative or proactive nonpoint source controls
       and achieving non-degradation and maintenance of existing uses. These efforts
       are generally more cost-effective than restoration projects and are possible
       to implement with limited funds.  Restoration projects for impaired waters
       tend to be more complex than preventative efforts and often require not only
       source control measures, but also in-lake or in-stream restorative efforts to
       achieve an improvement in water quality.









                                              IV-3








                                  CHAPTER V
                  EXISTING NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS



    During the past two decades, a number of local, state, and federal
agencies have been involved in controling nonpoint sources of pollution. Much
of the effort focused upon the problem of erosion control from farmland,
logging operations, and the construction industry. Municipal planning boards,
conservation commissions, New Hampshire's Division of Forests and Lands, Water
Supply and Pollution Control Division, UNH Cooperative Extension, Conservation
Districts, and USDA's Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service provided
much of the regulatory and technical support for this effort.


    During the late 1970's, a significant statewide nonpoint source planning
initiative was completed using Section 208 Clean Water Act funds. Major NPS
contributors were identified and methods of control were described. State
strategies and specific actions for implementation were planned and documented
in the WSPCD '208' Reports. Examples include:


    1) Timber Harvesting Practices for Controlling Erosion (January 1979)
    2) RSA 149:8-a, Erosion and Sedimentation Program (1981)
    3) Groundwater Protection Manual (1982)
    4) Nonpoint Source Inventory and Town-by-Town Maps (1983)
    5) Durham Urban Runoff Study (June 1983)

    Some of the planned NPS activities and implementation goals were carried
out, but at a reduced level when federal financial support was discontinued.
Available State funding was used to address the problems caused by point
discharges, ie., wastewater treatment facilities.


    The 1987 amendment to the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) provided renewed
interest and direction to New Hampshire's nonpoint source pollution control
program. The WSPCD was selected as the lead agency responsible for conducting
the NPS Assessment and developing the Management Plan.  Most of the cost,
including a public participation component, were funded under Section 205
(j)(5) of the CWA.



                                      V-l








    The responsibility for control of nonpoint sources of pollution in new
Hampshire has been, for the most part, integrated into the existing framework
of state government. There have been no state appropriated funds specifically
designated for implementation of a NPS program. During the last session of
the General Court, however, a fee system was approved and four staff positions
created within WSPCD to allow for continued implementation of the sediment and
erosion control program. Overall, DES, Office of State Planning (OSP),
Department of Resources and Economic Development (BRED), and others have
assumed various roles. While some coordination between agencies has occurred,
it has not been on a programmatic basis.


    Regional, state, and federal agencies which have responsibility for
development or implementation of programs are identified in Table 3. Appendix
B contains brief outlines of each agency's programs and activities. New
Hampshire has numerous state statutes which provide the authority for state
agencies to regulate certain industries or categories of NPS pollution. Table
4, State Laws Relatinq to NPS Pollution, lists the most significant statutes.
Appendix C provides brief descriptions of these statutes. In addition, a
variety of environmental bills related to nonpoint source pollution control
were passed during the 1989 state legislative session. Table 5, NPS-Related
Bills, provides a brief summary of each adopted bill. DES and other state
agencies will be key in the implementation of these regulations.


    Based upon comments received during the preparation of this report, there
is a consensus that New Hampshire has most of the authority needed to control
NPS pollution. However, it was emphasized that the financial and staff
resources of state agencies, particularly in the WSPCD and the Wetlands Board
of the DES. were inadequate to effectively manage and implement all elements
of a program. Specific examples of alternative ways to address the resource
limitations will be addressed in Chapter VIII of this report.


    Detailed descriptions of existing State wetlands and groundwater
protection programs follow the tables.






                                     V-2









                                     TABLE 3
            REGULATORY CONTROL AND TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
                                       FROM
              STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES ADMINISTERING NPS PROGRAMS*






    IPS Pollution                  | S               A A   I



                        10  20  30  40  50160  661 70  741 80  82  83  83  84

   REGIONAL AGENCIES                        I        I 
Conservation Districts | T   T   T   T   T |         | T                T
Res Conserv & Dev Proj  T   T                 T                        T
Reg Planning Commn.  T   T   T                    T TT   TI  T  T   T   T       T

   FEDERAL AGENCIES
Coop. Extension Svc.   jT   T   T   T   T  T         I       |     T   T
Ag. Stab. & Cons. Svc.   F F   F 
Soil Conservation Svco.   T   T   T   T   T          IT ITF            T
Forest Service      o  |      T       T               
Corp of Engineers       | ;                   ITF R IRT
Farmers Home Admin.       F                          | 
Fish & Wildlife Svc.   |-             T                    T |
6eological Survey                     T   T   T      | 
Env. Protection Agency                T      IRT    I R  RTI R   T   R         RT
Coast Guard             |I                           I         R

                          R    Regulatory    T   Technical      F - Financial



  * Refer to Table 4 for NPS pollution subcategories


                                        V-3







                               TABLE3 (Continued)
            REGULATORY CONTROL AND TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
                                       FROM
             STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES ADMINISTERING NPS PROGRAMS*










          |  ' eI                                  -I .

   STATE AGHCIES       |
WastePgPollut  onv      |         R   R        R             I
Water Resources Div    |                    I  R  R.Tj
W.S&. P.C. Div          I R   R   R   R   R  R      IR   R  R   R   T          R
Dept of Fish'& ame    |                       R     | 
Pesticide Contr. Board IR,T R,T.            I       I        I
Off of State Planning  I              T T T I     TI       T  T   T            T
Div of Public Health   I           .        | R         I   I      R
Dlv of Forests & Lands   I R,T            R         I        I
Div of Safety Services                      I        I       I R
Dept of Transportation I          T         |                             R,T
Wetlands Board-         iR   R   R   R   | R         | R     I         R
Site Eval. Comnittee   I                              R

                          R - Regulatory     T - Technical      F - Financial







 * Refer to Table 4 for NPS pollution subcategories




                                      V-4








        I                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~TABLE 4
                             STATE LAWS RELATING TO NPS POLLUTION






            I                                    I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

 I          ~~~Categories BE


     -I                       ~~~~~~~10 20 30 40 5060 66170741 80 926383 84


1      1 ~2-E  xS                                           

       21-m:.1O                    X   x       xix   xI         xI   X   X 
I      ~~31:112                     xIII
       31:114                I     XIII
*      ~~146-A               I                                      
       146-C                                     III                    x
       147.45                                    IX       II
       148                             x         Ix       I
       148:23                                    Ix       II
       148:25-a              I         x 
       149:3                 j                         x
       149:4 XII             IX   x                
       149:8-a               I         x KxI               
       149:811               I I    xX                    I 
       149-AI.I                                           1.
*     ~149-C                 I                      x     II

       224:44-a-47           I     xI
       236:90 -110           II                         xI 
       236:111 -129          II                         x~ 






         I                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~V- 5







                           TABLE'  (continued)
                    STATE LAWS RELATING TO NPS POLLUTION






   NPS Pollution          I      )                      *     I
                                  r  z *;:           I                           I z
    Categories            I


                    110  20  30  40  501 60  661 70  741 80  82  83  83  84
     RSAIIIII
430:28-48            I x       x    X             I 
430-B                (x        x X    x x     iI
481                  I                    I       Ix
482:3-15             I                    I       IX   .
483                  IIx
483-A                 I         X                 Ix
484                  I                    I       Ix
488-A                           X                 Ix       I
674                   II    x


CH.402, Laws of 1983                                    x I  I  XI                   I















                               V-6I







                                   TABLE 5

       NPS-RELATED BILLS ADOPTED BY THE 1989 NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGISLATURE


                                 House Bills

    Bill Number                       Main Provision(s)
(1989 Chapter Number)

      HB 56              Provides $75,000 from the state's Hazardous Waste
     (Ch.283)            Cleanup Fund for a N.H. Dept. of Agriculture
                         collection of farmers' unwanted pesticides.

      HB 80              Clarifies and expands the N.H. Wetlands Board's
     (Ch. 225)           jurisdiction adjacent to tidal waters; increases
                        maximum civil penality for wetlands violations to
                         $10,000 per day; provides criteria for Wetlands Board
                         approval of work in prime wetlands.

      HB 81             Reclassifies unregistered dams to non-permitted dams
     (Ch. 259)           and sets forth the permit application procedures and
                         fees.

      HB 89              Provides DES' Water Resources Division with authority
     (Ch. 15)            to impose administrative fines for violations
                         relating to dams.

      HB 100            Appropriates money for capital improvements, including
     (Ch. 367)           $1 million for the Dam Maintenance Fund.

      HB 129            Establishes a fee system for reviewing alteration of
     (Ch. 190)           terrain (site specific) permit applications; creates
                         new positions.

      HB 150             Provides the commissioner of DES with authority to
     (Ch. 230)            impose administrative fines for oil pollution control
                         violations; clarifies terminology in the State oil
                         pollution control laws; raises the fee that supports
                         the State Oil Discharge and Disposal Fund.

       HB 254            Establishes a study committee to examine issues
     (Ch. 109)           regarding the great ponds of the White Mountain
                         National Forest, access to public waters, and control
                         and maintenance of public boat ramps and parking
                         areas.

       HB 332            Requires the WMD** to specifically address the
     (Ch. 263)           management of motor vehicle waste; provides towns
                         with a funding mechanism for the collection and
                         disposal of motor vehicle waste.




                                      V-7







                               TABLE 5 (cont'd)

                                 House Bills

    Bill Number                        MainProvision(s)
(1989 Chapter Number)

      HB 486             Requires WSPCD* approval of any land clearing before a
     (Ch. 313)            subdivision can be constructed; sets guidance for the
                         other permit requirements.

      HB 516             Authorizes towns to make bylaws governing solid waste
     (Ch. 292)            facilities and to levy civil penalties for violations
                         of those bylaws.

      HB 546             Modifies the language directing the Office of State
     (Ch. 346)            Planning to develop guideline regulations for
                         managing and protecting local water resources;
                         establishes a legislative committee to study the
                         closure of seacoast area shellfish flats because of
                         pollution.

      HB 586             Amends the hazardous waste and solid waste management
     (Ch. 398)            acts by modifying facility permitting procedures
                         regarding permit transfers and disclosure of
                         ownership; amends the solid waste management act by
                         allowing for state seizure of a lien against any
                         property used or intended for use in violation of the
                         act; creates a New Hampshire low-level radioactive
                         waste management fund, administered by the Division
                         of Public Health Services, for the management and
                         disposal of such waste generated in New Hampshire.

      HB 722             Clarifies how towns may participate in solid waste
     (Ch. 418)            management districts and how and when districts must
                         implement their plans; requires the WMD** to develop
                         standards and a permit system for facility closure.

      HB 755             Establishes a committee to study and recommend
    (Ch. 298)            proposed legislation for a comprehensive shoreline
                         protection act.

      HB 758             Establishes a study committee which shall make
    (Ch. 202)            recommendations to the legislature relative to
                         assessing impact fees on developers.

      HB 764             Increases a variety of DES fees, including laboratory
    (Ch. 408)            analyses, public water supply applications, and
                         septic system applications; creates new DES fees,
                         including fees for dam registrations and dredge and
                         fill permit applications.




                                     V-8








                               TABLE 5 (cont'd)

                                 Senate Bills

    Bill Number                        Main Provision(s)
(1989 Chapter Number)

      SB 17              Provides the N.H. Wetlands Board with the unambiguous
     (Ch. 99)             authority to issue cessation orders to persons found
                         in violation of the wetlands statute.

       SB 22              Mandates a streamlined wetlands permitting process
     (Ch. 215)            for foresting projects that have only minimum
            I0~ 0 wetlands impacts.

       SB 60              Establishes a requirement for recording in the county
     (Ch. 249)            registry of deeds all wetlands permits regarding
                         docks.

       SB 67              Establishes operational and reclamation standards for
     (Ch. 363)            sand and gravel excavations and quarries producing
                         crushed rock for aggregate.

       SB 161             Authorizes and encourages municipalities to enter into
     (Ch. 105)            intermunicipal agreements for developing and
                         implementing regional water management and protection
                         plans.





      * N.H. Department of Environmental Services, Water Supply & Pollution
        Control Division
     ** Department of Environmental Services, Waste Management Division





















                                      V-9








WETLANDS PROTECTION


    There are aproximately 95,440 acres of freshwater wetlands throughout the
state based on wetlands in excess of 40 acres. Statewide legislation has
encouraged communities to inventory wetlands and adopt 'prime wetlands' maps.
To date, only a few communities have proceeded with this process since
adoption is, in essence, a zoning effort. Technical assistance is available
to local and regional planning agencies through the state Wetlands Protection
Program administered by DES-Wetlands Board.


    The New Hampshire Wetlands Board is composed of eleven members
representing state agencies, resource organizations, and the general public.
The Board reviews applications and local comments in weekly sessions and may
conduct hearings. Applications number in excess of 2,000 per year and involve
activities ranging from minor culvert emplacements to major harbor dredgings.
By far the majority of applications are "minimum" in nature and involve less
than a few hundred square feet of fill or dredge.


    There are approximately 7,500 acres of tidal wetlands in the seacoast
area. Substantial efforts are expended annually under the Coastal Zone
Management Program and the Wetlands Board to protect tidal wetlands from
encroachment due to development. Special emphasis has been placed on the
protection of the fragile coastal wetland ecosystem. In addition to intensive
review by the Wetlands Board, most projects affecting salt marsh areas, which
have been well inventoried, are subject to public hearing prior to
consideration for approval by the full Board.


    The Antidegradation Policy has not been used in wetlands regulation other
than instances, such as hydropower facilities, where a change in hydrologic
regime may result in a lowering of instream water quality.


    Enforcement of wetland regulations is conducted through the authorities of
RSA 149:8-a and RSA 483-A. If projects are initiated without permits, they
may be ordered stopped by the Department of Environmental Services with the
support of the Attorney General's Office. When a project is begun without a
permit or when a project exceeds permit limitations, the owner of the property


                                     V-10







and the contractor are subject to an administrative fine of not more than
$2,000 each violation. Further, the parties may be subject to additional
court-imposed penalties of up to $10,000 per violation each day. There is a
need for additional wetlands inspectors and local enforcement of wetlands
regulations. Enforcement of Section 404 requirements is the responsibility of
EPA, and the Corps of Engineers. Due to the State's own authorities,
co-enforcement of Federal regulations is infrequent.


    There is no detailed inventory of wetland loss in New Hampshire. The
Office of State Planning, in its Draft "Wetland Priority Conservation Plan",
has provided the following estimates:


      *  7,500 acres of a total 15,000 acres of tidal marsh has been
         lost. The vast majority of this loss is due to a change to
         fresh water wetland due to altered drainage patterns.

     *  Wetland acreage was estimated at 95,440 acres in 1973.

      *  State permitting limits filling and dredging to between 24
        and 50 acres per year. By this estimate, there are
         approximately 95,000 acres of wetland remaining in New
         Hampshire.

      A specific breakdown of wetlands loss is not available. A negligible
loss is due to agricultural activity. The majority of the estimated 25-50
acre per year loss is due to residential and commercial development and road
construction.  Wetlands drainage is not generally allowed in New Hampshire.


      Mitigation by development of replacement wetland areas is not required
and is not considered a generally desirable option. However, where such
mitigation can be effective, it is permitted. Gain of wetland by beaver
activity, permitted detention ponds, and the expansion of existing wetlands
accounts for very limited wetland gain and is not inventoried. Reports by
property owners affected suggests that these may result in tens of acres of
wetland gain per year.







State Aqencies With Siqnificant Roles In Wetlands Protection


I.    Department of Environmental Services


     a.   Water Quality Engineering Section, WSPCD
          All permits to the WetlandsBoard for permits to dredge, fill, or
     otherwise alter wetlands under RSA 483A are subject to reviewed under
     149:8-a by the WQE Section. Permits granted are joint permits issued by
     the Wetlands Board and the Division under both statutes. The review
     under RSA 483-A is for the impact upon the wetland and can be quite
     broad. The review by WQE is limited to water quality impacts of
     wetlands projects. A staff member of the WQE Section which is
     responsible for enforcing RSA 149:8-a is the Division's designee on the
     Wetlands Board.


     b.   Planning Unit, Office of the Commissioner
          This is a new unit created by reorganization. This unit is
     responsible for the development and updating of the State Clean Water
     Strategy and coordination of DES water quality and wetlands activities
     with other state agencies.


     C.   Public Information and Permitting Unit, Office of the Commissioner
          This unit is responsible for the coordination of permitting and
     environmental impact assessment within DES. Permitted activities
     include solid waste facilities such as new landfills and incinerators,
     and large developments where permits from several divisions are
     required. This is a new unit created as part of the reorganization.


     d.   Wetlands Bureau, Water Resources Division
          Provides administrative and clerical support to the New Hampshire
     Wetlands Board. This support includes application review, permit
     tracking, field investigation of proposed projects and reported
     violations, preparation of weekly agenda and staff recommendations. The
     Bureau also represents the Wetlands Board before Governor and Council,
     during rule making process, on proposed legislation, and in court.


                                    V-12








     e.   Water Quality Section, WSPCD
          This section is responsible for the review of projects requiring a
      Section 404 federal wetland permit for the protection of wetland water
      quality. When an activity in a surface water or wetland requires
      federal permitting, as with licensing through FERC or through the 404
      Program involving the Corps of Engineers, a 401 Water Quality
      Certificate is required in accordance with the Water Quality Act and is
      administered by this section.


II.   Office of State Planning


      The Office of State Planning administers the Local Water Protection
Assistance Program in cooperation with other state agencies, the regional
planning agencies and conservation districts to provide technical assitance to
local officials in the area of water resources and their protection.  Under
this program, local plans and ordinances with respect to water resources,
including groundwater, must be approved by the OSP.


III.  Deoartment of Agriculture


      The New Hampshire Department of Agriculture (NHDA) administers the
Division of Pesticide Control which, through a licensing procedure, ensures
the safe application of pesticides.  This Division has enforcement authority
and may levy fines for violations or improper uses of pesticides. Also under
the jurisdiction of the NHDA is the State Conservation Committee which is
responsible for the supervision and activities of the ten county conservation
districts (RSA 432:8). A Conservation District (CD) representative serves on
the Wetlands Board.


IY.   Department of Resources and Economic Development


      The Division of Forests and Lands and the forest community have adopted
a series of silvicultural best management practices which are designed to
prevent or minimize soil erosion and sedimentation of waters from improperly
designed and constructed truck roads, skid trails, log landings, and stream
crossings. It is the role of DRED-Division of Forests and Lands to educate


                                     V-13








landowners, resource managers, and timber harvesters about the use of best
management practices to protect water quality. In addition to the Division,
assistance on the use of BMPs is available from UNH-Cooperative Extension,
SCS, Wetlands Bureau, and WSPCD.

















































                                     V-14









State Wetlands Protection Programs


I.    Wetlands Protection Proqram


           Administered by the NH Wetlands Bureau, this program is the product
      of a cooperative effort involving the state and the local governments
      through their Conservation Commissions. Towns may enact local wetlands
      protection measures. In addition, any dredge or fill activity occurring
     within a wetland or surface water must receive local and state review.
      Permit applications must be signed by the town clerk and copies are
      distributed to the Selectmen, Planning Board, the local Conservation

      Commission, and are transmitted to the Wetlands Board. Conservation
      Commissions may intercede in the Wetlands Board's process and may
      request further review time, a public hearing, or may provide technical
      comments for the Board's consideration.
           The water quality of wetlands is also protected by the WSPCD
      through the RSA 149:8-a permit program. Every fill or dredge activity
      is reviewed for water quality impacts. This effort and that of the
      Wetlands Board are coordinated and a joint permit must be issued before
      a project may proceed.
           Through the RSA 483-A and RSA 149:8-a processes, each action in a
      wetland is individually considered with respect to water qulity impacts,
      habitat loss, flood storage, etc.  When the requirements for State
      permits are met, the Division issues a 401 Water Quality Certificate.
      In instances where direct water quality impacts exceed the area covered
      by permit applications, the 401 review is expanded to include these.
      The 401 certification authority, therefore, is used as an additional
      check to assure application for appropriate state permits and to allow
      expanded reviews when deemed appropriate.


II.  Local Water Protection Assistance Program


           The Office of State Planning administers the Local Water Protection
      Assistance-Program in cooperation with other state agencies, the
      regional planning agencies and conservation districts to provide
      technical assistance to local officials in the area of water resources

                                     V-15










and their protection. Under this program, local master plans which include
water resource considerations such as wetlands protection, must be approved byI
the OSP. The goal of the local plans and ordinances prepared under this
program shall be to allow local decision makers to use the most comprehensiveI
and reliable scientific and technical information available for the protection
of water resources. Minimum requirements for water resource protection plans3
include:


     - the identification of potential threats to water resources including
        potential nonpoint pollution sources, both present and future;

     - the identification of existing and probable future land use areas
        that may exhibit potential threats to either the quantity or quality
        of water resources due to density of development, siting of
        structures or materials, or high risk activities or land use
        practices;3
     - an assessment of vulnerability of water resources relative to septic
        systems, solid waste disposal facilities, and wastewater treatment3
        facilities, and sources resulting in erosion and sedimentation,
        nutrients, and wetlands encroachment;
     - plans for the management of potential threats; and
     - consideration of the use of ordinances or regulations such as
        subdivision regulations, site plan reviews, innovative land use
        controls, and sand and gravel regulations.


Ill. -Coastal Zone Manag~ement Progiram (CZM)


          The purpose of the Coastal Program is to improve the administration
     of existing state laws in order to provide for the optimal use of New3
     Hampshire's coastal resources, including estuaries and wetlands., This
     program incorporates Wetlands Board regulations (Chapter 600) on coastal

     wetlands. Further, the program increases enforcement capabilities of
     existing-state programs which protect natural coastal resources and
     manage activities which affect coastal waters.  This program also3
     provides financial and technical assistance to local communities to
     solve coastal problems and improve local management of coastal resources3
     and development.
                                    V-163









IV.  Forestry Proqram


          BRED-Division of Forests and Lands, in cooperation with other
     agencies has been actively promoting the need to protect water quality
     during timber harvesting since the early 1970's through their Forestry
      Program. Examples of assessment and educational activities supported by
     this program include: the survey of timber harvesting operations for
     quantification of impacts on water quality; the review, revision, and
     promotion of BMPs; the writing, publishing, and distribution of BMP
     pamphlets, field guides, and manuals targeting industry and municipal
     officials; sponsorship of practical workshops and conferences for
      landowners, forest managers, and timber harvesters; the production and
      presentation of a slide/tape program targeting public audiences.





































                                     V-17







GROUNDWATER PROTECTION


     .Approximately sixty percent of New Hampshire's population depends in
whole or in part on groundwater for water supply. This includes people on
municipal systems using wells only or in combination with a surface water
supply, people on small community systems (subdivisions, condominium
developments, mobile home parks, etc.) and people on individual wells. The
wells range from high production gravel packed wells in sand and gravel
aquifers and high production bedrock wells (a relatively new approach for
municipal systems in'New Hampshire) to one gallon per minute dug and drilled
wells for individual homes. The growing number of incidents of groundwater
contamination, as well as competing demands for a renewable but finite
resource, have made groundwater a household word and have made groundwater
protection a priority issue in the 1980's and into the 1990's.


      In general, the quality of New Hampshire's groundwater is excellent.
Because it is such a valuable resource, the DES has designated all groundwater
as potentially drinkable. A comprehensive permit process administered by
DES-Groundwater Protection Bureau (GPB) was developed for any proposed
discharge to groundwater. An extensive inventory of potential point and
nonpoint source pollution sources has been completed; this requires updating
and integration into the geographic information system currently under
development. A database Is being developed by the GPB to automate the process
of logging, tracking, and locating potential sources of groundwater
contamination. Personnel from the DES-Water Quality Section (WQS) have
coordinated with personnel from the GPB to insure that specific potential
nonpoint sources of pollution would be included in the database.


      The proposed database will include the following site types as potential
sources of groundwater contamination:

    - Underground Injection Control,    to include-stormwater, non-contact
      (UIC)                              water, process/contact water, floor
                                       drains, and large septic systems;

   - Wastewater,                        lined storage/treatment, unlined
                                       storage/treatment, land application,
                                        large septic systems, and septage
                                       pits/lagoons;

                                    V-18







    - Solid Waste,                        municipal landfill, ash landfill,
                                        stump/debris dump, junkyard/salvage
                                        yard, salt pile;

    - Release,                            oil spill, chemical spill;

    - Contaminated site,                  assessment performed, pre-remedial,
                                        CERCLA, RCRA, LUST, other.

      An eight year investigation of sand and gravel aquifers in New Hampshire
is being conducted by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and DES-Water Resources
Division (WRD). This project will provide significant amounts of new data and
a higher level of accuracy than pevious mapping efforts in New Hampshire.
This information will be integrated into the geographical information system
(GIS) along with the locations of potential point and nonpoint contamination
sites. Eventually, the watershed information will be digitized and integrated
into the same system.


      Groundwater protection planning is being funded under the Section 205(j)
program and the Water Protection Assistance Program via pass-through to
regional planning agencies (RPAs) under the guidance of DES and the Office of
State Planning (OSP).  Local communities are being encouraged to work with the
RPA's and state agencies to further protect fragile groundwater supplies
through zoning and land use controls and other aquifer protection strategies.
The development of a statewide groundwater protection strategy will be
completed by DES during FY 1990.


      The main issue that has concerned state and local officials and will
continue to demand attention as well as continued funding commitment is
groundwater contamination from hazardous waste sites, leaking underground
storage tanks, unregulated releases of hazardous wastes to septic tanks, and
municipal landfills. Areas of significant contamination from these sources
exist throughout the state.


      In the long term, focusing limited state and local resources on the most
sensitive or valuable geographic areas and prevention are key. The lack of
funding for the Wellhead Protection Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act
makes a significant proactive focus on prevention difficult for the DES.


                                     V-19








State Aqencies With Siqnificant Roles In Groundwater Proqrams


I.    Department of Environmental Services


     a.   Groundwater Protection Bureau, WSPCD
           The Groundwater Protection Bureau is responsible for enforcement of
     state regulations (Protection of Groundwaters of the State), the Oil
      Pollution Control Program (emergency response to oil spill reports, the
     federal Underground Storage Tank program, and the federal LUST Trust
     Fund program), and hydrogeological investigations on state designated
     hazardous waste sites.


     b.   Planning Unit, Office of the Commissioner
          This is a new unit created by reorganization. This unit is
      responsible for the development and updating of the state groundwater
     strategy and coordination of DES groundwater activities with other state
     agencies, and management of the Section 106(B) program.


      C.   Public Information and Permitting Unit, Office of the Commissioner
          This unit is responsible for the coordination of permitting within
     DES.  Permitted activities include solid waste facilities such as new
      landfills and incinerators, and large developments where permits from
     several divisions are required. This is a new unit created as part of
     the reorganization.


     d.   Water Supply Engineering Bureau, WSPCD
          This bureau manages the public water supply program under the Safe
     Drinking Water Act. The bureau is responsible for new well site
     approvals, water quality at the wellhead and coordination of all
     activities involving direct contact with public water supply owners.


     e.   Water Management Bureau, Water Resources Division
          Through a cooperative agreement with the USGS, this bureau is
      responsible for New Hampshire's aquifer mapping effort and special
     projects related to water quantity issues. The Water Resources Division
      is also responsible for a registration program for new wells, and,


                                     V-20






      through the Water Well Board, the licensing of well drillers.


      f.   Waste Management Division (Solid Waste Bureau, Hazardous Waste
              Bureau, Superfund Bureau)
           The Waste Management Division is responsible for enforcement of the
      Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste provisions of the Resource Conservation
      and Recovery Act and implementation of the CERCLA (Superfund) program.
      These programs all require significant efforts to evaluate the extent of
     groundwater contamination caused by unregulated releases.


     go   Subsurface Systems Bureau, WSPCD
           This bureau regulates the design and installation of new septic
      systems in the state.


IIo   Office of State Planninq


      The Office of State Planning administers the Local Water Protection
Assistance Program in cooperation with other state agencies, the regional
planning agencies and conservation districts to provide technical assistance
to local officials in the area of water resources protection.  Under this
program, local plans and ordinances with respect to water resources, including
groundwater, must be approved by the OSP.


III.  Division of Public Health Services


      a.   Environmental Health Risk Assessment Unit
           This unit provides health advisories when groundwater contamination
      is found. These health advisories include opinions on appropriate use
      restrictions for contaminated wells to minimize the health risk exposure
      of affected people. The unit also conducts special statewide studies
      associated with health risks from groundwater contamination.


IV.   Department of Aqriculture


      a.   Division of Pesticide Control
           This Division regulates the use of pesticides in New Hampshire and
      assists with special statewide studies associated with the evaluation of
      the effects of pesticides on the groundwater.
                                     V-21









State Groundwater Protection Proqrams


      The consolidation of New Hampshire's environmental agencies into the new
Department of Environmental Services (DES) and the establishment of a
Groundwater Protection Bureau within the Water Supply and Pollution Control
Division (WSPCD) of the DES represents a strong state commitment to
groundwater protection through a coordinated approach.  With reorganization,
three divisions (Water Supply and Pollution Control, Waste Management, and
Water Resources), each with significant regulatory roles in groundwater, have
been brought into the DES. The primary agencies involved with groundwater
protection with a brief description of specific responsibilities of each
operational unit are described below.


Description of Specific Program Elements


J.    Groundwater Protection Strateqy Development


      A draft groundwater protection strategy was prepared by the Office of
State Planning in Federal FY 1987. During FY 1990, the Department of
Environmental Services will complete a comprehensive proactive groundwater
strategy for New Hampshire. The strategy will include the following
components:


      1) Identification, evaluation, and prioritization of statewide
      groundwater protection needs including groundwater quality, quantity,
      and program management issues.
      2)  Review of existing federal and state laws, rules and plans as
      related to groundwater protection.
      3) Identification of technical needs and programs including
      consideration of aquifer classification systems, aquifer mapping
      requirements, geographic information system development, wellhead
      protection program requirements, and local water protection assistance
      program implementation.
      4) Identification of resource requirements and possible financial
      mechanisms for strategy implementation at the state and local levels.
      5)  An action plan for strategy implementation.

                                     V-22








2.    Statewide Welihead Protection Proqram


      This program is considered a priority in New Hampshire. However, due to
the failure of Congress to fund the Welihead Protection Program provisions of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, this program does not currently exist. As
described below, using Section 106(B) funds, a welihead protection program
pilot project will be implemented for one community during FY 1988 as an
initial effort.  However, without additional funding, further implementation
will not be possible.


3.    Section 106(B) Proqram


      Six tasks will be performed as part of the 106(B) program during FY
1990. These tasks are presented below with the responsible organizational
unit.


      a)  Groundwater Protection Strategy Development;
          Planning Unit, Office of the Commissioner (See Item 1 above).
      b) Wellhead Protection Demonstration Project and Well Siting
          Regulations;
          Groundwater Protection Bureau. WSPCD, DES
      c) Water Budget Methodology Selection for New Hampshire;
          Water Management Bureau, Water Resources Division, DES
      d)  Comparative Health Risk Assessment for Groundwater Contamination in
          New Hampshire; Environmental Health Risk Assessment Unit, Division
          of Public Health Services.
      e)  Pesticide Use Mapping;
          Division of Pesticide Control, Department of Agriculture.
      f)  Interstate Coordination of Groundwater Protection Needs;
          New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC)


34.   Aouifer MaDoinq Program


      Over the past several years, the Water Resources Division of the DES has
been involved in an aquifer mapping effort by contract with the USGS.  During
FY 1988, the state share of this effort is approximately $410,000 with the


                                     V-23









USGS providing an equal match to the state funding. Under the Clean Water Act
205(j)(1) program, $25,000 of federal funds were provided during FY 1989 to
assist in program management. This effort began in 1983 and approximately 50%
of the state has been mapped. Assuming funding continuity, the project is
scheduled to be completed in 1993.


5.    Water Protection Assistance Proqram


      The Office of State Planning is responsible for the Water Protection
Assistance Program. This is a program to provide technical and planning
assistance to local communities for water resource planning and protection.
The goal of the local plans and ordinances prepared under this program shall
be to allow local decision makers to use the most comprehensive and reliable
scientific and technical information available for the protection of water
resources. Minimum requirements for water resource protection plans include:


      -  the identification of potential threats to water resources including
         potential nonpoint pollution sources, both present and future;
      -  the identification of existing and probable future land use areas
         that may exhibit potential threats to either the quantity or quality
         of water resources due to density of development, siting of
         structures or materials, or high risk activities or land use
         practices;
      - an assessment of vulnerability of water resources relative to septic
         systems, solid waste disposal facilities, and wastewater treatment
         facilities, and sources resulting in erosion and sedimentation,
         nutrients, and wetlands encroachment;
      - plans for the management of potential threats; and
      - consideration of the use of ordinances or regulations such as
         subdivision regulations, site plan reviews, innovative land use
         controls, sand and gravel regulations, and hazardous waste and
         underground storage tank regulation of tanks less than 1100 gallons.



      The. program is funded by $80,000 of state funds; $60,000 of these funds
are passed through to the Regional Planning Commissions to complement $91,892


                                     V-24








       of Section 205(j) funds which were passed through from the DES.
       Implementation of this program is expected to continue over the next several
       years.


       6.    Underground Injection Control   IC) and Groundwater Permittinq Proqram


             The Groundwater Protection Bureau of the WSPCD is responsible for the
       UIC and the Groundwater Permitting Programs.  The major groundwater program
       elements of the UIC program are:  administration, permitting (registration),
       surveillance, inspections and quality assurance, enforcement, and aquifer
       identification and exemption. Under the UIC program, several thousand
       industries have been inventoried and assessed for their groundwater discharge
       practices.  The state's UIC program does not issue permits per se but rather
       administers "regulation by rule" over Class V underground injection wells
       which discharge fluid meeting the State's drinking water criteria.  Discharge
       of hazardous waste to wells is specifically prohibited by the state UIC
       program by administrative rule, Ws 410. The state's groundwater protection
       regulations do not classify aquifers but have a goal of protecting unconfined
      aquifers as potentially viable drinking water sources.


3            Through the state's Groundwater Protection rules, Ws 410, all facilities
       which could potentially affect the groundwater are required to obtain a
X      groundwater discharge permit and submit periodic groundwater monitoring
       results to show compliance with water quality objectives.  Projects which
       require review under this program include solid waste and hazardous waste
       (RCRA) contamination incidents not covered by federal (CERCLA) uncontrolled
       hazardous waste cleanup program and proposed new solid and hazardous waste
       facilities.  Over the last two years, a significant additional effort has been
       the technical review of environmental site assessments where groundwater
       contamination was found; these site assessments are performed by consultants
       as a requirement of lenders as part of real estate transactions.  This program
       also requires the permitting of large developments for compliance with Ws 410
       in regard to disposal of domestic wastewater via subsurface disposal systems.






                                            V-25









7.    Leaking Underqround Storaqe Tanks


      Leaking underground storage tanks have become a significant nationwide
problem.  In New Hampshire, this problem is being addressed byjimplementation
of the federal Underground Storage Tank (UST) program, the federal LUST Trust
Fund program, and the state Oil Pollution Control Fund program by the
Department Environmental Services.  Because the reason for these programs is
actual or potential groundwater contamination, the oil compliance program has
recently been placed in the Groundwater Protection Bureau of the WSPCD.


8.    Hazardous and Solid Waste Proqrams


      These programs are managed by the Waste Management Division of the DES.
Through the RCRA program, industrial hazardous waste disposal lagoons and
other disposal facilities are being closed and, when appropriate, enforcement
actions against responsible industries are taken.  Where groundwater
contamination has occurred, groundwater remediation is required. The CERCLA
("Superfund") program is involved with multimillion dollar cleanup efforts at
large hazardous waste disposal areas which quality for the National Priority
List. Evaluation and corrective actions at state designated hazardous waste
sites are funded by the state hazardous waste fund. Solid waste landfills are
also regulated by the Waste Management Division; this function includes
requirements for landfill closures and new landfills to minimize the impact on
groundwater.




















                                    V-26









                                 CHAPTER VI
                      NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT NEEDS.
                     STATE STRATEGIES. AND ACTION PLANS



Introduction


    EPA guidance for the development of the NPS Management Plan requires the
identification and priortization of waters impaired or threatened by various
categories of NPS pollution.  This identification process was provided in the
NPS Assessment Report approved by EPA in September, 1989. The prioritization
of waters to be protected or restored is discussed in Chapter IV and reflects
the need to focus limited resources on critical areas and environmentally
sensitive surface and groundwaters.  The process of "targeting" resources is
therefore a critical element of the Plan. Available resources should be
focused on implementation measures that address priority NPS problems while
giving the greatest potential return on the resource investment.
Implementation measures will also focus on preventative actions. In as much
as is possible and practical, implementation  activities will be focused on
priority problems on a priority waterbody/watershed basis.


      Many of the strategies and proposed actions outlined in this chapter are
of statewide significance or require regulatory changes affecting all waters
and not only targeted waters. Where possible, targeting actions within the
high priority surface waters (Table 2 in Chapter IV) are emphasized. For
example, the Great Bay/Piscataqua River Estuary and coastal shellfish waters
should receive priority attention to isolate and control nonpoint sources of
contamination.  Further, environmentally-sensitive and critical areas
statewide should be defined, identified, and mapped using the geographic
information system Arc/Info in order that approaches to their protection be
facilitated.


      The NPS Management Plan outlines various actions necessary to fully
address the variety of pollutant categories determined to be of significance
in New Hampshire.  To implement the Plan, it is necessary to garner the
support of all cooperative state agencies. Time constraints have not allowed


                                      VI-1








for submission of this Plan to the Council on Resources and Development (CORD)
composed of the heads of all the cooperating State agencies cited. CORD
should review this Plan and prepare and submit to EPA an overall policy
statement supporting various actions and recommendations contained herein. In
addition, CORD would be asked to support development of a single statewide
"Best Management Practices Handbook" which would incorporate the various
agencies' BMP's for NPS controls in a standard format.  Once developed and
adopted by CORD, this handbook would serve as a single source of pertinent
information, applied consistently between agencies, and in a format allowing
for agency updates as BMP's change over time.


      Closer liaison with other regulatory and non-regulatory agencies is
necessary to maximize the effectiveness of limited human and financial
resources, particularly in the area of water quality monitoring.  An expanded
program of routine monitoring of surface and groundwaters and compilation of
existing data is needed. This would allow detection of regional and storm
event-related problems associated with nonpoint sources of pollution and
monitoring of action effectiveness.


      This chapter outlines the state strategy and specified actions necessary
to achieve Plan goals over'the next four years, and does so in order of
statewide significance of the NPS categories.


      Increased state support of NPS control activities and staff is critical
to move forward with program implementation. Existing state allocations and
permit fee structures should be evaluated to determine if present fees are
adequate to administer all aspects of programs (permit review, site
inspections, enforcement, and monitoring). Federal support via funding of the
Section 319 program is similarly essential, since the control of some NPS
categories exceeds state and local resources. Pending availability of federal
funds under Section 319, financial assistance in the form of loans through the
State Revolving Fund may be available to municipalities for implementing NPS
controls.






                                     VI-2







            Land Disposal of Solid and Hazardous Waste (landfills)


Importance


    The land disposal of solid and hazardous wastes in landfills, dumps, etc.
represents the most pervasive and-significant nonpoint source since nearly
every town has at least one disposal site.  Contamination problems include
toxic organic and inorganic compounds and pathogens that may affect both
ground and surface waters.


    Hazardous waste sites, while fewer in number, have received a great deal
of regulatory attention over the past ten years.  Though largely a groundwater
pollution problem, the impact-of hazardous waste sites has also been
documented in nearby surface waters.  The contamination of waters due to the
generation, storage and transport of hazardous materials prompted Congress and
the State legislature to enact laws regulating these activities and the
disposal of hazardous materials is believed to be adequately addressed by
existing state and federal programs.


    The land disposal of solid waste is regulated by DES Waste Management
Division (WMD), as mandated by RSA 149-M.  Potential contamination problems
associated with landfills include toxic organics, toxic metals, salts, and
pathogens. To control the release of these contaminants into the surface and
groundwater, new landfills must meet stringent design, construction; and
operation criteria.  Extensive consideration is given to groundwater
protection by WSPCD as part of the permit application process.


    A major concern pointed out in the NPS Assessment Report is the potential
for contamination from existing landfills not meeting current stringent
permitting conditions.  Most landfills and dumps which have been in operation
for a number of years were not designed with the protection of water quality.
in mind.  The control methods used to prevent water quality degradation at
existing landfills are the requirements imposed by the Waste Management
Division and WSPCD for water quality monitoring and landfill capping.





                                     VI-3







    Further investigation of the locations and severity of-impacts of solid
waste disposal sites are necessary to determine the potential impairment to
surface and groundwaters and to allow prioritization by watershed.


State Strateqgy 


1.  Determine the environmental threat of all landfills through environmental
    site assessments and-risk assessments for priority pollutants and identify
    areas of contamination.         -  


2.  Determine optimum treatment and fate of leachate generated at lined
    landfills.


3.  Closure, monitoring, and remediation of unlined landfills.


4.  All operating landfills are to be lined by the year 2000 and have
    appropriate leachate treatment procedures.


Program Action Plan


1.  Determine the environmental threat of all landfills through environmental
    site assessments and risk assessments for priority pollutants and identify
   areas of contamination.
    Lead Agency:  DES-WMD
    Cooperating Agencies:  DES-WSPCD, DHHS
    Funding Sources:  State General Fund, 319.
    Needed funds;  $125,000 per year for four years.
    Available funds: $125,000 per year for four years.
    State Program Schedule:  Assessment of 20 landfills.
    Milestones:  Assessment of 5.landfills per year.                                     3
    Potential alternative funding sources:  New associated fee schedules.









                                      VI-4








I  . 2.  Determine optimum treatment and fate of leachate generated at lined
        landfills.
        Lead Agency: DES-WSPCD
        Cooperating Agencies:  DES-WMD, DHHS
        Funding Sources: State General Fund, Clean Water Act Section 205(j)(5),
        319.
        Needed funds: $15,000 per year for four years.
        Available funds: $5,000 per year.
        State Program Schedule: Summary report of findings, 1991 (pending
        availability of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources:  New associated fee schedules.
        Targeted priority waters: Sugar River Drainage.


    3.  Closure, monitoring, and remediation of unlined landfills.
         Lead Agency:  DES-WMD
         Cooperating Agencies: DES-WSPCD, DHHS
         Funding Sources:  State General Fund, 205(j)(5), 319.
        Needed funds:  $100,000,000.
        Available funds: None.
         State Program Schedule:  Pending availability of funds.
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Local communities through
         surcharge on tipping fees.
         Targeted priority waters:  Blackwater, Contoocook, and Warner River
         Drainages.







4.  All newly constructed landfills are to be lined by the year 2000 and have
    appropriate leachate treatment procedures.
    Lead Agency:  DES-WMD
    Cooperating Agencies: DES-WSPCD, DHHS
    Funding Sources:  State General Fund.
   Needed funds: $136,000 per year.
   Available funds: $100,000 per year.
    State Program Schedule: Approximately twenty permits issued annually.
   Milestones:  (projection based on 1987 data)


         FACILITY TYPE                       NO.


        Transfer Stations (<25 TPD)         8
         Infectious Waste Incinerators       2
        MSW Incinerators (<25 TPD)          2
        Waste-to-Energy (500 TPD)           1
        Lined Landfills                     4
        Septage Pits                        1
        Research/Development                1
        Commercial Recycling Center         1


        TOTAL:                             20


   Potential alternative funding sources: New associated fee schedules.



















                                     VI-6









                                 Construction


Importance


    New Hamps-hire's economy has been on the upswing over the past few years,
expecially within the Merrimack River Basin, Lakes Region and the Coastal
 areas.  With the influx of high tech and traditional industries has come the
growth of support and commercial enterprises and the construction of new homes
ands.apartments required to house the increasing population.  Construction
activities involving land development -in New Hampshire present a significant
 threat due to nonpoint pollutants associated with erosion and sedimentation.
An indirect impact is the post-d-evelopment urban runoff which contributes a
variety of pollutants (see Table 6)


    In recent years, New Hampshire's NPS Program has focused on erosion and
sedimentation control.  WSPCD Wastewater Engineering Bureau (WEB) administers
the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program (RSA 149:8-a) to assure the
employment of the most appropriate BMP's thereby preventing excessive runoff
and sediment loss from a disturbed-site of 100,000 square feet or more.  BMPs
employed such as treatment swales, diversions and waterways reduce surface
runoff velocities thus reducing erosion while haybales-and siltation fences
trap sediments -facilitating surface water percolation and groundwater recharge.


    The identification of BMP's intended to control erosion and sedimentation
from construction projects is a requirement of the RSA 149-8:a design plan
review and permitting process.  Approximately six-hundred forty Erosion and
Sedimentation Control plans were submitted to WEB in 1988.  Although the
Bureau has a well organized design review -and permitting section, additional
field inspectors are needed to insure that, once granted, contractors and
developers adhere to the;conditions of the permit.  The recent establishment
of a user fee system based onhpermit applications may be one way to obtain
funding for additional staff for purposes of enforcement and compliance.
Increased inspection and enforcement actions against violators of site
specific permits issued under RSA 149:8-a is essential.  There is also a need
to complete the BMP Manual on Sediment and Erosion Control and Stormwater


                                      VI-7








Management (Guidelines for the Preparation of Site Specific Applications,
March 1989) in order to transfer the latest technology and regulatory
requirements to developers and local officials.  Local officials and
conservation district staff need to take more active roles in providing field
inspections to help offset the present limited resources of that program.


    Educational programs on erosion and sedimentation reduction practices are
needed for local officials, contractors, developers, and engineers.  Sediment
and erosion control practices on construction sites, especially near sensitive
wetlands and surface waters, must be bolstered to more effectively control
runoff.


    During the development of this Plan, the Nonpoint Source Advisory
Committee recommended that local ordinances based upon water quality modeling
should be encouraged in environmentally sensitive areas. For the purposes of
this Plan, environmentally-sensitive areas have been defined as wetlands,
groundwaters, shellfish waters, high quality rivers and streams, and lakes and
ponds.  A number of towns throughout the state have taken the recommendations
established during the CWA Section 208 planning process regarding erosion and
sedimentation control and have developed local subdivision and site plan
review requirements.  The use of water quality modeling in small watersheds is
just one of the options that a local planning board may wish to consider in
requesting that an applicant provide the board with -technical studies to
assist the board in their local subdivision and site plan review decision
making process. 


   To reduce the impact of development, BMPs should be applied.  Examples are:


    --  Limit impervious area wherever possible.


        Avoid siting in sensitive areas, such as groundwater aquifer recharge
        areas or secondary recharge zones, impermeable soils, or sensitive
        surface waters.








Design drainage so that as much runoff as possible infiltrates on
site. This can be achieved by directing runoff to buffer strips,
vegetated islands or infiltration basins, and by using permeable
pavement. Catch basins, detention/retention ponds, vegetated swales,
and other structures may be appropriate.  Oil-water separators may be
used in catch basins, if maintenance can be assured.


Since most of the pollutant load is bound up with solids, sweeping
can remove some contaminants bound to particulates, though vacuuming
has been found to be much more effective than sweeping.  Surfaces
should also be kept free of trash, leaves, etc.







































                            VI-9








State Strateqv


    1.   Seasonal scheduling and phased development of land development and
        highway construction projects must be achieved where possible.
        Recommended actions include those outlined below.


             the incorporation of seasonal or phased development requirements
             as conditions of state permits.


             the incorporation of seasonal or phased construction plans
             should be required through the local permitting process.


             the incorporation of requirements as stipulations of state
             contracts.


   2.   The areal extent of land disturbance on construction sites must be
        minimized to that essential for the stage of construction.


   3.   Develop and encourage the use of technical guidance and manuals for
        erosion and sedimentation control by developers, contractors,
        engineers, and local officials.


   4.   State regulatory programs must incorporate consistent procedures,
        technical guidelines, and BMPs. Relevant regulatory programs include
        Wetlands Protection, Water Quality Certification, Site Specific, and
        Coastal Zone Management programs. Recommended actions include:


             Development and adoption of a statewide guidance handbook on
             erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater management by
             relevant state agencies.


             Revise state regulations, procedural requirements, and/or policy
             as necessary to incorporate procedures, requirements, and
             guidelines as detailed in the revised 'Guidelines for the
             Preparation of Site Specific Applications'



                                    VI-lO








          Request approval of the revised 'Guidelines for the Preparation
          of Site Specific Applications' by the Council on Resources and
          Development (CORD) and request the the guidelines be made policy
          as part of representative agencies procedural requirements.


          Evaluate staffing levels and available funding to cover
          administrative costs of permit reviews, site inspections, and
          enforcement actions associated With soil erosion and sediment
          control requirements.


5.   All projects using state funds must comply with the procedures and
     requirements detailed in 'Guidelines for the Preparation of Site
     Specific Applications'.


6.   Erosion and sedimentation control requirements should be included in
     municipal subdivision and site plan review regulations. The actions
     outlined below will promote adoption and effective implementation of
     the local ordinances and regulations.


          Local Planning Boards should be encouraged to adopt or amend
          existing erosion and sediment control requirements in their
          subdivision and site plan review regulations in accordance with
          the local adoption procedures described in RSA 675:6.


     -    Soil Conservation Service, Conservation District, and State
          Conservation Committee staff should continue technical
          assistance to communities to promote adoption and implementation
          of model soil erosion and sediment control requirements for
          inclusion in municipal subdivision and site plan review
          regulations.


     *  -Adequate funding must  be provided to  the state's Conservation
          Districts and Regional Planning Agencies to meet increasing
          demands for local technical assistance, program review, and
          education programming.







       - Prompt implementation of erosion and sedimentation controlI
         requirements by developers, contractors, engineers, and local
         .officials through an accelerated program of workshops and
         preparation of technical assistance materials on the use of the
         erosion and sedimentation control manual, site plan review, and
         proper installation, maintenance, and, inspection of control
         measures.


       - Prepare multi-media public education materials targeting local
         decision makers describing the need for soil erosion and
         sediment control measures.


7.   Implementation and maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control
    measures must be achieved in a timely manner and for the duration of3
    the construction project. These procedures could be included
    directly in local erosion and sediment control requirements for
    inclusion in State and municipal subdivision and site plan review
    regulations. Contractors will be subject to penalties if

    requirements are not met. Recommended actions are outlined below.

       -Establish maintenance criteria for the erosion and sedimentationl
         ~control measures to insure their continued performance.


       - Specify maintenance requirements, including identification of
         responsible entities and maintenance criteria, as conditions of

         state plan review.

       - Recommend the inclusion of maintenance requirements asI
         conditions of local plan review.


       - Prepare guidance materials which specify maintenance procedures.









                               VI-12







S.   Management of state (including DOT) contract provisions specifying
     the installation and maintenance of erosion and.sedimentation control
     measures must be strengthened. The installation and maintenance of
     these control measures must be stated as separate items, subjecting
     contractors to penalties if contract stipulations are not met. Sites
     should be inspected routinely to ensure consistent compliance with
     contract provisions.


9.   Standardized and upgraded procedures for site inspection and
     enforcement of erosion and sedimentation control requirements must be
     developed and adopted by the state. Local officials should consider
     adoption of consistent inspection procedures for erosion control
     measures.


10.  Efforts to provide timely and routine inspection of soil erosion and
     sediment control measures must be strengthened.


     Establishment of regional compliance inspection programs are proposed
     as a-cost effective way to ensure routine site inspection and
     compliance with local requirements for erosion and sedimentation
     control and stormwater management.  The respective local authorities
     would be notified of permit violations observed and would maintain
     responsibility for taking the necessary enforcement action.


     The funds provided would be used to initiate the program of
     inspecting sites for compliance with applicable permit requirements,
     and to establish agreements with municipalities. Participating
     municipalities could agree to pass through the permit fees to cover
     costs associated with site plan review and site inspection services
     or amend their subdivision and site plan review regulations to
     require plan review and site inspection by a qualified consultant,
     chosen by the planning board at the applicant's expense.








                                 VI-13







11.  Standardize procedures for mandatory pre- and post-development water-
     quality monitoring by an independent party for land development and
     highway construction projects to monitor the performance of best
    management practices at development sites. DES's effort should be
    focused on defining the types of projects where pre- and
    post-development monitoring would be required and developing guidance
    on the parameter to be monitored. Direct measurement of water
    quality provides an excellent tool to monitor BMP performance and to
    ensure that measures are functioning as designed. Establishment
    should be implemented in a phased manner beginning with state
    projects first.


12. Encourage watershed planning and consistent adoption and
     implementation of local regulatory controls that address the
    cumulative impacts resulting from land disturbance.
































                                VI-14








Proqram Action Plan


I.  a.   Prepare draft amendments to applicable statutes incorporating
         seasonal or phased development and construction as conditions of
         state permitting.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD
         Cooperating agencies: None
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
         Needed funding: $1,500.
        Available funding: None.
         Schedule: Completion of draft amendments, October 1, 1990 (pending
         availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


    b.  Prepare draft amendments to applicable statutes incorporating the
        minimization of the areal extent of land disturbance on site to that
         essential for the stage of development and construction.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD
        Cooperating agencies: None
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
         Needed funding: $1,500.
         Available funding: None.
         Schedule: Completion of draft amendments, October 1, 1990 (pending
         availability of funds.
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


2. Ongoing or contained elsewhere in Plan












                                     VI-15







3.  a.   Complete the revised 'Guidelines for the Preparation of Site Specific
        Applications'.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: SCS, EPA, DOT, NHSPEo
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5.
        Needed funding: $5,000.
        Available funding: $5,000.
        Schedule: Completion of revision, March 31, 1990.
        Milestones: In progress.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


   b.   Develop and conduct an educational program of workshops for
        developers, contractors, engineers, and local officials on the use of
        technical guidance and manuals for erosion and sedimentation control,
        stormwater management, site plan review, and the proper installation,
        maintenance, and inspection of control measures.
        Lead agency: NHACD.
        Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, SCS, UNH-Coop. Ext., OSP.
        Funding sources: 319.
        Needed funding: $12,000 annually for four years.
        Available funding: None.
        Schedule: Initiate program April 1, 1990 (pending availability of
        funds).
        Milestones: Initiate workshops June 1, 1990 (pending
        availability of funds).
        Potential alternative funding sources: Workshop attendance fee,
        educational materials fees.
        Targeted priority waters:  Cocheco River Drainage.














                                    VI-16







      4.  a.   Develop a statewide guidance handbook on erosion and sediment control
               and stormwater management.
               Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
               Cooperating agencies: SCS, EPA, DOT, NHSPE.
               Funding sources: State General fund, 205(j)5.
               Needed funding: $5,000.
               Available funding: $5,000.
I                Schedule: Completion of handbook, March 31, 1990.
               Milestones: In progress.
              *  Potential alternative funding sources: Charge for handbook.


          b.   Prepare draft amendments to applicable regulations incorporating
               procedures, requirements, and guidelines as detailed in the revised
                'Guidelines for the Preparation of SiteSpecific Applications'.
               Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
               Cooperating agencies: CORD.
               Funding sources: State General Funds, 205(j)5.
               Needed funding: $2,500.
               Available funding: None.
               Schedule: Completion of draft amendments, June 30, 1990 (pending
               availability of funds).
               Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
               Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.




















                                           VI-17
           I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A








c.   Request approval of the revised 'Guidelines for the Preparation of
     Site Specific Applications' by CORD and request that the guidelines
     be made policy as part of representative agencies procedural
     requirements.
     Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
     Cooperating agencies: CORD.
     Funding sources: 205(j)5.
     Needed funding: None.
     Available funding: None.
     Schedule: Review and comment from CORD, July 1, 1990 (pending
     completion of the revised 'Guidelines'.
    Milestones: Pending completion of the revised 'Guidelines'.
     Potential alternative funding sources: Noneproposed.


d.   Evaluate staffing levels and available funding to cover
    administrative costs of permit reviews, site inspections, and
     enforcement actions associated with erosion and sedimentation control.
     Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
     Cooperating agencies: None.
    Funding sources: State General Fund.
    Needed funding: $1,500.
   Available funding: None.
    Schedule: Evaluation of staffing and funds April 30, 1990 (pending
    availability of funds).
    Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
    Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.

















                                VI-18








5.       Prepare and propose a binding resolution for adoption by CORD that
        all projects using state funds comply with the procedures and
         requirements detailed in 'Guidelines for the Preparation of Site
        Specific Application'.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: CORD.
         Funding sources: None.
         Needed funding: None.
        Available funding: None.
         Schedule: Review and comment from CDRD, July 1, 1990 (pending
         completion of the revised 'Guidelines').
         Milestones: Pending completion of the revised 'Guidelines'.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


6.  a.   Provide information relative to existing procedural requirements to
         ensure that implementation of procedures contained in the statewide
         guidance handbook are promoted and facilitated at the local level.
         Further, provide technical assistance, training, and guidance to
         local planning boards in their efforts to adopt or amend existing
         erosion and sediment control requirements in their subdivision and
         site plan review regulations in accordance with the local adoption
         procedures described in RSA 675:6.
         Lead agency: OSP.
         Cooperating agencies: SCS, UNH-Coop. Ext., NHACD, DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
         Needed funding: $120,000 annually for four years.
         Available funding: $50,000.
         Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.
         Targeted priority waters: Lamprey River Drainage.









                                     VI-19








b.   Seek adequate funding to meet needs for local technical assistance,
     program review, and education programming on soil erosion and
     sediment control, site plan review, and installation, maintenance,
     and inspection of control measures.
     Lead agency: NHACD.
     Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, Wetlands Bureau, SCS, UNH-Coop. Ext.
     Funding sources: 31g.
     Needed funding: $12,000 annually for four years.
    Available funding: Donations and contributions in-kind.
     Schedule: Ongoing as possible given lack of funding.
    Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
     Potential alternative funding sources: Donations and contributions
     solicited.
     Targeted priority waters:  Newfound and Ashuelot River Drainages.


c.   Ongoing or contained elsewhere in Plan.


d.   Prepare multi-media public education materials targeting local
    decision makers describing the need for erosion and sedimentation
    control measures.
    Lead agency: UNH-Coop. Ext.
     Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, SCS, NHACD.
    Funding sources: 205(j)5, 319.
    Needed funding: $15,000.
    Available funding: None.
    Schedule: Preparation of audio-visual program and training program,
    January 1991 (pending availability of funds).
    Milestones: Iniation'of workshops, April 1991 (pending availability
    of funds).
    Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.







7.  a.   Establish and promulgate maintenance criteria for erosion and
        sedimentation control measures.
        Lead agency: DES-WSPCD
        Cooperating agencies: SCS, NHACD
        Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5.
        Needed funding: $2,500.
        Available funding: None.
        Schedule: Establish maintenance criteria, October 1, 1990 (pending
        availability of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


    b.   Develop guidance for maintenance criteria to be included in
         'Guidelines for the Preparation of Site Specific Applications'
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD
         Cooperating agencies: SCS.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5.
         Needed funding: $1,500.
         Available funding: None.
         Schedule: Develop guidance for maintenance criteria, November 1, 1990
         (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


    c.   Prepare, publish, and distribute guidance materials which specify
         maintenance procedures.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: SCS.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5.
         Needed funding: $2,500.
         Available funding: None.
         Schedule: Publication of guidance materials, January 1, 1991 (pending
         availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.



               I:~~~ ~VI-2
                                    VI -21









8.  a.   Ongoing or contained elsewhere in Plan.


9.  a.   Complete the writing and review of the 'Drainage Control Guidelines
        Handbook for Local Road Agents and Highway Crews'
        Lead agency: NCRC&Do
        Cooperating agencies: SCS, OES-WSPCD, DOT, UNH-Coop. Ext.
        Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
        Needed funding: $2,500.
        Available funding: None. 
        Schedule: Complete handbook, July 1, 1990 (pending availability of
        funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
        Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


   b.   Revise the handbook, if necessary, publish, and distribute to
        municipal offical and local road agents statewide.
        Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
        Cooperating agencies: UNH-Coop. Ext., SCS, DOT.
        Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5.
        Needed funding: $6,000.
        Available funding: None.
        Schedule: Revision of handbook, November 1, 1992 (pending
        availability of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
        Potential alternativefunding sources: Charge for handbook.

















                                    VI-22







   c.   Conduct educational workshops for municipal officals, local road
        agents, and highway crew members on drainage control measures and
        guidelines outlined in the handbook.
        Lead agency: NHACD.
        Cooperating agencies: UNH-Coop. Ext., DES-WSPCD, SCS, DOT, NH
        Municipal and Road Agent Associations.
        Funding sources: 319.
        Needed funding: $12,000 annually for four years.
        Available funding: None.
        Schedule: Initiate program, September 1, 1990 (pending availability
        of funds).
        Milestones: Initiate workshops, November 1, 1990 (pending availability
        of funds).
         Potential alternative funding sources: Workshop attendance fees,
         educational materials fees.


10. a.   Communicate to state officials the need for substantially more
         inspection and enforcement presence where development and
         construction activities potentially impact sensitive waterbodies.
         Lead agency: DES-Commissioner's Office.
         Cooperating agencies: CORD.
         Funding sources: None.
         Needed funding: None.
         Available funding: None.
         Schedule: Ongoing.
         Milestones:
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.















                                     VI-23







b.   Provide technical assistance for inspection and enforcement of local
     requirements for erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater
     management.
     Lead agency: NHACD.
     Cooperating agencies: SCS, towns.
     Funding sources: 319.
     Needed funding: $60,000 annually for four years.
     Available funding: None.
     Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
     Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
     Potential alternative funding sources: Fee-for-service basis.


c.   Prioritize those waters identified in the 'List of High Priority
     Surface Waters' for special inspection and enforcement attention.
     Lead agency: DES-WSPCD. 
     Cooperating agencies: None.
     Funding sources: 205(j)5.
     Needed funding: $10,000.
    Available funding: None.
     Schedule: Completion of prioritization based on current information,
     January 1, 1991 (pending availability of funds).
    Milestones: Priority list, January 199lggl (pending availability of
     funds).
     Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


d.   Distribute limited funds and personnel to visually inspect
    development and construction activities and stormwater control
    measures, determine BMP performance, and enforce regulations.
     Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
    Cooperating agencies: None.
    Funding sources: State General fund.
    Needed funding: $240,000 annually.
    Available funding: $140,000 annually.
    Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
    Milestones: 1000 site inspections annually.
    Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


                                VI-24







11. a.   Ongoing or contained elsewhere in plan.


12. a.   Develop assessment procedures for determining watershed sensitivity
        to alterations of terrain for use in promoting inter-municipal and
         regional agreements for watershed planning.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: SCS, UNH, OSP, NCRC&D.
         Funding sources: 319.
         Needed funding: $15,000 annually for three years.
        Available funding: None.
         Schedule: Development of model assessment procedure, June 1992
         (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Initiate project, June 1990.  Develop model procedure,
         February 1991. Verify model, June 1992.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


   b.   Develop assessment techniques that monitor and predict cumulative NPS
         and hydrologic impacts on a watershed for use by towns or regional
         planning groups.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
        Cooperating agencies: ARS, USGS, SCS.
         Funding sources: 319.
         Needed funding: $10,000.
         Available funding: None.
         Schedule: Development of predictive model, January 1991 (pending
         availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.













                                     VI-25







                         Subsurface Disposal Systems


Importance


    Subsurface disposal systems (septic systems) were cited in the NPS
Assessment as a pervasive and significant nonpoint source concern statewide.
Subsurface disposal systems are regulated under RSA 149-E and NH
Administrative Rules Ws 1000 et.seq., "Subdivision and Individual Sewage
Disposal System Design Rules". These rules establish design and installation
criteria to prevent groundwater quality degradation primarily from nutrients,
pathogens, salts, and household organics.


    Cited in the assessment are the potential for contamination from existing
systems that may not have been designed or constructed according to present
requirements, improperly maintained systems, or even properly functioning
systems in-excessively-permeable soils. These concerns were identified by
numerous people statewide, particularly with respect to environmentally-
sensitive areas such as aquifer recharge areas and shorelines. The conversion
of seasonal cottages to year round use without septic system upgrading has
increased failures and nutrient loading to lakes and ponds.


    An assessment of the effectiveness of state subsurface regulations and
local soil-based lot size ordinances must be made.  The Ad Hoc Committee for
Soil-Based Lot Size Regulations has taken the lead on proposing revisions to
state regulations controlling subsurface treatment designs based on the review
of soils potential and suitability, siting, and operation of septic systems.
Completion and expansion of the committee's activities are needed.


    Local officials and homeowners need to be informed of the ramifications of
excessive nutrient loading from failed systems on surface waterbodies.
Increased technical and financial assistance for accelerating local health
ordinance development and more aggressive enforcement are needed.








                                    VI-26







 State Strategy


 1.  State regulations must be revised to include more stringent standards for
     the installation of septic systems in environmentally sensitive areas,
     including the watersheds of water supply reservoirs and in aquifer
     recharge areas. Recommended actions are:


     I- - Revise regulations relative to the installation of individual
          subsurface disposal systems (ISDS) in environmentally critical areas
          to require greater setback distances and depths to seasonally high
          groundwater and impervious material than currently required by the
          minimum standards.


      -    Revise the state's variance procedure to ensure compliance with the
           critical area provisions.


      I-   Evaluate staffing levels and available funding to cover
          administrative costs of permit reviews, site inspections, enforcement
           actions, and variance hearings.


 2.  Guidelines for the design andsifting of septic systems in highly permeable
      outwash soils must be developed to ensure that concentrations of nutrient
      and bacteriological contaminants do not exceed acceptable levels.
      Recommended actions are:


           Determine scientifically sound and defensible siting requirements and
           develop guidelines for acceptable septic system densities in areas of
           highly permeable outwash soils


      3  -    Support research investigating de-nitrifying septic systems.


  3.  Town health ordinances should be revised to require more stringent siting
      requirements, such as increased setbacks for ISDS in those sensitive areas
      not covered by the state regulation, Chapter WS l000 'Subdivision and
      Individual Sewage Disposal System Design Rules'.  Development of guidance
      materials for municipalities willing to adopt scientifically sound and
      defensible criteria will enhance implementation of this objective.
                                       VI-27


I~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 








4. Establish an educational program to improve septic system maintenance and
   management.  Recommended actions are:


         Provide technical assistance to towns in revising and/or adopting a
        model health ordinance.


         Prepare and distribute educational materials on ISDS maintenance for
         homeowners.


      -    Evaluate funding mechanisms to cover costs of materials and program
         administration.


5.  Evaluate alternatives for replacement of failed septic systems where
    existing conditions or substandard lot size prevent repairs in compliance
   with the regulations.


6.  Timely inspection of failed ISDS and initiation of enforcement proceedings
   must be assured. The need for a Memorandum of Agreement between the DES
    and the Department of Health and Human Services establishing
    responsibility for the investigation overflowing systems must be
    evaluated.  Consideration should be given to consolidating ISDS
    investigation and enforcement responsibilities with DES and providing the
    financial and staff resources needed to fulfill these responsibilities.





















                                    VI-28







       Proqram Action Plan


        1.  a.   Review and revise, where necessary, individual subsurface disposal
               system (ISDS) and industrial underground injection system (UIC) BMPs.
               Lead agency: OES-WSPCD.
               Cooperating agencies: NHSDIA, BIA.
               Funding sources: 205(j)(5), 319(h), 106(b), BIA.
               Needed funds: $10,000.
               Available funds: None.
               Schedule: 1992 (pending availability of funds).
               Milestones: Revised BMP'so
            - Potential alternative funding sources: New associated fee schedule.


          b.   Revise regulations relative to the installation of ISOS and UIC
               systems in environmentally critical areas to incorporate BMPs.
               Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
               Cooperating agencies: NHSDIA, BIA.
              Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)(5), 319(h), 106(b).
              Needed funds: $25,000.
              Available funds: None.
              Schedule: 1991 (pending availability of funds).
              Milestones: Revised regulations.
              Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.


         c.   Revise the state's variance procedure to ensure compliance with the
              critical area provisions.
              Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
              Cooperating agencies: NHSDIA, DSP.
              Funding sources: 205(j)(5), 319(h), State General Fund.
              Needed funds: $5,000.
              Available funds: None.
              Schedule: 1991 (pending availability of funds).
             Milestones: Revised procedural manual.
             Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.





                                         VI -29
I: 







    d.   Evaluate staffing levels and available funding to cover
         administrative costs of permit reviews, site inspections, enforcement
         actions, and variance hearings.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-Commissioner's Office.
         Funding sources: State General Fund.
         Needed funds: $5,000.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Completion of evaluation and summary report, August, 1990
         (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


2.  a.   Determine scientifically sound and defensible siting requirements and
         develop guidelines for acceptable septic system densities in areas of
         highly permeable outwash soils .
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: SCS, OSP, DH&HS, NHSDIA, Ad Hoc Committee.
         Funding sources: 205(j)5, 319(h).
         Needed funds: $10,000.
         Available funds: $10,000, 205(j)5.
         Schedule: 1990 (pending release of funds).
         Milestones: Siting requirements and guidelines.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


3.  a.   Develop guidance materials for municipal officials for the revision
         of town health ordinanaces to incorporate scientifically sound and
         defensible siting requirements not covered by the state regulations.
        Lead agency: OSP.
        Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, DH&HS.
         Funding sources: 319(h).
        Needed funds: $20,000.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: Development of guidance materials upon completion of
        Soil-Based Lot size study (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
        Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.
        Targeted Priority Waters: Beaver Brook Drainage.
                                    VI-30







         b.-  Support research investigating de-nitrifying septic systems.
              Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
               Cooperating agencies: UNH, NHSDIA, Ad Hoc Committee.
              Funding sources: WRRC, NHSDIA.
              Needed funds: $25,000 annually for four years.
              Available funds: None.
              Schedule: Ongoing 1990-1994 (pending availability of funds).
              Milestones: Research report.
               Potential alternative funding sources: NSF grants, other research
               grants.


     4.  a.   Provide technical assistance to towns in revising and/or adopting a
              model health ordinance for improved septic system maintenance and
              management.
               Lead agency: OSP.
               Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, SCS, DH&HS.
               Funding sources: 205(j)(1), 319.
               Needed funds: $12,000 annually for four years.
               Available funds: None.
               Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
-' ï¿½           Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
               Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.
               Targeted Priority Waters: Lake Winnipesaukee Drainage.


          b.   Prepare and distribute BMP-based educational materials on ISDS
               maintenance for homeowners, focusing on targeted waters.
               Lead agency: UNH-Coop. Ext.
               Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, NCRC&D, NHSDIA.
               Funding Sources: 319, UNH-Coop. Ext. ($500 for printing), NCRC&D
               ($500 audiovisual display).
               Needed funds: $1,200 annually for four years.
               Available funds: $1000.
               Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
               Milestones: Training for UNH Coop. Ext. staff, December 1989.
               Preparation of educational material,  January 1990.  Distribution of
               educational materials, ongoing pending availability of funds.
               Potential alternative funding sources: UNH-Coop. Ext., SCS.
                                           VI-31








    c.   Evaluate funding mechanisms to cover costs of materials and program
         administration.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD. 
         Cooperating agencies: NHASH, NHSDIA.
         Funding sources: 205(j)5, 319(h), NHASH, NH SDIA.
         Needed funds: $2,500.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: 1991 (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Complete evaluation.
         Potential alternative funding sources: To be investigated.


5.  a.   Evaluate alternatives for replacement of failed septic systems where
         existing conditions or substandard lot size prevent repairs in
         compliance with the regulations.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: NHSDIA.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)(5), 319(h), NHSDIA.
         Needed funds: $15,000 annually for two years.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: 1991-1992 (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Preparation of guidance document.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Charge for guidance document.
                                                                J

6.  a.   Evaluate the need for a Memorandum of Agreement between the DES and
        the Department of Health and Human Services establishing
         responsibility for the investigation overflowing systems in order to
        assure timely inspection of failed ISDS and initiation of enforcement
        proceedings.
        Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
        Cooperating agencies: DH&HS.
        Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)(5), 319(h).
        Needed funds: $1,500.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: 1990 (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Preparation of MOA (if necessary).
        Potential alternative funding sources: New associated fee.


                                    VI-32









                      Junkvards/Automobile Salvaqe Yards


Importance


    Junkyards were identified in the NPS Assessment Report as being of high
priority statewide.  Junkyards, auto salvage yards, and metal recycling
operations are potentially threatening to groundwater and surface water
through the introduction of toxic organics, metals, oil and grease.  Most of
the concerns in the past have focused on aesthetics and the illegal acceptance
and dismantling of stolen vehicles.


    The Department of Transportation (DOT) Bureau of Environment, through TRA
605 and RSA 236.90 - 110, has the jurisdiction and authority to regulate
junkyards to protect the public investment, safety and recreational use, and
preserve the natural beauty on interstate and federal primary aid highways.
Municipalities have jurisdiction over all other junkyards (RSA 236:111-129),
however, water quality degradation is not addressed by these statutes. It is
recommended that local officials exercise their authority under RSA
236:111-129 to either enact a junkyard regulation to address water quality
concerns in accordance with RSA 31:39 or have a town meeting vote.to enact an
ordinance.


    The Waste Management Division (DES) does not presently regulate junkyards
under the solid waste rules and little definitive information exists on the
location of these facilities. However, any source which violates water
quality standards is subject to enforcement by the WSPCD.  The potential water
quality impacts from junkyards are the result of the release of fluids such as
motor oil, brake and transmission fluid, anti-freeze, gasoline, battery fluid,
and solvents containing toxic organics, toxic metals, oil and grease.
Appropriate water quality-based siting regulations and BMPs need to be
developed, adopted, and implemented for such operations. A site inventory
needs to be assembled and facilities evaluated for NPS contributions.


    Potential funding sources to accomplish these objectives include: junk and
salvage yard, and metal recycling facility review and permitting fees; a
dedicated portion of existing automobile inspection fees and/or new-vehicle


                                     VI-33







registration fees for 'graveyard' expenses, including tires'and batteries;
and/or other fees.



State Strateqy


1.  a.   DES-WMD in cooperation with other state agencies must adopt and
         implement operational and siting criteria for junk and automobile
         yards and metal recycling operations. Recommended actions are
         outlined below.


    -    Develop a consensus definition of the operations to be regulated.


2.  a.   Prepare regulations for permitting and inspecting junk and salvage
         yards and metal recycling operations based on the following BMPs:


          - proper siting to avoid sensitive resource areas, including known or
             potential aquifers and surface water supply reservoirs;


          - release prevention through proper materials handling including
             containment, storage, and disposal; and,


          - control and treatment of site runoff and potential leachate.


3.  a.   Inventory existing facilities and identify sensitive water resource
         areas, with assistancesfrom communities, that should be excluded from
         any zoning district that allows automotive wrecking and salvage
         operations.


4.  a.   Bring existing facilities, as defined in the regulations, into
         compliance.


5.  a.   Determine the number and size of operations based on existing
         inventories and, if necessary, revise regulatory definition.






                                    VI-34








           Proqram Action Plan


           1.  a.   Develop a consensus definition of the operations to be regulated.
                    Lead agency: DES-WMD.
                    Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, OSP, DOT, DH&HS.
                    Funding sources: OSP-Water Protection Assistance Program, 205(j)(5),
                    319.
                    Needed funds: $5,000.
                    Available funds: None.
                    Schedule: Consensus definition, October 1, 1990 (pending availability
                    of funds).                                           -
                    Milestones: Pending availablity of funds.
                    Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


        ~b.   Develop junkyards, salvage yard, and metal recycling BMPs.
                    Lead agency: DES-WMD
                    Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, DOT
                    Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
                    Needed funds: $7,500.
                    Available funds: None.
                    State Program-Schedule: Development of BMPs, February 1991 (pending
                    availability of funds).
                    Milestones: Pending availability'of funds.
                    Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


           2.  a.   Prepare regulations for permitting and inspecting junk and salvage
                    yards and metal recycling operations based on BMPs.
                    Lead agency: DES-WMD
                    Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, DOT
                    Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
                    Needed funds: $5,000.
                    Available funds: None.
                    State Program-Schedule: Development of regulations, February 1991
                    (pending availability-of funds).
                    Milestones: pending availability of funds.
                    Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


                                                 VI-35

I                  i







3.  a.   Inventory existing facilities and identify sensitive water resource
         areas that should be excluded from any zoning district that allows
         automotive wrecking and salvage operations. Prepare base maps using
         GIS.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD  : 
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WMD, DOT, community officials 
         Funding sources: 205(j)5, 319(h)
         Needed funds: $25,000 annually for three years.   -
         Available funds: $25,000.
         Schedule: Initiate inventory, January 1990.  Complete inventory, 
         1993 (pending availability of funds).   -
         Milestones: Develop criteria for inventory, February 1990.  Survey
         existing interagency site information, May 1990. Add to NPS database,
         June, 1990. Plot sites inventoried and initiate digitizing, September
         1990.
         Potential alternative funding sources: New associated fee schedules.


4.  a.   Bring existing facilities, as defined in guidelines, into compliance.
         Lead agency: DES-WMD.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, DOT.
         Funding sources: State General Fund.
         Needed funds: $100.000 first year. $250,000 successive years
         (depending on number of facilities needing tracking).
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: New associated fee schedules















                                    VI-36







5.  a.   Determine the number and size of operations based on the inventory
        and, if necessary, revise regulatory definition.
         Lead agency: DES-WMD.
        Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, DOT.
         Funding sources: State General Fund.
        Needed funds: $5,000 for one year.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule:  To be determined upon completion of the inventory (pending
         availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: New associated fee schedules.







































                                     VI-37







                                 Urban Runoff


Importance


    Table 6 identifies a number of potential contaminants that may result from
stormwater runoff in urbanized areas.  Control methods used to address this
problem in New Hampshire are predominantly preventive through the requirements
of the 149:8-a permitting process during new construction.  As part of that
program, best management practices are encouraged prior to development.
Anyone who wishes to disturb an area greater than 100,000 square feet, or
areas that are adjacent to surface waters, must obtain a RSA 149:8-a permit
(also called a Significant Alteration of Terrain Permit).



                                    TABLE 6
    RANGE OF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOUND IN STORM GENERATED DISCHARGES*

    Parameter                                       Range
    BOO5                                          1 - 700 mg/i
    COD                                          5 - 3100 mg/il
    Total Suspended Solids                      2 - 11300 mg/I
    Volatile Suspended Solids                   12 - 1600 mg/i
    Total Solids                              450 - 14600 mg/i
    Organic N                                    0;l - 16 mg/l
    NH3-N                                       0.1 - 2.5 mg/l
    Soluble P04                                  0.1 - 10 mg/i
    Total P04                                   Ool - 125 mg/l
    Chlorides                                   2 - 25000 mg/1
    Oils                                          0 - 110 mg/i
    Phenols                                       0 - 0.2 mg/i
    Lead                                          0 - 1.9 mg/i
    Total Coliforms (No./100 ml)               200 - 146 x 106
    Fecal Coliform (No./100 ml)                 55 - 112 x 106
    Fecal Strep (No./100 ml)                   200 - 1.2 x 106

*from "Characteristics of Urban Stormwater," EPA, February, 1973.

    In New Hampshire, a significant amount of urban runoff is collected in
combined sewers. However, once the runoff is collected and enters the
municipal stormwater system, it becomes a point source. As a point source,
the control is through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), administered through the WSPCD Permits and Compliance Section.



                                     VI-38







          Stormwater runoff in urbanized areas is not well documented in New
      Hampshire. Lack of storm event sampling, except for studies in Concord and
      Durham, has hampered assessment of this NPS problem.  The major BMP's used to
      control urban runoff include sedimentation basins and treatment swales.  The
      current control program is largely preventative in approach, relying on the
      significant alteration of the terrain (RSA 149:8-a). permit process which
      emphasizes control of erosion and sedimentation.  Further investigation is
      necessary to determine the -significance of stormwater and urban runoff and
      additional BMP's need to be identified for control of bacteria, nutrients,
      organic solvents, oils, and suspended solids.  A stormwater management manual
      covering state policy and BMP's must be completed to improve control of this
      category of pollution.  In addition, public officials, developers, and the
      general public need to be made aware of the problems and solutions to control
      this nonpoint source category.


          Increased emphasis must be placed on revising our approach to stormwater
      management to prevent further water quality degradation. The incorporation of
      runoff control measures during planning and design is far more cost efficient
      than remediation.  Where site design techniques and non-structural stormwater
      management practices are not adequate to prevent discharge of untreated
      runoff, structural alternatives need to be employed.  To reduce urban runoff
      several measures should be considered:


          -Limit impervious area wherever possible.


          -Avoid siting in sensitive areas, such as groundwater aquifer recharge
      areas or secondary recharge zones, impermeable soils, or sensitive surface
      w aters.


3  -       -Design drainage so that as much runoff as possible infiltrates on site.
      This can be achieved by directing runoff to buffer strips, vegetated islands
      or infiltration basins, and by using permeable pavement.:- Catch basins,
      detention/retention ponds, vegetated swales, and other structures may be
      appropriate.  Oil-water separators may be used in catch basins, if maintenance
      can be assured.



                                           VI-39
U~                      







    -Since most of the pollutant load is bound up with solids, sweeping can
remove some contaminants bound to particulates, though vacuuming has been
found to be much more effective than sweeping.  Surfaces should also be kept
free of trash, leaves, etc.  Removing sediments from roads can remove the bulk
of the pollutant load depending on the efficiency of sediment removal.


    -Avoid curbed drainage-wherever possible and insure untreated stormwater
runoff i-s not discharged directly to surface waterbodies.


    -Any measures ieducing traffic volume or road dimensions are useful (for
instance, cluster development minimizes road legnth and the distance each
driver has to travel, reducing the effective volume).


    -Detention/retention ponds and constructed wetlands remove most sediments,
metals, and phosphorus from runoff. On-site infiltration helps recharge
groundwater and reduce peak flood levels, soils may additionally remove part
of the pollutant load.


State Strategy


1.  Urban development must incorporate site designs which control the rate and
    volume of runoff generated and promote overland flow and infiltration
    runoff.  Recommended actions are:


         Municipalities should evaluate -local subdivision and site plan review
         requirements which potentially conflict with these objectives (for
         example, curb and gutter or road width requirements, restrictions on
         use of cluster development) and revise where necessary.


         To assist municipalities, technical assistance materials and training
         should be prepared and distributed to local officials, planning and
         zoning boards and conservation commissions.







                                    VI-40







         State and regional public outreach programs should prepare public
         education materials explaining the water quality benefits of various
         site design features.


2.  State regulatory programs must be revised to include water quality
    requirements for stormwater runoff.  Stormwater management procedures and
    technical guidelines must be developed and should be used as the basis for
    these regulatory revisions.  The relevant programs include Wetlands, Water
    Quality Certification, Site Specific, and Coastal Zone Management.
    Recommended actions are:


    -    Technical guidelines for stormwater management measures providing
         flood control and water quality control benefits must be developed
         and should be incorporated into an Erosion Control and Stormwater
         Management Manual.


    -    Establish stormwater quality requirements within existing regulatory
         programs and/or as a new regulations must be developed. The land
         uses and activities to be included under the water quality
         requirements and specific best management practices applicable to
         each must be defined.


    -    The regulatory program(s) most appropriate for implementation of
         these best management practices must be identified.  Subsequently,
         the regulations must be revised or established.


     -    Staffing levels and funding mechanism to cover program administration
         costs (permit review, site inspections and enforcement actions) must
         be provided.


3. Municipalities should adopt stormwater management requirements as part of
    local subdivision and site plan review requirements.  Recommended actions
    are:


    I ;  -    State and regional public outreach programs must provide technical
         assistance to communities in adopting stormwater management


                                     VI-41







         requirements as part of the subdivision or zoning regulations.
         Workshops focusing on the use of technical guidelines or other
         materials for implementation of stormwater management requirements
         (e.g. review of site plans and proper installation, maintenance and
         inspection of measures) should-be conducted.


         Proviae technical assistance to local public works officials in
         establishing and administering town-wide stormwater management
         maintenance programs.


         Towns, with assistance from the NH Municipal and Road Agent
         associations, should evaluate funding mechanisms to cover costs of
         program administration.


         Public education materials describing the need for stormwater
         management measures to minimize downstream flooding and water quality
         degradation should be prepared and presented to municipal officials.


4.  Maintenance of stormwater management measures must be achieved in a timely
   manner. Recommended actions are:


    -    Develop and establish maintenance procedures, such as
         performance-based criteria, for stormwater management structures.


    -    Establish permit conditions which clearly state the permittee is
         responsible for maintenance of all permanent stormwater control
        measures during construction.


    -    Include the applicable maintenance criteria or schedule and a
         sediment disposal plan as conditions of the permit.


         Prepare, publish, and distribute guidance materials for use by state
         and local regulators.






                                    VI-42







        5ï¿½_ Standardized and upgraded procedures for site inspection and enforcement
            of stormwater management requirements must be developed and adopted.
            Recommended actions are:


            -    Development of standardized procedures for site inspection and
                 enforcement action pertaining to stormwater control measures and the
                 preparation of a stormwater management inspection check list for use
                 by state and local officials.


            -    Identify existing stormwater management systems and establish a
                 computerized permit tracking system to identify required inspection
                 sites, identify sites located in sensitive areas, and to record the
                 total acres of wetlands lost or restored on a statewide basis.


        6. Efforts to provide timely and routine inspection of stormwater control
            measures must be strengthened.  Establishment of regional compliance
            inspection programs are proposed as a cost effective way to ensure routine
            site inspection and compliance with local requirements for erosion and
          I  sedimentation control and stormwater management.  The respective local
            authorities would be notified of permit violations observed and would
            maintain responsibility for taking the necessary enforcement action.


       7.  Coordination between state and local regulatory agencies must be
            strengthened to ensure compliance with applicable permit conditions.


       8.  State and local stormwater management maintenance programs should be
            established/strengthened to include state or town-owned facilities and
            those facilities where the state or town has assumed maintenance
            responsibilities.


        9.  Implement and evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater management measures
            in removing pollutants and revise BMP's, if necessary.







                                             VI-43
::I







-10. Promote regional stormwater management planning. Any efforts involving
    state roads and associated drainage systems must include DOT. Recommended
    actions are:


         Encourage/support regional stormwater management or watershed
         planning through technical assistance programs, such as OSP's and
         SCS's existing technical assistance efforts and any new efforts
         initiated to provide assistance to municipalities in developing their
         municipal master plans.


         State and local regulatory agencies should support coordination of
         stormwater management planning on concurrent development projects
         within the same hydrologic unit through the permit review process.


         Municipalities should consider purchasing necessary maintenance
         equipment jointly and allocating special funds to finance additional
         staff and equipment needed to maintain stormwater management
         facilities.


I1. Additions to existing drainage networks must not overload the system's
    capacity.


12. Additions of untreated stormwater runoff to town or state drainage
    networks discharging directly to surface waters must be prohibited.


13. The design, location, and construction of highways and roadways must be
    done in a manner to minimize long-term water quality impacts and protect
    environmentally sensitive areas. The construction of new highways should
    be undertaken in accordance with best management practices.


.14. Retrofit, on a prioritized basis, storm sewers contributing to impaired
    ï¿½water quality conditions or threatening high quality waters as funds
    become available. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policy regarding
    the use of federal highway funds or use of matching funds in retrofitting
    highways to consider nonpoint source pollution control needs is a
    significant issue in considering retrofits to state roads.


                                     VI-44








   As FHWA policy is a matter of national significance, the US EPA should
   take the lead in investigating the extent to which federal requirements
   limit the use of federal funds for these purposes. At the state level,
   the following actions are recommended:


      -    Incorporate water quality enhancing drainage retrofits as part of
        highway/roadway upgrades and new projects in the watersheds of water
        supply reservoirs, other high quality waters, and waters impaired due
        to highway runoff.


    -    DOT should evaluate state and relevant federal policy regarding the
         use of state matching funds and federal highway funds to finance
        highway drainage retrofits and maintenance of highway best management
         practices.


15. The role of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program in
    regulating urban stormwater runoff discharges or storm sewers must be
    evaluated. Once final regulations have been established by the US EPA,
    DES-WSPCD must undertake this evaluation.


16. Reduce the quantity of waste oil improperly disposed of through increased
    support of waste oil recycling and public education programs.


17. Reduce the amount of fertilizers and pesticides applied to lawns and
    recreational areas, such as parks and golf courses through environmentally
    sound lawn care practices. Recommended actions are:


      -    Promote the UNH Analytical Laboratory's Soil Testing Services and
         UNH-Coop. Ext. Pesticides-Soils computer data-base program.


      -    Establish and evaluate mandatory vegetated buffer requirements in
        sensitive/critical areas through existing regulatory programs.


        Research the transport  of fertilizer and pesticides from turf via
         overland flow and/or groundwater leachate under varying application
         and irrigation regimes and use the results to update guidelines for
         fertilizer and pesticide use.
                                     VI-45









         Develop and promulgate guidelines for use of fertilizers, pesticides,
         and other chemicals by owners and lawn care companies on lawns
         located in environmentally sensitive or critical areas.


      -    Demonstrate and promote alternate landscaping and site vegetation
         (i.e. borders, ground cover, mulches, trees and shrubs) that are
         aesthetically pleasing yet less demanding in inputs of time,
         fertilizer, water and pesticides.


      -    Prepare and distribute educational materials describing the
        guidelines for fertilizer and pesticide use and alternative
         landscaping and vegetation types.


18. State agencies should maintain detailed records on herbicide/pesticide use
    on all state property, including freshwater lakes and ponds. The recorded
    information should include the compound(s), concentration, volume,
   applicators), method of application, purpose, location, and date. All
   pesticide/herbicide records should be stored in the Pesticide Control
   Board's computer file. Consideration should be given to revising the
   state's pesticide regulations to require that commercial and private
   applicators submit records to the Department of Agriculture Pesticide
    Control Board on use of both general and restricted use pesticides.






















                                    VI-46








Proqram Action Plan


.lo  a.   Assist municipalities in the evaluation and revision, where
        necessary, of local ordinances and/or regulations which potentially
         conflict with the objectives of controlling volumes and rates runoff
         and promoting overland flow and infiltration (for example, curb and
         gutter or road width requirements, restrictions on use of cluster
         development).
         Lead Agency: OSP.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, SCSo
        Funding sources: 319.
         Needed funds: $12,000 annually for four years.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.
         Targeted priority waters: Coastal Drainage.


   b.   Prepare and distribute educational materials explaining water quality
         benefits of various site design features and provide technical
         assistance and training to local officials, planning boards, zoning
        boards of adjustment, and conservation commissions.
         Lead Agency: NHACD.
        Cooperating agencies: OSP, DES-WSPCD, SCS, UNH-Coop. Ext.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
         Needed funds: $12,000 annually for four years.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Initiate program April l, 1990 (pending availability of
         funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Educational materials fees.








2.  a.   Develop technical guidelines for stormwater management measures
         providing runoff control and water quality control benefits and
         incorporate the guidelines developed into a Erosion Control and
         Stormwater Management Manual.
         Lead Agency: DES-WSPCO.
         Cooperating agencies: None.
         Funding sources: State General Fund.
         Needed funds: $5,000.
        Available funds: $5,000.
         Schedule: Completion of manual, March 31, 1990.
         Milestones: In progress.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


    b.   Establish stormwater quality requirements within existing regulatory
         programs and/or as a new regulations and identify the regulatory
         program(s) most appropriate for implementation of these best
         management practices.
         Lead Agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: None.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
         Needed funds: $20,000.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Establish stormwater requirements, August, 1990 (pending
         availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.
















                                     VI-48









   c.   Evaluate staffing levels and funding mechanism to cover program
        administration costs (permit review, site inspections and enforcement
        actions).
        Lead agency: OES-WSPCD.
        Cooperating agencies: None.
        Funding sources: State General Fund.
        Needed funds: $5,000.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Completion of evaluation and summary report, August, 1990
         (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
        Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


3.  a.   Provide technical assistance to communities in adopting stormwater
        management requirements as part of the local subdivision and site
         plan review regulations (e.g. draft model erosion and sediment
         control and stormwater management requirements).
         Lead agency: OSP,
         Cooperating agencies: NHACD, DES-WSPCD, SCS.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
         Needed funds: $120,000 annually for four years.
         Available funds: $50,000, State General Fund.
                                                                    I
         Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.
         Targeted priority waters: Great Bay Drainage.

















                                     VI-49







b.   Provide technical assistance to local public works officials in
     establishing and administering town-wide stormwater
    management/maintenance programs.
     Lead agency: NHACD.
     Cooperating agencies: OSP, DES-WSPCD, SCS.
    Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
    Needed funds: $12,000 annually for four years.
    Available funds: None.
    Schedule: Initiate program September 1, 1990 (pending availability
    of funds).
    Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
    Potential alternative funding sources: Fee-for-service basis.
    Targeted priority waters: Nashua River Drainage.


co   Assist municipal officials in evaluating funding mechanisms to cover
    costs of program administration.
    Lead agency: NH Municipal and Road Agents associations.
    Cooperating agencies: NHACD, OSP.
    Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5.
    Needed funds: $12,000 annually for four years.
    Available funds: None. 
    Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
    Milestones: Pending availability of funds. 
    Potential alternativefunding sources: Fee-for-service basis.



















                                VI-so








   d.   Develop and conduct an educational program of workshops targeting
        municipal officials describing the need for stormwater management
        measures to minimize downstream flooding and water quality
        degradation.
         Lead agency: NHACD.
        Cooperating agencies: SCS, UNH-Coop. Ext., DES-WSPCD, DOT, NH
        Municipal and Road Agents Associations.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
        Needed funds: $12,000 annually for four years.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: Initiate program September 1, 1990 (pending availability of
        funds).
        Milestones: Initiate workshops November 1, 1990 (pending availability
         of funds).
         Potential alternative funding sources: Workshop attendance fees,
        educational materials fees.


4.  a.   Develop and establish maintenance procedures, such as
         performance-based criteria, for stormwater management structures.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: SCS.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
         Needed funds: $2,500.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Establish maintenance procedures, July 1990 (pending
         availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.














                                     VI-51







    b.   Establish state 149:8-a permit conditions which clearly state the
         permittee is responsible for maintenance of all permanent stormwater
         control measures during construction.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: None.
         Funding sources: State General Fund.
         Needed funds: None.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Establishment of permit conditions, June 30, 1990.
         Milestones: In progress.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


    c.   Prepare, publish, and distribute stormwater management guidance
        materials for use by state and local regulators.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: OSP, SCS,'UNH-Coop. Ext., NHACD.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
         Needed funds: $12,000.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Distribution of guidance, August 1991 (pending availability
         of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


5.  a.   Develop standardized procedures for site inspection and enforcement
         action pertaining to stormwater control measures and prepare a
         stormwater management inspection check list for use by state and
         local officials.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: None.
        Funding sources: State General Fund.
        Needed funds: None.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: Completion of standardized procedures and an inspection
        check list, June 30, 1990.
        Milestones: In progress.
        Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.
                                    VI-52








            b.   Establish a computerized permit tracking system to periodically
                 identify required inspection sites, identify sites located in
                 sensitive areas, and record the total acres of wetlands lost or
                 restored on a statewide basis.
                 Lead agency: DES.
                 Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, DES-Commissioners Office, DES-WRD.-
                 Funding sources: 319.
                 Needed funds: $50,000 initially, $12,000 annually after set-up.
                 Available funds: None.
                 Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
                 Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
                 Potential alternative funding sources: Wetlands application fees.


        6.  a.   Communicate to state official's the need for substantially more
                 inspection and enforcement presence where stormwater maintenance
                 systems potentially impact sensitive waterbodies and encourage
                 establishment of regional compliance inspection programs.
                 Lead agency: DES.
                 Cooperating agencies: None.
                 Funding sources: None.
                 Needed funding: None.
                 Available funding: None.
                 Schedule: On-goilng
                 Milestones:
                 Potential alternative funding sources: None Proposed.


            be   Provide technical assistance for inspection and enforcement of local
                 requirements for erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater
                 management.
                 Lead agency: NHACD.
                 Cooperating agencies: OSP, DES-WSPCD, RPA, towns.
                 Funding sources: 319.
                 Needed funding: $60,000 annually for four years.
                 Available funding: None.
                 Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
                 Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
                 Potential alternative funding sources: Fee-for-service basis.
                                              VI-53
I :Vj:                                                  








    c.   Prioritize those waters identified in the 'List of High Priority 
         Surface Waters' for special inspection and enforcement attention.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: None.
         Funding sources: 205(j)5, 319.-
         Needed funding: $12,000.
         Available funding: None.                                    -
         Schedule: List of high priority surface waters, September 1990
         (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds-
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


    d.   Ongoing or contained elsewhere in plan.


97.      Strengthen coordination between state and local regulatory agencies
         to ensure compliance with applicable permit conditions.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: OSP, NHACD, RPA's, towns.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
         Needed funding: $30,000 annually for four years.
         Available funding: None.
         Schedule: Provide for one full-time staff position, 1991 (pending
         availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: New fees.


















                                     VI-54








  8.     Establish a stormwater management maintenance program to include
         state owned facilities and those facilities where the state has
        assumed maintenance responsibilities.
         Lead agency: DOT.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, road use fees.
        Needed funds: $150,000 annually for three years.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: 1993 (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Provide statewide program.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Increase tolls.


9.  a.   Implement and evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater management
        measures (BMPs) in removing pollutants and revise, if necessary.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD
         Cooperating agencies: SCS, DOT, UNH, WRRC.
         Funding sources: 205(j)(5), 319(h), WRRC.
         Needed funds: $50,000 annually for three years.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Initiate 1991 (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Final Report on stormwater BMP effectiveness.
         Potential alternative funding sources: EPA discretionary grant.


10. a.   Ongoing or contained elsewhere in Plan.


   b.   Support coordination of stormwater management planning on concurrent
         development projects within the same hydrologic unit through the
         permit review process.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: NHACD, RPA, OSP, DES-WRD.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 319.
        Needed funds: $35,000.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: 1993 (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Provide funding for necessary staff.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


                                     VI-55








11.      Provide technical assistance to municipalities in order to ensure
         that additions to existing drainage networks do not overload the
         system's capacity.
         Lead agency: NHACD.
         Cooperating agencies: SCS, DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 205(j)5, 319.
         Needed funds: $12,000 annually for four years.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Initiate program September 1, 1990 (pending availability of
         funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Fee-for-service basis.


12.      Evaluate and establish state policy prohibiting additions of
         untreated stormwater runoff to town or state drainage networks
         discharging directly to surface waters.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: DOT.
         Funding sources: State General Fund.
         Needed funds: $5,000.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Promulgation of rules, September 1990 (pending availability
         of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Impact fees.


13.      On going or contained elsewhere in Plan.
















                                    VI-56







14. a.   Incorporate water quality enhancing drainage retrofits as part of
         highway/roadway upgrades and new projects in the watersheds of water
         supply reservoirs, other high quality waters, and waters impaired due
        to highway runoff.
         Lead agency: DOT.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: Unreported.
         Needed funds: Unreported.
         Available funds: Unreported.
         Schedule: Unreported.
         Milestones: Unreported.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Unreported.


    b.   Evaluate state and relevant federal policy regarding the use of state
         matching funds and federal highway funds to finance highway drainage
         retrofits and maintenance of highway best management practices.
        Lead agency: DOT.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: Unreported.
         Needed funds: Unreported.
         Available funds: Unreported.
         Schedule: Unreported.
         Milestones: Unreported.
        Potential alternative funding sources: Unreported.


15. a.   Evaluate the role of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
      System Program in regulating urban stormwater runoff discharges or
         storm sewers.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: EPA.
         Funding sources: None.
         Needed funds: $60,000.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Invocation of NPDES controls, 1991 (pending availability of
         funds).
         Milestones: Pending budget development.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.







16. a.   Prepare, publish, and distribute educational materials on waste oil
         recovery and recycling to the public.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: Governor's Energy Office, OSP.
         Funding sources: Governor's Energy Office grant.
         Needed funds: $2,500.
        Available funds: $2,500.
         Schedule: January, 1990.
        Milestones: Completion of brochure.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


17. a.   Promote the UNH Analytical Laboratory's Soil Testing Services and
         UNH-Coop. Ext. Pesticides-Soils computer data-base program for
         evaluation of fertilizer and pesticide application to lawns and
         recreational areas.
         Lead agency: UNH-Coop. Ext.
        Cooperating agencies: SCS, DES-WSPCD, NHACD, NHDA, ASCS.
        Funding sources: USDA and State Extension funds, 205(j)(5), 319.
        Needed funds: $2,500 for six months over and above existing funding.
        Available Funds: $6000 FY89, UNH-Coop. Ext.
        Schedule: Ongoing.
        Milestones: Begin using data base on consulting basis, January,
        1990. Preparation of publications, December 1990.
         Potential alternative funding sources: UNH-Coop. Ext., SCS grants.


   b.   Establish and evaluate mandatory vegetated buffer requirements in
        sensitive/critical areas through existing regulatory programs.
        Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
        Cooperating agencies: OSP, NHDA, SCS, UNH-Coop. Ext.
        Funding sources: 205(j)(5), 319(h).
        Needed funds: $20,000 annually for three years.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: Evaluation report, August 1991 (pending availability of
        funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
        Potential alternative funding sources: Landowner incentive program.


                                    VI-58








c.   Research available information regarding the transport of fertilizer
     and pesticides from turf via overland flow and/or groundwater
     leachate under varying application and irrigation regimes and update
     the guidelines for fertilizer and pesticides use.
     Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
     Cooperating agencies: UNH, SCS, UNH-Coop..-Ext., NHOA.
     Funding sources: 106(b), 319.
     Needed funds: $15,000 annually for two years.
     Available funds: None.
     Schedule: Summary report of findings, 1993 (pending availability of
     funds).
     Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
     Potential alternative funding sources: ASCS.


d.   Develop and promulgate guidelines for use of fertilizers and
     pesticides by owners and lawn care companies on lawns located in
     environmentally sensitive or critical areas.
     Lead agency: NHDA.
     Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD.
     Funding sources: 205(j)(5), 319(h).
     Needed funds: $20,000.
     Available funds: None.
     Schedule: 1990 (pending availability of funds).
     Milestones: Guidance on fertilizer and pesticide use.
     Potential alternative funding sources: Associated product surcharge.


















                                 VI-59
    I.~~~~~~~~~~~  








    e.   Demonstrate alternate landscaping and-site vegetation (i.e. borders,
         ground cover, mulches, trees and shrubs) and prepare and distribute
         educational materials targeting homeowners, contractors, and
         nurserymen.
         Lead agency: UNH-Coop. Ext.
         Cooperating agencies: SCS, NHACD, County agricultural agents.
         Funding sources: UNH-Coop. Ext., SCS grants, 319.
         Needed funds: $10,000 annually for two years.
        Available funds: None; 
         Schedule: Establishment of one demonstration site, September 1990.
         Establishment of three demonstration site, September 1991.
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential 'alternative funding sources: None proposed.


18. a.   Review and revise, if necessary, the state's pesticide regulations to
         require that commercial and private applicators submit records to the
         Pesticides Control Board on use of both general and restricted use
        pesticides.
         Lead agency: NHDA.
        Cooperating agencies: None.
        Funding sources: State General Fund.
        Needed funds: $10,000.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: 1991 (pending availability of staff and funds).
        Milestones: Revised regulations.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Increased fees for licensed
        applicators.















                                    VI-60







b.   Develop and maintain computerized tracking system on the compound(s),
     concentration, volume, applicator(s), method of application, purpose,
     location, and date.
    Lead agency: NHDA.
    Cooperating agencies: None.
    Funding sources: State General Fund, 319.
    Needed funds: $30,000 annually.
    Available funds: Unreported.
    Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds),
    Milestones:
    Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.







































                              VI-6I







                           Land Disposal of Sludqe


Importance


    The NPS Assessment Report cited nonpoint source pollution resulting from
the land disposal of sludge as being of moderate significance statewide.
Future disposal, however, was expressed as being of great concern and
potential significance. Nonpoint source pollutants that are associated with
improper management and disposal practices of sludge include nutrients,
pathogens, heavy metals, salts, and toxic organics from commercial and
industrial wastes.


    Sludge from wastewater facilities is currently classified as a solid waste
in New Hampshire. However the disposal of sludge comes under the joint
authority of the Waste Management Division and the WSPCD due to groundwater
permit requirements, generation at WSPCD - regulated wastewater treatment
facilities, etc. A recent report Sludge and Septaqe Management in New
Hampshire - A Report and Action Plan, March 1989, recommends that lead agency
responsibility be shifted from the Waste Management Division to WS&PCD.


    Disposal options include co-disposal at landfills, monofills, land
application to agricultural or forest lands, composting, and incineration.
Currently, sixty percent of the total sludge generated presently goes directly
to landfills with no attempt to utilize nutrient value. Twenty-seven percent
of the states' sludge is incinerated at two facilities, with the ash being
disposed at local landfills.


    Landfill disposal of residues is an option that is becoming obsolete as
existing municipal landfills are being phased out. Properly managed
composting facilities and land application sites are options that are
encouraged under guidelines developed by the Waste Management Division and
WSPCD. Most land application of sites for sludge in New Hampshire have been
crop and hay land. As previously mentioned, the number of farms in the state
is decreasing, thus reducing usable agricultural-land application sites.





                                    VI-62








           Sludge disposal is-a significant problem statewide and solutions are
       needed before it becomes a crisis situation. New utilization options, such as
       forest application and co-composting of sludge and septage, must be explored
       and supported in order to develop BMP's for such activities.


       State Strategy


      - I.  Establish legislation to bring sludge regulation under the control of
           WSPCD, except where disposed at landfills.


      2.  Promulgate new rules to provide for implementation of sludge program
           requirements.


       3.  Establish new permit system for sludge utilization/disposal sites as per
           Section 405 requirements of the Clean Water Act and new state rules.


      4.o Provide funding to assist municipalities in upgrading existing sludge
           handling and disposal equipment and for new sludge disposal facilities.


       5.  Develop BMPs and revised guidance for sludge disposal/utilization
           options.  Revise applications to conform with new rules and revised
           guidance.


       6.  Provide funding for regional solutions for sludge disposal.


       1  7.  Identify and prioritize problem sludge disposal areas in the state; take
           appropriate abatement actions.


       8.  Require sludge volume tracking and annual reporting by facility operators
           as well as sludge quality testing.


3       9.  Expand sludge management program to include industrial sludges.


       10. Review existing sludge disposal/utilization practices to conform with
           Section 405 of the CWA and state requirements (wellhead protection,
           groundwater permitting, pathogen controls, etc.).


                                            VI-63








Program Action Plan


1.  Establish legislation to bring sludge regulation under the control of
    WS&PCD, except where disposed at landfills.
    Lead agency: DES.
    Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, WMO, NHWPCA.
    Funding sources: None.
    Needed funding: None.
    Available funding: None.
    Schedule: Legislative action 1990 session.
    Milestones: If legislation passes, effective spring/summer 1990.
    Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


2.  Promulgate new rules to provide for implementation of sludge program
    requirements.
    Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
    Cooperating agencies: DES-WMD, NHWPCA.
    Funding sources: State General Fund, 604(b).
    Needed funding: $5,000.
    Available funding: $5,000, 604(b).
    Schedule: Initiate immediately following enabling legislation.
    Milestones: New rules within six months.
    Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposed legislation.


3.  Establish new permit system for sludge utilization disposal sites as per
    Section 503 requirements of the Clean Water Act and new state rules.
    Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
    Cooperating agencies: NHWPCA.
   Funding sources: State General Fund, 604(b).
   Needed funding: $5,000.
   Available funding: $5,000, 604(b).
   Schedule: Initiate fall 1990. 
   Milestones: New permit system by end of 1990.
   Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposed legislation.





                                    VI-64








4.  Provide funding to assist municipalities in upgrading existing sludge
    handling and disposal equipment and for new sludge disposal facilities.
    Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
    Cooperating agencies: Regional planning agencies, NHWPCAo
    Funding sources: State Revolving Fund, 319.
    Needed funding: Estimate $50M statewide.
    Available funding: Depends on priority hearing for State Revolving Fund,
    pending availability of Section 319 funds.
    Schedule: Depends on funding availability.
   Milestones: Provide equipment based on priority needs, matching funds.
    Potential alternative funding sources: Dedicated fee for new regional
    solutions, such as disposal fee.


5. Develop BMPs and revised guidance for sludge disposal /utilization
    options. Revise application forms to conform with new rules, revised
    guidance.
    Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
    Cooperating agencies: DES-WMD, NHWPCA.
    Funding sources: State General Fund, 604(b).
    Needed funding: $10,000.
    Available funding: $10,000, 604(b).
    Schedule: Initiate following promulgation of rules.
    Milestones: Initiate 1990.
    Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposed legislation.


6. Provide funding for regional solutions for sludge disposal.
    Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
    Cooperating agencies: Regional planning agencies, NHWPCAo
    Funding sources: State Revolving Fund, 319.
    Needed funding: Estimate $25M statewide.
    Available funding: Depends on priority hearing for State Revolving Fund,
    depends on availability of Section 319 funds.
    Schedule: Depends on funding availability, matching funds.
    Milestones: Provide facilities based on priority needs.
    Potential alternative funding sources: Dedicated fee for new regional
    solutions, such as disposal fee.


                                     VI-65








7. Identify and prioritize problem sludge disposal areas in the state; take
    appropriate abatement actions.
    Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
    Cooperating agencies: DES-WMD, NHWPCA.
    Funding sources: State General Fund, 604(b).
    Needed funding: $10,000.
    Available funding: $5,000, 604(b).
    Schedule: Initiate immediately following enabling legislation.
   Milestones: Prioritize sites by end of 1990.
    Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposed legislation.


8. Require sludge volume tracking and annual reporting by facility operators
    as well as sludge quality testing.
    Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
    Cooperating agencies: Facility operators, NHWPCA.
    Funding sources: 604(b).
    Needed funding: $5,000.
   Available funding: $5,000, 604(b).
    Schedule: Initiate immediately following development of rules.
   Milestones: Computerized tracking system by end of 1991.
    Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposed legislation.


9.  Expand sludge management program to include industrial sludges.
    Lead agency: DES-WSPCO.
    Cooperating agencies: DES-WMD, NHWPCA.
    Funding sources: 604(b).
   Needed funding: $20,000.
   Available funding: $20,000, 604(b).
    Schedule: Initiate in FY91.
   Milestones: Prioritize sites by end of 1991.
    Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposed legislation.









                                    VI-66








      10. Review existing sludge disposal/utilization practices to conform with
          Section 405 of the CWA and state requirements (wellhead protection,
          groundwater permitting, pathogen controls, etc.).
          Lead Agency: DES-WSPCO.
          Cooperating agencies: DES-WMD, NHWPCA.
          Funding sources: 604(b).
          Needed funding: $5,000.
          Available funding: $5,000, 604(b).
          Schedule: Initiate FY91.
          Milestones: Revise best management practices as necessary by end of 1991.
          Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposed legislation.











I



























     I                                       VI-67







                                   Septage


Importance


    The NPS Assessment Report cites a recent study entitled "Summary of
Regional Planning Agency Studies on Septage Problems and Recommendations for
Regionalization," (July 1988) which concludes that septage disposal is a major
statewide problem in need of a solution. Insufficient capacity at local
wastewater treatment facilities and closure of out-of-state facilities (which
historically handled 25% of New Hampshire's septage) is forcing more septage
to land-based solutions.  With an average annual increase in septage volume
estimated at 4 MG, it is estimated that by 1995 the volume of septage that
will require disposal will exceed 80 MG/year. New planning initiatives are
needed to address immediate and long term septage management needs, including
additional assessment of regional solutions.


    The septage pumped from septic tanks and holding tanks is currently
classified as a solid waste and so the disposal of it is regulated under the
authority of RSA 149-M. However the disposal of septage comes under the joint
authority of the Waste Management Division (WMD) and the WS&PCD due to
groundwater permit requirements, disposal at WSPCD-regulated wastewater
treatment facilities, etc. A recent report Sludge and Septage Management in
New HamDshire - A ReDort and Action Plan, March 1989, recommends that lead
agency responsibility be shifted from the WMD to WS&PCD.


    The contaminants and pollution pathways associated with improper disposal
of septage are similar to those previously mentioned for sludge, as are the
control methods.


State Strategy 


1. Establish legislation to bring septage regulation under the control of
   WSPCD except where disposed at landfills.






                                    VI-68








2. Promulgate new rules to provide for implementation of septage program
     requirements.


3. Establish new permit system for septage haulers and for
     disposal/utilization sites as per Section 503 requirements of the CWA and
     new state rules.


4.  Provide funding to assist wastewater treatment facilities in upgrading
     existing septage handling and dewatering equipment.


5. Provide funding for regional solutions for septage disposal; coordinate
     town efforts with regional efforts.


6. Identify and prioritize problem septage disposal areas in the state, take
     appropriate abatement actions.


7o  Require septage volume tracking and annual reporting by wastewater
     treatment facility operators as well as septage haulers.


8. Review existing septage disposal/utilization practices and BMPs to conform
     with Section 503 of the CWA and state requirements (wellhead protection,
     groundwater permitting, pathogen controls, etc.).


Program Action Plan


lo  Establish legislation to bring septage regulation under the control of
     WSPCD except where disposed at landfills.
     Lead agency: DES.
     Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, WMD, NHASH.
     Funding sources: None.
     Needed funding: None.
     Available funding: None.
     Schedule: Legislative action 1990 session.
     Milestones: If legislation passes, effective spring/summer 1990.
     Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.



                                         VI-69
       I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~








2.  Promulgate new rules to provide for implementation of septage program
    requirements.
    Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
    Cooperating agencies: DES-WMD, NHASH.
    Funding sources: State General Fund, 604(b).
    Needed funding: $10,00.
    Available funding: $5,000, 604(b).
    Schedule: Initiate immediately following enabling legislation.
    Milestones: New rules within six months.
    Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposed legislation.


3.  Establish new permit system for septage haulers and disposal/utilization
    sites as per Section 503 requirements of the CWA and new state rules.
    Lead agency: DES-WSPCO.
    Cooperating agencies: NHASH.
    Funding sources: State General Fund, 604(b).
    Needed funding: $10,000.
    Available funding: $5,000, 604(b).
    Schedule: Initiate fall 1990.
    Milestones: New permit system by end of 1990.
    Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposed legislation.


4.  Provide funding to assist wastewater treatment facilities in upgrading
    existing septage handling and dewatering equipment.
    Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
    Cooperating agencies: Facility operators.
    Funding sources: State Revolving Fund, 319.
    Needed funding: Estimate $5M statewide.
    Available funding: Depends on priority hearing for State Revolving Fund.
    Schedule: Depends on funding availability.
    Milestones: Upgrade facilities based on priority needs.
    Potential alternative funding sources: CWA Section 319.








                                    VI-70







          5.  Provide funding for regional solutions for septage disposal; coordinate
              town efforts with regional efforts.
              Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
              Cooperating agencies: Regional planning agencies, NHASH.
              Funding sources: State Revolving Fund, 319.
              Needed funding: Estimate $50M statewide.
              Available funding: Depends on priority hearing for State Revolving Fund,
              depends on availability of Section 319 funds.
              Schedule: Depends on funding availability, matching funds.
              Milestones: Provide facilities based on priority needs.
              Potential alternative funding sources: Dedicated fee for new regional
              solutions, such as pumpout fee.


          6.  Identify and prioritize problem septage disposal areas in the state, take
              appropriate abatement actions.
              Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
              Cooperating agencies: DES-WMD, NHASH.
               Funding sources: State General Fund, 604(b).
              Needed funding: $10,000.
              Available funding: $10,000, 604(b).
              Schedule: Initiate immediately following enabling legislation.
              Milestones: Prioritize sites by end of 1990.
               Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposed legislation.


          7. Require septage volume tracking and annual reporting by wastewater
              treatment facility operators as well as septage haulers.
               Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
               Cooperating agencies: Facility operators, NHASH.
               Funding sources: State General Fund, 604(b).
               Needed funding: $5,000.
               Available funding: $5,000, 604(b).
               Schedule: Initiate immediately following development of rules.
               Milestones: Computerized tracking system by end of 1991.
               Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposedlegislation.






I








8.  Review existing septage disposal/utilization practices and BMPs to conform
   with Section 503 of the CWA and state requirements (wellhead protection,
   groundwater permitting, pathogen controls, etc.).
   Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
   Cooperating agencies: Regional planning agencies, NHASH.
   Funding sources: State General Fund, 604(b)o
   Needed funding: $5,000.
   Available funding: $5,000, 604(b).
   Schedule: Initiate immediately following development of rules.
   Milestones: Revise best management practices as necessary by end of 1991.
   Potential alternative funding sources: Fee in proposed legislation.






































                                    VI-72







                                           Agriculture


          Importance


              Statistically, New Hampshire is not an agricultural state. Approximately
          8.2% of New Hampshire's total acreage is farmed.  Agriculture in the state has
          been declining steadily over the past 15 years. Since the completion of the
          1979 "Inventory of Potential Problem Sources: Agricultural Nonpoint Sources"
          there has been a 10.8% decline in the number of farms, and a general decline
    3:   in livestock numbers.  The only agricultural sectors which are expanding in
          New Hampshire are vegetable production, sheep husbandry, and nursery and
          greenhouse operations.  The increases in these areas are not compensating for
          losses in the other agricultural categories. The result is a net loss of
          agricultural land to development and idle land.


              Agriculture is not a significant statewide nonpoint source pollution
          problem in New Hampshire, as reported in the 1989 NPS Assessment.  However,
          there are agricultural activities that are, locally, nonpoint source threats
          and problems. The primary pollutants associated with these activities include
          nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, sediments, and organic matter.

              Manure management on dairy farms is of concern statewide.  Agricultural
          waste is a problem since many farmers do not have adequate manure storage
          structures.  Manure applied to cropland is often field stacked, spread daily,
          or spread on frozen ground. These practices can result in increased nutrient
          and bacterial levels in runoff which threaten receiving waters.  Further, milk
          house waste is often poorly managed and disposed of improperly. Animals
          allowed to roam freely into surface waters are an additional concern.


              Small-scale horse and livestock operations have also been identified as a
          potential NPS problem in rapidly growing areas of the state. In response to
          this concern, cooperating state and federal agencies have initiated an
          educational program targeting horse owners and small-farm owners highlighting
          BMPs and utilization alternatives for manure.  Limited staff resources have
   1I     been committed.  There is a need for additional financial resources for the
          program's successful promotion.


                                               VI-73

I :







    Several cooperating agencies are in place to provide assistance to the
farmer to cope with agricutural nonpoint source pollution. The State
Department of Agriculture provides regulatory control of marketing, weights
and measures, and pesticides. The UNH Cooperative Extension provides on-farm
assistance as well as training courses in the proper application of
pesticides. Other agencies offering educational, financial, and technical
assistance in the state include the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service and the Soil Conservation Service. In addition, farm
suppliers provide nutrient and pesticide management assistance. This
cooperative effort is evident in the Great Bay Water Quality Initiative which
is being implemented jointly by SCS, UNH-Cooperative Extension, ASCS, EPA, and
state and local agencies.  Great Bay Estuary, a highly valued ecological
system identified as threatened/impaired by NPS pollution in the Assessment
Report, was selected based on factors such as agriculturally related problems,
surface and groundwater effects, and feasibility of treatment.


    Continued technical, educational, and financial assistance to farmers
statewide to plan and apply conservation practices are needed. Farmers also
need to be made aware of water quality concerns relating to their activities.


State Strateav


1. Preparation and implementation of farm water quality management plans for
    all agricultural operations should be continued, with emphasis on
    agricultural operations located near sensitive receiving waters. As
    directed by USDA policy, the SCS must evaluate the groundwater
    implications of agricultural best management practices utilized in the
    state.


2. Sufficient state cost-share revenues should be made available to
    supplement federal cost-share funds to ensure that farmers are financially
    able to participate in appropriate agricultural pollution control
   programs. Additional funds should be provided to support agricultural
    soil erosion control, animal waste management, nutrient management, and
   aquifer protection measures.



                                    VI-74








3. An assessment should be undertaken to determine limitations or obstacles
    to implementation of agricultural nonpoint source pollution control
    measures. Issues to be addressed include:


    -    evaluate a financial mechanism to encourage farmers to set aside
         agricultural lands vulnerable to erosion and adjacent to sensitive
         surface waters or located in highly permeable soils overlying
         aquifers;


    -    whether a volunteer agricultural nonpoint source pollution control
         program is sufficient to address needs, even if sufficient funds were
         made available; and


    -    problems farmers have with implementing, operating, and maintaining
         particular practices or measures.


4.  State pesticide programs must ensure that pesticides are used in
    accordance with label directions and state regulations and/or guidelines.


5.  Identify and develop appropriate best management practices for pesticides
    and other chemical products that may be potential groundwater polluters.


6.  State must adopt-integrated pest management as a policy to reduce
    potential water resources contamination resulting from pesticide usage.


7.  Public awareness of the water quality concerns associated with pesticide
    use must be expanded. To further this objective, public education
    materials must be prepared and made available to consumers of
    "over-the-counter" pesticides.


8.  Implement and evaluate the effectivenesss of agricultural BMPs, especially
    near sensitive receiving waters, and revise, if necessary.








                                     VI-75








Program Action Plan 


1.  a.   Continue the preparation and implementation of farm water quality
        management plans for all agricultural operations with emphasis on
        agricultural operations located near sensitive receiving waters.
        Lead agency: NHDA.
        Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, SCS, UNH-Coop. Ext.
        Funding sources: 319(h), ASCS, UNH-Coop. Ext., local farmers.
        Needed funds: $100,000 annually for four years.
        Available funds: ASCS.
        Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: 100 farm plans per year (pending availability fo funds).
        Potential alternative funding sources: Land/crop tax incentive plan.
        Targeted priority waters: Mascoma River Drainage.


   b.   Evaluate the groundwater implications of  agricultural best manag ement
        practices utilized in the state.
        Lead agency: DES-WSPCO.
        Cooperating agencies: NHDA, SCS, ASCS.
        Funding sources: 319(i).
        Needed funds: $10,000.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: Report of findings, 1992 (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
        Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.



















                                    VI-76








2.  a.   Promote allocation of sufficient state cost-share revenues to
         supplement federal cost-share funds to ensure that farmers are
         financially able to participate in appropriate agricultural pollution
         control programs.
         Lead agency: NHDA.
         Cooperating agencies: NHACD, ASCS.
         Funding sources: State General Fund (pending legislative action).
        Needed funds: $1 M annually.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Pending drafting and approval of legislation.
        Milestones: Development of program to provide enhanced state
         cost-sharing.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


    b.   Seek state funding to support agricultural soil erosion control and
         aquifer protection measures.
         Lead agency: OES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: NHDA.
         Funding sources: 319(h).
        Needed funds: $10,000.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Report of findings, 1992 (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.


3.  a.   Evaluate a financial mechanism to encourage farmers to set aside
         agricultural lands vulnerable to erosion and adjacent to sensitive
         surface waters or located in highly permeable soils overlying
         aquifers.
         Lead agency: NHACD.
         Cooperating agencies: NHDA, SCS, ASCS, UNH-Coop. Ext.
         Funding sources: 205(j)(5), 319(h), agencies.
         Needed funds: $20,000.
         Available funds: Unreported.
         Schedule: 1990 (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Summary report on alternative funding mechanisms.
        Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.
                                    VI-77








    b.   Evaluate whether volunteer agricultural nonpoint source pollution
         control programs are sufficient to address needs, and if sufficient
         funds are available. Identify problems farmers have with
         implementing particular practices or measures.
         Lead agency: NHDA.
         Cooperating agencies: UNH-Coop. Ext., DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: 205(j)(5), 319(h).
         Needed funds: $20,000.
         Available funds: Unreported.
         Schedule: 1991 (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Evaluation/identification summary report.
         Potential alternative funding sources: State agencies in-kind.


4.  a.   Enforce regulations for use of fertilizers and pesticides by the
         agriculture community to ensure that pesticides are used in
         accordance with label directions and US EPA and state guidelines.
         Lead agency: NHDA.
         Cooperating agencies: None.
         Funding sources: State General Fund.
         Needed funds: $100,000 annually.
        Available funds: $25,000.
         Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Addition of staff person dedicated to enforcement.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Increased fees for licensed
        applicators.


5.  a.   Identify and develop appropriate best management practices for
         pesticide prdducts that may be potential groundwater polluters.
        Lead agency: NHDA.
        Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, SCS, UNH.
        Funding sources: 205(j)(5), 106(b), agencies, 319.
        Needed funds: $60,000 annually.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: 1990 (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: New BMP guidance.
        Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund, EPA
        Pesticide Fund.
        Targeted priority waters: Souhegan River Drainage
                                    V1-78 








3  .     b6.  a.   Adopt and implement integrated pest management as state policy to
                  reduce potential water resources contamination resulting from
                  pesticide usage.
                  Lead agency: NHOA
                  Cooperating agencies: SCS, ACSC, UNH, UNH-Coop. Ext.
                  Funding sources: 205(j)(5), 106(b), 319.
                  Needed funds: $50,000 annually for four years.
                  Available funds: None.
                  Schedule: 1990 (pending availability of funds).
   3I  1           6Milestones: State Policy developed.
                  Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.

         7. a.    Ongoing or contained elsewhere in plan.

         8.  a.   Implement and evaluate the effectivenesss of agricultural BMPs,
                  especially near sensitive receiving waters, and revise, if necessary.
   ~~~I    ~       Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
                  Cooperating agencies: SCS, NHDA, ASCS, UNH, UNH-Coop. Ext.
                  Funding sources: 205(j)5, 319(h).
                  Needed funds: $50,000 annually for three years.
    *I~ ~Available funds: None.
                  Schedule: Evaluation report, December 1990 (pending availability of
                  funds).
                  Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
                  Potential alternative funding sources: UNH-Coop. Ext., SCS, Unit

                  funds.






 I
i



 I

                                              VI-79
 I








                                  Silviculture


 Importance


     Forests cover about 87% of New Hampshire's land area.  The harvesting of
 forest products has significantly increased during the past 10 years for saw
 logs and pulp by about 70%, and chips by over 300%. The number of operations
 conducted are at an all time high with over 4,000 intent-to-cut certificates
 issued annually during the past several years. During 1980, total longwood
 harvested exceeded 200 million board feet annually. Pulp wood harvest has
 averaged about 300,000 cords, and the chip industry market has shown dramatic
 increases in some areas of the state. Accordingly, silvicultura] activities
'involving harvesting practices, as well as forest road construction and
 management, are a potential nonpoint source of concern.


     Silviculture is a nonpoint source pollution problem of minor significance
 statewide and moderate to major significance in some watershed subunits.
 During the NPS assessment, it was revealed that, in individual subwatersheds,
 problems associated with erosion and sedimentation as a result of forestry
 operations do occur. In most cases, problems were due to inappropriate or
 inadequate application of BMPs. RSA 224 provides enabling legislation
 enpowering State Forest Rangers to enforce laws and regulations pertaining to
 timber harvesting, wetlands, and water quality. Harvesting activities are
 also regulated, inspected, and rules enforced by DES-WSPCD under 149:8-a and
 the Wetlands Bureau under 483-A. The training of resource managers and
 loggers and the increased awareness by owners continue to result in improved
 harvest operations. In addition, over 400 private consultants are available
 to assist resource managers and owners with on-site planning.


     The U.S. Forest Service manages 719,610 acres of the White Mountain
 National Forest in New Hampshire for multiple use of which 300,000 are
 considered suitable for silvicultural activites. The agency is using an
 approved forest management plan as a basis for making action decisions related
to multiple-use activities. Individual projects, such as a timber sales,
 undergo interdisciplinary environmental analysis through the National
 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Water quality protection is


                                     VI-80








addressed in the Forest Plan through its 'Standards and Guidelines', which
incorporate state-recommended and required BMPs in place at the time the Plan
was developed. These standards and guidelines are reflected in contract
provisions in the sale of timber to private logging companies. The timber
sale contract is a legally binding document requiring compliance by the timber
purchaser. Noncompliance is considered a breech of contract and is addressed
by one of several measures: suspension of operations until the problem is
corrected; forfeiture of performance bond to correct the problem; termination
of the contract; and in extreme cases, the purchaser can be cited under
federal regulation CFR 261.10(k), fined, and/or imprisoned.


    The NH Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED) Division of
Forests and Lands is the primary lead agency responsible for overseeing the
state's forestry program. This includes technical assistance, information and
education, and regulation and enforcement. Cooperative relationships with
both public and private agencies, organizations and associations, interest
groups, and others provide a number of sources of assistance to the entire
forestry community. Some of the major groups are UNH-Cooperative Extension,
USDA Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, and the University of New
Hampshire. Numerous forestry workshops and seminars are held each year
throughout New Hampshire. Significant numbers of foresters and loggers were
trained In the application of BMPs in 1989 during these cooperative
activities. Appendix F descibes these activities further. The Division of
Forests and Lands also prepares a Forest Resource Plan every ten years which
provides recommendations to meet statewide forestry goals and objectives.


    Erosion and sedimentation problems are, in effect, ephemeral.
Inappropriate or inadequate application of BMP's were cited in the NPS
Assessment as the primary cause of problems. Out-reach and education,
inspection and enforcement of harvesting certificates, permits, and
regulations are needed on a continuing basis to control silvicultural NPS
pollution.








                                     VI-81










State StrateQy


1. Develop and promote the use of technical guidance and manuals describing
    the implementation of BMPs by forest managers, owners, loggers, and other
    practicing professionals.


2. State regulatory programs must incorporate consistent procedures,
    technical guidelines, and BMPs. Relevant regulatory programs include
    Wetlands Protection, Forestry, and Erosion and Sedimentation Control.
    Recommended actions include:


    -    Adoption and implementation of the 'BMP Manual for Timber Harvesting'
         by relevant state agencies.


    -    Revise procedural requirements as necessary to facilitate compliance
         and enforcement with existing regulations.


    -    Evaluate staffing levels and available funding to cover
         administrative costs of permit reviews, site inspections, and
         enforcements actions associated with forestry requirements.


3.  Implement and evaluate the effectivenesss of silvicultural BMPs,
    especially near sensitive receiving waters, and revise, if necessary.



















                                    VI-82








Program Action Plan


1.  a.   Revise, publish, and distribute the 'BMP Manual on Timber Harvesting'.
         Lead agency: DRED-DFLo
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, SCS, Timberland Owners Assoc.
         Funding sources: 205(j)5.
        Needed funds: $5,000.
        Available funds: $5,000, 205(j)5.
         Schedule: BMP Manual distribution, ongoing through 1990 (pending
         budget approval).
        Milestones: Pending budget approval.
         Potential alternative funding sources: 319(h).


    b.   Revise, publish, and distribute the 'Timber Harvesting Laws of NH' to
         reflect changes in legislation, rules, and statutes.
         Lead agency: DRED-DFL.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 319.
         Needed funds: $5,000 initially, $1,000 annually thereafter.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: 1990 (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Distribution of revised publication.
         Potential alternative funding sources: USFS.


    c.   Develop and conduct an educational program of workshops for forest
        managers, landowners, loggers, and other practicing professionals on
         the use of technical guidance and the revised 'BMP Manual for Timber
         Harvesting'.
         Lead agency: DRED-DFL.
         Cooperating agencies:  DES-WSPCD, SCS, Timberland Owners Assoc.,
         UNH-Coop. Ext.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 319.
         Needed funds: $5,000 initially, $1,000 annually thereafter.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: 1990 (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Development of BMP Program.
         Potential alternative funding sources: USFS.
                                    VI-83








    d.   Develop, publish, and distribute a pocket BMP field guide for forest
         managers, landowners, and loggers. The information contained in the
         guide is to be consistent with that contained in the revised 'BMP
         Manual on Timber Harvesting'
         Lead agency: DRED-DFL.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, SCS, UNH-Coop. Ext.
         Funding sources: State General Fund, 319.
         Needed funds: $5,000.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: 1990o (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Distribution of BMP field guide.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Northeastern Loggers Assoc.


2.  a.   Request approval of the revised 'BMP Manual for Timber Harvesting' by
         CORD and request that the guidelines be made policy as part of
         representative agencies procedural requirements.
         Lead agency: DRED-DFL.
        Cooperating agencies: CORD.
        Funding sources: State General Fund.
        Needed funds: None.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: 1990.
        Milestones: CORD approval of guidelines as policy.
        Potential alternative funding sources: None Proposed.


   b.   Revise the 'Intent-to-Cut' form to include an indication by the
         landowner that a wetlands notification or permit has been filed.
        Lead agency: Department of Revenue Administration.
        Cooperating agencies: DRED-DFL, DES.
        Funding sources: State General Fund.
        Needed funds: $1,000.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: 1990 (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Revision of 'Intent-to-cut' form.
        Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.



                                    VI-84









            c.   Revise administrative rules under RSA 149:8-a and RSA 483-A, and the
                 'Intent-to-Cut' form, to read 'best' management practice for
                 interagency consistency.
                 Lead agency: DES.
                 Cooperating agencies: None.
                 Funding sources: 205(j)5.
                 Needed funds: $2,000.
                Available funds: $1,000, 205(j)5.
                 Schedule: Revision to rules, 1990 or 1991 (depending on rule-making
                 schedule).
                 Milestones: Pending rule-making schedule.
                 Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.

        3.  a.   Implement and evaluate the effectivenesss of silvicultural BMPs,
                 especially near sensitive receiving waters, and revise, if necessary.
                 Lead agency: DRED-DFL.
                 Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, SCS, UNH-Coop. Ext.
                 Funding sources: State General Fund, 319(h).
                 Needed funds: $50,000 annually for three years.
                 Available funds: None.
                 Schedule. 1992 (pending availability of funds).
                 Milestones: Summary report of findings.
                 Potential alternative funding sources: USFS.
                 Targeted priority waters: Exeter River Drainage.





I


I







                                  Road Salt 


Importance


    Contamination resulIting from road salt storage and application is of minor
significance statewide, but is a major concern, especially in some sensitive 
watersheds near maintained roads. Presently, there are no State laws
explicitly regulating deicing procedures. DOT's policy for state maintained
highways is to provide bare pavement as soon as practical after a storm
subsides. The DOT has made an attempt to control salt application through
education, and by equipping its salt dispensing fleet with automatic spreaders
to enable more precise control of application rates. Guidelines have been
issued by DOT in an attempt to promote salt conservation, but impacted
groundwater supplies and surface waters continue to be a problem. The DOT
Bureau of Environment administers a program for investigation and replacing
wells contaminated by highway road salt. While DOT is not legally required to
replace wells, it does so routinely. Local communities, on the other hand,
can be found negligent and held responsible for their actions. This can
result in judgements against a municipality requiring it to repair or replaceI
wells which Are degraded by local salting activities.

    The majority of laws and regulations impacting deicing activities result
as spin-offs-of anti-water pollution laws. RSA 148 deals specifically with
the protection of water supplies and land use activities. RSA 148.1 provides
that any individual who places or causes to be placed any substance into a
water supply which causes it to violate drinking water standards is guilty of
a misdemeanor (felony if other than an individual). A secondary or
'guidance-type' standard has been developed nationally for chlorides of 250
milligrams per liter.


    While RSA 148 deals with public water supplies, RSA 149 is more specific
for ground and surface waters and provides DES-WSPCD the necessary authority
to regulate the disposal of snow where water quality is threatened. This is
an important distinction regarding snow disposal activities. RSA 149 deals
primarily with water pollution and the disposal of wastes. Waste in this
sense means any substance harmful to human, animal, fish or aquatic life.


                                    VI-86








This law's major thrust is the maintenance of water quality required by the
classification of waters. While no numerical standards have been set forth
for sodium and chloride, standards exist for other parameters including
primary pollutants such as lead and petroleum constituents which may be
present in the snow pack.


    Further investigation into the water quality impact from salt use is
needed.  Road salt application and storage BMP's must be reviewed and revised
where necessary.


    As lead agency for the development of this Plan, DES will continue to work
with DOT toward the development and implementation of the strategies below.


State Strateqv


1.  Mandatory attendance of all state and municipal drivers, loaders, and
    handlers of road salt in the "Sensible Salt Program" offered by the Salt
    Institute. The procedures recommended in the program must be incorporated
    into the daily work routines, including conscientious record keeping
    associated with road salt use.


2. On a priority basis, a state road salt reduction program in
    environmentally sensitive areas must be implemented.  Recommended actions
    are


         Inventory and map, using GIS, state and municipal salt storage and
         usage sites.


    -    Implement alternatives where appropriate.


         Bolster education as a component of a road salt reduction initiative.









                                     VI-87








3.  The road de-icing practices in areas of the state other than those 
    environmentally sensitive areas should be evaluated to determine
    environmental impacts and economical ways in which road salt applicationI
    rates can be reduced and sand to salt ratios increased without
    jeopardizing safety.


4. Sand applied to state and local roads as a traction agent must be removed
    at least annually by street sweeping and cleaning of sediment traps, catch
    basins, etc., as necessary to prevent sedimentation in nearby drainage
   ways, wetlands, and surface waters. Specific implementation tasks include
   the following outlined below.


      - Prepare guidance materials.


      - Evaluate available funds, staffing levels and necessary equipment to
        maintain roadways and drainage systems. Municipalities should
        consider joint purchase of needed equipment, where feasible, to
        reduce the costs of maintenance.


5. Develop, adopt, and implement regulation for the storage of road deicing
   chemicals requiring all salt storage facilities to be permanently coveredU
   and measures installed to prevent the infiltration and overland flow of
   contaminated runoff from salt storage and handling areas. 


6.  Evaluate staffing levels and funding mechanism to cover administrative 
   costs of implementing regulations for the storage of road de-icing
   chemicals, reviewing permits, site inspections, and enforcement actions.


7. Test alternate road surfacing materials and environmentally acceptable
   road de-icing methods which reduce the need for chemicals should beI
   undertaken.

S. Develop, implement, and evaluate BMPs for snow removal and disposal.






                                   VI-so








Proqram Action Plan


1.  a.   Require attendance of all state and municipal drivers, loaders, and
         handlers of road salt in the "Sensible Salt Program"' offered by the
         Salt Institute and incorporate recommended procedures into daily work
         routines, including record keeping associated with road salt use.
         Lead agency:  DOT.
         Cooperating agencies: None.
         Funding sources: Unreported.
        Needed funds: Unreported.
        Available funds: Unreported,
         Schedule: Unreported.
        Milestones: Unreported.
         Potential alternative funding sources: unreported.


2.  a.   Inventory and map, using GIS, state and municipal salt storage and
         usage sites.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies:  DOT.
         Funding sources: .205(j)5, 319.
         Needed funds: $15,000 initially, $10,000 annually for two years
         thereafter.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Completed inventory, 1991 (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: OSP, RPA's in-kind.
         Targeted priority waters: Blackwater and Spicket River Drainages.













                                    VII-Bg

                                    VI -89X







    b.   Implement alternatives for limiting salt use in environmentally
         sensitive areas.
         Lead agency: DOT.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: Unreported.
         Needed funds: Unreported.
         Available funds: Unreported.
         Schedule: Unreported.
         Milestones: Unreported.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Unreported.


    C.   Develop and conduct an educational program on road salt reduction
         initiative targeting municipal officials and road agents.
         Lead agency: DOT.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: Unreported.
         Needed funds: Unreported.
         Available funds: Unreported.
         Schedule: Unreported.
         Milestones: Unreported.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Unreported.


3. a.   Evaluate road de-icing practices to determine environmental impacts
         and economical ways in which road salt application rates can be
         reduced and sand-to-salt ratios increased without jeopardizing safety.
         Lead agency: DOT.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: Unreported.
         Needed funds: Unreported.
         Available funds: Unreported.
         Schedule: Unreported.
         Milestones: Unreported.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Unreported.


4. a.   Ongoing or contained elsewhere in Plan.



                                    VI-90








5.  a.   Prepare draft amendments, to applicable regulations incorporating
         requirements that all salt storage facilities be permanently covered
         and measures installed to prevent the infiltration and overland flow
         of contaminated runoff from salt storage and handling areas.
         Lead agency: DOT.
         Cooperating agencies: None.
         Funding sources: Unreported.
         Needed funds: Unreported.
        Available funds: Unreported.
         Schedule: Unreported.
        Milestones: Unreported.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Unreported.


6.  a.   Evaluate staffing levels and funding mechanism to cover
         administrative costs of reviewing permits, site inspections, and
         enforcement actions.
         Lead agency:  DOT.
         Cooperating agencies: None.
         Funding sources: Unreported.
         Needed funds: Unreported.
         Availablefunds: Unreported.
         Schedule: Unreported.
         Milestones: Unreported.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Unreported.


7. a.    Test and apply satisfactory alternate road surfacing materials and
         environmentally acceptable road de-icing methods which reduce the
         need for chemicals.
         Lead agency: DOT.
         Cooperating agencies: Unreported.
         Funding sources: Unreported.
         Needed funds: Unreported.
         Available funds: Unreported.
         Schedule: Unreported.
         Milestones: Unreported.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Unreported.


                                     VI-91








a.   Develop implement, and evaluate BMPs for snow removal and disposal.
     Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
     Cooperating agencies: DES-WMD, DOT.
    Funding sources: 319(h).
    Needed funds: $10,000 initially, $5,000 annually for two years
    thereafter.
    Available funds: None.
    Schedule: Development of BMPs, August 1991 (pending availabiltiy of
    funds).
    Milestones: Pending availibility of funds.
     Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.






































                                VI-92








                             Resource Extraction


Importance


    Construction aggregate, including sand and gravel and crushed stone, is
New Hampshire's most important mineral resource.  In 1983,.an estimated 10,000
acres yielded 4 million short tons of sand and gravel with an estimated value
of $12.1 million (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1983).  Additional areas have been
exposed since 1983, but these figures provide the best available information
for evaluating the status of sand and gravel pits. In 1987, the US Bureau of
Mines estimated 9.3 million short tons of sand and gravel were excavated in
New Hampshire at an estimated value of $33.7 million.


    If a sand or gravel pit is in operation, or is open, unvegetated and
unused, nonpoint source pollution impact on surface waters may result from
direct off-site sedimentation, usually in road ditches and streams. A
majority of gravel deposits are near water courses.  Off-site sediment
pollution can be controlled by using best management practices, which include
the vegetative stabilization of retired pits.


    In August, 1979, the New Hampshire Legislature passed a law requiring
operators of commercial sand, gravel, soil, and construction aggregate
facilities to obtain a permit from the municipality it is located in.  This
law, RSA 155-E, has been amended several times, most recently in June, 1989.
RSA 155-E gives municipalities through their local planning board, zoning
board of assessment, or selectmen the authority to cope with the recognized
safety hazards which open excavations create; to safeguard the public health
and welfare; to preserve our natural assets of soil, water, forests and
wildlife; to maintain aesthetic features of our environment and prevent land
and water pollution; and to promote soil stabilization.  According to the law,
a municipality may adopt such regulations as may be reasonably necessary to
carry out the provisions of this chapter, including adopting a permit fee
schedule. The municipalities must make decisions on permits applied for,
whether or not local regulations called for in the law have been adopted.





                                     VI-93








    An RSA 155-E permit must be obtained before the excavation begins with
certain exceptions including: excavations in existence at the time the law
became effective; excavations associated with public highway construction;
excavation incidental to building construction; excavation incidental to
agricultural or silvicultural activities; and quarrying for dimension stone,
the latter being regulated by DRED under RSA 12-E. Excavations not required
to obtain a permit are, however, not unregulated as they must submit plans and
operate their pits in conformance with statutory requirements.


    RSA 155-E requires that within twelve months of the completion of
excavation, except for exposed rock ledge, all areas shall be covered with
vegetation suitable to prevent erosion, regraded to slopes of 2:1 or less, and
eliminated of any standing waterbodies created in the excavation project. In
addition, the topography of the land shall be left so that water draining from
the site leaves the property at the original locations and in the natural
proportions of flow. The-municipality may also require the posting of a
compliance bond.


    Resource excavation is also regulated under RSA 149:8-a administered by
DES-WSPCD. The rules adopted under RSA 149:8-a require all excavations which
will disturb 100,000 s'quare feet or more to obtain a permit.  The requirements
for this permit are limited to those necessary to protect surface waters
only.  In practice, this permit becomes an erosion and sediment control permit
for these excavation.


    Land use after sand and gravel operations have ceased is a concern
throughout the state. The final ground elevation is often very close to or
below the existing water table. The generally coarse, sterile nature of
resident sands and gravels allows for very little adsorption or biodegradation
of pollutants.  Occupation of retired sand and gravel pits by junkyards, metal
recycling operations, illegal dumps, etc., poses a potential threat to nearby
groundwater.


    The NPS impact from resource -extraction is not well documented in New
Hampshire. Resource extraction practices, including sand and gravel mining,



                                    VI-94








are subject to state and local regulation. Such mining is of significant
economic importance in New Hampshire due to expanding development needs, yet
poses a significant potential impact on water quality and quantity. NPS
impacts are largely the result of inappropriate or inadequate application of
BMP's to control erosion and sedimentation during site disturbance. Off-site
sediment pollution can be controlled by using best management practices.
Minimum operating standards need to be adopted to assist towns in regulating
excavation within their borders.


    Of equal or greater concern is the occupation of retired sand and gravel
pits by junkyards, metal recycling operations, illegal dumps, etc. thereby
posing a threat to water quality. As stated earlier, appropriate water
quality-based siting regulations and BMPs need to be developed, adopted, and
implemented for such operations.


State Strateqy


1. As conditions of relevant state and local permits, recommended
    requirements include: topsoil (and/or subsoil) be stockpiled and
    stabilized for later use in restoration; permanant soil erosion and
   sediment control measures be installed and maintained; a minimum
    separation distance from the bottom of the excavation and the annual high
    water table be maintained; and use, storage, and maintenance of vehicles
    and equipment be according to prescribed BMPs. Recommended actions are:


      D- evelop technical operating and closure rules under RSA 149:8-a,
         where necessary (such as the application of soil erosion and sediment
         control measures to sand and gravel operations).


      -    Organize and conduct seminars for municipal officials, zoning boards
         of adjustment, planning boards, and operators.


2. Issue state permits which specify limits on the area under excavation at
    any one time and an expiration date, and require the posting of a
    performance bond to ensure compliance.








3.  Monitor compliance with state permit conditions by undertaking more
    frequent site inspections of sand and gravel operations.


4. Identify unpermitted operations. Inventory, catalog, and map using GIS
    permitted and unpermitted sites.


5.  Continue to run revegetation pilot projects to determine suitable seed
   mixtures/vegetation and topsoil requirements. Bolster projects to explore
    opportunities for sludge utilization. Identify suitable demonstration
    sites and perform demonstration project(s) for revegetation in the
    implemention of closure plans.


6. Develop, implement, and evaluate BMPs for resource extraction activities.


7.  Incorporate BMPs into required operating procedures for state permitted
    excavation.


8. Conduct projects which identify water quality impacts of resource
    extraction activity statewide, in particular sand and gravel excavation.



























                                    VI-96







Proqram Action Plan


1.  a.   Develop technical operating and closure rules under RSA 149:8-a such
        as the application of soil erosion and sediment control measures to
         sand and gravel operations; topsoil (and/or subsoil) be stockpiled
        and stabilized for later use in restoration; permanent soil erosion
        and sediment control measures be installed and maintained; a minimum
        separation distance from the bottom of the excavation and the annual
        high water table be maintained; and use, storage, and maintenance of
         vehicles and equipment be according to prescribed BMPso
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: SCS, DES-Commissioner's Office.
         Funding sources: 319.
        Needed funds: $15,000.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Development of technical roles, January 1991 (pending
        availability of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


    b.  Organize seminars for municipal officials, zoning boards of
         adjustment, planning boards, and operators on the use of technical
         operating and closure guidance materials.
        Lead agency:  OSP.
         Cooperating agencies: SCS, DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: 319.
         Needed funds: $12,000 annually for two years, $6,000 annually
         afterward.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Initiation of seminars, January 1991 (pending-availability
         of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Attendance fee, materials fees.






                                     VI-97









2.  a.   Prepare draft amendments to applicable statutes incorporating state
         permit requirements which specify limits on the area under excavation
        at any one time, an expiration date, and the posting of a performance
        bond to ensure compliance.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies:  None.
         Funding sources: 205(j)5, 319.
        Needed funds: $15,000.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Oevelopment of draft amendments, October 1991 (pending
        availability of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


3.  a.   Support revegetation pilot projects to determine suitable seed
        mixtures/vegetation and topsoil requirements. Require projects to
         explore opportunities for sludge utilization.
         Lead agency:  DES-WSPCD. 
        Cooperating agencies: UNH, UNH-Coop. Ext., SCS.
         Funding sources: 319.
        Needed funds: $25,000 annually for two years.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: Completion of revegetation pilot project(s), September 1991
         (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: SCS grants.
        Targeted priority waters: Cocheco River Drainage.















                                    VI-98








         4.  a.   Identify suitable demonstration sites for revegetative study and
                  implement closure plans.
                  Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
                  Cooperating agencies: SCS, DES-Commissioner's Office, UNH.
                  Funding sources: 319.
                  Needed funds: $3,500.
                  Available funds: None.
                  Schedule: List of potential demonstration sites, November 1991
                  (pending availability of funds).
                3  Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
                  Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


         5.  a.   Seek adequate funding to monitor compliance with state permit
                  conditions and undertake more frequent site inspections of sand and
                  gravel operations.
                  Lead agency: DES.
 I              XCooperating agencies: None.
                  Funding sources: None.
  i               Needed funds: None.
                  Available funds: None.
  3    ;          Schedule: Ongoing.
                  Milestones:
  3               Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.


         6.  a.   Identify unpermitted operations.  Inventory, catalog, and map sites
                  using GIS.
                  Lead agency:  DES-WSPCD.
  3               Cooperating agencies: RPA's, ORED, OSP, local communities.
                  Funding sources: 205(j)(5), 319(h), State General Fund.
  i    0          Needed funds: $25,.000 for four years.
                  Available funds: None.
                  Schedule: 1991 (pending availiability of funds).
                  Milestones: Completed GIS inventory.
                  Potential alternative funding sources: Sand transfer fee.







I: 
   __.: .. . r                     :. -.--:ï¿½----:







7.  a.   Develop BMPs for resource extraction activities.
         Lead agency:  DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-Commissioner's Office, SCS, UNH, BIA.
         Funding sources: 205(j)(5), 319(h).
         Needed funds: $25,000 for one year.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: 1991 (pending availability of funds).
         Milestones: BMP manual. 
         Potential alternative funding sources: New fees.


    b.   Implement and evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs for resource
         extraction activities.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
         Cooperating agencies:  DES-Commissioner's Office, SCS, UNH.
         Funding sources: 319(h).
        Needed funds: $25,000 annually for two years.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Summary report of findings, 1992 (pending availability of
         funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
         Potential alternative funding sources: New fee.


8.  a.   Incorporate BMPs into required operating procedures for permitted
        excavation.
        Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
        Cooperating agencies: None.
        Funding sources: State General Fund.
        Needed funds: $7,500.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
        Potential alternative funding sources: None proposed.







9.  a.   Support projects which identify impacts of resource extraction
         activity statewide, in particular sand and gravel excavation, on
        groundwater quality.
        Lead agency:  DES-WSPCD.
        Cooperating agencies: DES-WRD, OSP, RPA's. DES-Commissioners Office.
        Funding sources: 106(b), 319.
        Needed funds: $25,000 annually for four years.
        Available funds: None.
        State Program Schedule: Summary report of findings, November 1990.
        Revised BMPs, February 1991 (pending availability of funds). -
        Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
        Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund, sand and
        gravel industry in-kind.




































                                  VI-101







                     Hvdroloqic and Habitat Modification


Importance


    Channelization of natural drainage courses, construction of dams, release
of water from reservoirs, removal of vegetation bordering waterbodies, and
dredging and filling of wetlands are all examples of hydrologic and habitat
modification that can result in changes in water quality.- Such activities
cause variations in the rate and duration of flows, temperature and chemical
composition of water, and indirectly contribute to nonpoint-source problems
such as stream bank erosion, turbidity, sedimentation, and algal blooms.


    Approximately 3200 dams currently exist in New-Hampshire. To some degree,
each alters the hydrology of the.watershed and surface water runoff
characteristics. Examples of resulting changes are increasing or decreasing
surface water storage, increasing surface water area and summer evaporation
losses, and increasing summer water temperature. These characteristics
provide an ideal environment for increased algal growth which, in turn, may
cause severely decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations in back-water areas.
Many of the dams are small structures storing relatively small amounts of
water and generally have minor hydrologic impacts.  Some of these also serve
to divert flows to industrial users, and some are used to generate
electricity.  Of the 3200 dams statewide, 130 are hydroelectric facilities.
Ten facilities are relatively large and have significant impact or have
potential to impact water quality through flow regulation. At county meetings
held during the assessment process, concerns were expressed regarding the
operation of hydropower facilities along the Connecticut River and attendant
stream bank erosion resulting from the cycled release of water during power
generation.


    The amended Federal Power Act of 1920 requires FERC to license and
regulate hydroelectric projects on navigable waterways.  In addition to FERC
licencing requirements, Section 401 of the federal CWA requires that an
applicant requesting a federal license apply for a Water Quality Certificate
from the state.  The 401 State Certification is issued with specific



                                    VI-102







conditions regulating activities during operation or modification, and may
include minimum release flows in order to maintain water quality standards. A
recent FERC ruling exempted existing hydroelectric dams from this
requirement. New Hampshire does expect to be a party to the relicensing
process as existing licenses come up for renewal.  The states of Maine,
Vermont and Massachusetts currently participate in this process, so
negotiating with dam operators will require interstate coordination.
Development of regulations outlining procedures for the Section 401
application, certification, and appeals is needed.
  I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    DES-Division of Water Resources controls dam releases from numerous
lakes. Releases are scheduled to provide steady summer flows, hydropower
capacity, flood storage, and to contribute to improved water quality.
Examples of beneficial releases are Winnipesaukee, Newfound, and Squam Lakes
which are slowly drawn down starting in early June to provide about 1/3 of the
Merrimack River's summer flow. By autumn the lakes are low enough to provide
flood storage for major storms and spring snowmelt.  By spring, the lakes are
usually full and the cycle is repeated. State controls over modifications to
stream channel and wetlands are found in RSA-149:Ba and 483-Ao


    Definitive information regarding water quality impacts resulting from
hydrologic and habitat modification is scant and inconclusive. Further
assessment is necessary in order to accurately determine the significance of
this category of NPS pollution.


State Strateqy


1. Evaluate the DES-WSPCD methodology for calculating 7QlO flows for use on
    NH rivers and streams.


2. Require hydroelectric producers at both licensed and unlicensed facilities
    to maintain minimum in-stream flows (7QO1).


3. Monitor hydroelectric power generating facilities for compliance with
    permits.



                                     VI-103








4.  Prepare a NH Comprehensive Rivers and Flow Regulation Plan which specifies
    long-term use management objectives for free-flowing and flow-regulated
    river segments.


5.  Restore minimum flows and regulate impoundments so as to support
    designated uses such as aquatic biota habitat,  swimming, and boating.


6. Establish routine monitoring to ensure' that minimum stream flow condition
    in permits are being met, as well as other environmental criteria in FERC
    permits, NH Section 401 Water Quality Certificates and NH Water Quality
    Standards.


7. Develop plans that specify flow management for river segments and that
    inventory and recognize the importance of recreational uses.


Program Action Plan


1.  a.   Evaluate the DES-WSPCD methodology for calculating 7QO10 flows for use
        on NH rivers and streams.
         Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
        Cooperating agencies: DES-WRD, USGS.
        Funding sources: 106, 604(b), 205(j)(1).
        Needed funds: $15,000 for one year.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: 1991 (pending availability of funding).
        Milestones: Revision of methodology. -
         Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.















                                    VI-104








       2.  a.   Propose amendments to statutes requiring that hydroelectric producers
                at both licensed and unlicensed facilities restore minimum in-stream
                flows.
                Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
                Cooperating agencies: DES-WRD, BIA, Legislature.
                Funding sources: State General Fund.
                Needed funds: $5,000.
               *  Available funds: None.
                Schedule: Propose for 1991 Legislative Session (pending availability
                of funds).
                Milestones: Revised statutes.
                Potential alternative funding sources: New fees.


       3. ao   Develop a mechanism by which hydroelectric power generating
                facilities are monitored for compliance with permits.
                Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
                Cooperating agencies: USF&W, DES-WRD, USGS.
                Funding sources: 604(b), 205(j)(1).
                Needed funds: $25,000 per year.
                Available funds: None.
                Schedule: 1992 (pending availability of funds).
                Milestones: New staff person to perform site inspections.
                Potential alternative funding sources: KW surcharge.


       4. a.   Prepare a NH Comprehensive Rivers and Flow Regulation Plan.
 I               Lead agency: DES.
                Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, DES-WRD, USGS, COE, USFW.
                Funding sources: State General Fund, 319(h).
                Needed funds: $40,000.
                Available funds: None.
                Schedule: 1992 (pending availability of funds).
                Milestones: Complete Plan.
                Potential alternative funding sources: Licensee fees.






                                           VI-:05
:I 








5.  a.   Restore minimum flows and regulate impoundments so as to support
         designated uses such as aquatic biota habitat, swimming, and boating.
         Lead agency: DES-WRD.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, FERC, USF&W, NH F&G.
         Funding sources: State General Fund.
         Needed funds: None.
         Available funds: None.
         Schedule: Ongoing.
         Milestones: Protection of minimum flowage in priority waters.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Licenses fees.


6.  a.   Establish routine monitoring to ensure that minimum stream flow
         condition in permits are being met.
         Lead agency: DES-WROD.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD.
         Funding sources: State General Fund.
         Needed funds: $25,000 per year.
        Available funds: None.
         Schedule: l1991 (pending availability of fund).
        Milestones: Provide new staff person for monitoring.
         Potential alternative funding sources: Licensee fees.


7.  a.   Develop plans that specify flow management for river segments.
         Lead agency: DES.
         Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD, DES-WRD, USGS, COE, USFW.
         Funding sources: 319(h).
        Needed funds: $40,000.
        Available funds: None.
        Schedule: 1993 (pending availability funds).
        Milestones: Flow management plan for priority waters.
         Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.









                                    VI-106








                          Underqround Storaqe Tanks


Importance


    In an effort to abate groundwater contamination, the WSPCD Groundwater
Protection Bureau (GPB) was created to identify, respond and remediate a wide
variety of releases.  The storage of petroleum products, industrial process
chemicals solvents, and their wastes has historically been in underground
tanks which may have a high potential for leakage. As a result, hazardous
contaminants can enter the environment. The DES-GPB has identified over 200
sites involving spills or leaking underground storage tanks, and has conducted
15 to 25 groundwater investigations of potential 'Superfund' hazardous waste
sites.


    Contamination due to petroleum appears to be on the increase.  This trend
may be attributed to a growing awareness of the problem as well as increased
monitoring of petroleum facilities. Petroleum products such as gasoline,
kerosene, and fuel oils contain various discrete organic compounds and
additives.  Of these constituents, many are known or suspected carcinogens.


    A groundwater classification and subsequent identification of groundwaters
of the highest value, ie. drinking water supplies, is in early stages of
development. The New Hampshire Wellhead Protection Program document describes
a coordinated mechanism for the management and preservation of New Hampshire's
groundwater quality in wellhead areas in accordance with federal guidelines
established by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986.  It is
anticipated that subsequent prioritization of contaminated groundwater
supplies will be based on human health risk assessment and established
standards ('maximum contaminant levels'). Contaminant concentration,
toxicity, and frequency of occurrence during monitoring as well as receptor
characteristics are to be included for the highest margin of safety.


    Underground storage tanks continue to present groundwater contamination
problems statewide. Regulations forcorrosion protection and leak containment
for tanks greater than O1100 gallons are in place within the GPB.  Locating



                                    VI-107








existing tanks, checking them for leaks, and upgrading marginal storage
systems has been an ongoing program funded adequately through federal and
state programs.


    There is a need to develop and fund a program to inform and assist
small-tank (less than 1100 gallons) owners regarding leaking underground tanks
and BMPs.


State Stratewv


1. Encourage municipal government involvement in protecting groundwater from
    underground storage tanks by assisting the state in identifying the
    location of underground storage tanks subject to the state regulations
    (abandoned and active).


2. Encourage municipal governments' involvement in conducting an inventory of
    underground storage tanks in the community exempt from state regulations
    and the establishment of additional groundwater protection measures.
    Recommended actions are outlined below.


         Provide technical support to local efforts to regulate/prohibit
         underground storage tanks, including the delineation of sensitive
         groundwater areas.


         Provide local governments with data from state program on underground
         storage tank facilities in their community.


         Establish education efforts aimed at local officials and general
        public on groundwater and the potential impacts of underground
        storage tanks.


3.  Develop, publish, and distribute BWPs for small-tanks (less than 1100
   gallons), including residential heating oil tanks, to municipal officials,
   tank service companies, and small-tank owners.








 Proqram Action Plan


 1.  a.   Inventory active and abandoned regulated facilities and identify
          sensitive water resource areas. Prepare base maps using GIS.
          Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
          Cooperating agencies: OSP.
          Funding sources: Federal UST program, 319.
          Needed funds: $15,000 annually for five years.
          Available funds: $10,000 annually.
          Schedule: Ongoing,
          Milestones: GIS data layer by 1992.
           Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund, Oil
           Pollution Control Fund.
           Targeted priority waters: Baker River Drainage.


 2.  a.   Establish education efforts aimed at local officials and general
           public on groundwater and the potential impacts of underground
           storage tanks.
           Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
           Cooperating agencies: OSP, UNH-Coop. Ext.
           Funding sources: Federal UST program, 319.
           Needed funds: $7,500 annually.
           Available funds: $2,500 annually.
           Schedule: Ongoing part of UST grant workplan.
           Milestones: Specified in UST grant workplan.
           Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund, Oil
           Pollution Control Fund.














                                      VI-l09
I~~~~~~~~~~~~ 









b.   Provide local governments with data from the state UST program on
     facilities in their community.
     Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
     Cooperating agencies: 0SP, RPAs.
     Funding sources: Federal UST program.
     Needed funds: $15,000 annually for three years.
     Available funds: $15,000 annually.
     Schedule: Ongoing (information is provided as requested).
     Milestones:
     Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund.


c.   Assist municipalities on a prioritized basis in conducting
     inventories of USTs which are exempt from state regulation in the
     community.
     Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
     Cooperating agencies: OSP.
     Funding sources: Federal UST program, 319.
     Needed funds: $50,000 annually.
     Available funds: None.
     Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
     Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
     Potential alternative funding sources: State General fund, Oil
     Pollution Control Fund, Federal Wellhead Protection Program.
     Targeted priority waters: Baker River Drainage.


d.   Provide technical support to municipalities in the delineation of
     sensitive groundwater areas.
     Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
    Cooperating agencies: OSP.
    Funding sources: 106(b), 319(i).
    Needed funds: $50,000 annually for five years.
    Available funds: None.
    Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
    Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
     Potential alternative funding sources: State General Fund; Federal
    Welihead Protection Program, groundwater usage fee.


                                VI-110








            e.   Assist municipalities in preparing local ordinances or regulations
                 pertaining to underground storage tanks.
                 Lead agency: OSP.
                 Cooperating agencies: DES-WSPCD.
                 Funding sources: 319.
                 Needed funds: $12,000 annually for four years.
                 Available funds: None.
                 Schedule: Ongoing (pending availability of funds).
                 Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
                 Potential'alternative funding sources: State General Fund.


        3.  a.   Develop, publish, and distribute BMPs for small-tanks (less than 1100
                 gallons), including residential heating oil tanks, to municipal
                 officials, tank service companies, and small-tank owners.
                 Lead agency: DES-WSPCD.
                 Cooperating agencies: UNH-Coop. Ext., NHDA, SCS, OSP.
                I  Funding sources: Federal UST program, 319.
                 Needed funds: $15,000 annually for five years, $10,000 annually
            3   thereafter.
                 Available funds: None.
 3               Schedule: Development of BMPs, 1992 (pending availability of funds).
                 Milestones: Pending availability of funds.
                 Potential alternative funding sources: State UST program, State
                 General Fund, Oil Pollution Control Fund.
















          1~~~~~~~~~~VI-I
 :        :              :



I                          

:I                              :  
                        Q        )               |~~~~~I-~
A.U






                                 CHAPTER VII
                           NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
                           IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE



      A proposed schedule for implementation of the various New Hampshire
Nonpoint Source Management Program elements has been prepared.  Priority
actions over the next four years addressing those categories of highest
statewide significance have been summarized in the schedule below.  Lead and
cooperating agencies, funding source(s) which are utilized or which may become
involved with water quality problem resolution, and targeted waters are
indicated in Chapter VI. In as much as is possible and practical,
implementation activities will be focused on priority problems on a priority
waterbody/watershed basis.


      It should be noted that many of the nonpoint source control activities
are on-going while other activities have more defined milestones and
schedules.  These are general schedulesï¿½  A scheduled commitment to problem
resolution activities can only be made subsequent to adequate funding. Each
annual work plan to be submitted will further describe those activities
selected for funding in a particular year including cost estimates and
responsible agencies or departments.


      The schedule is intended to provide a framework for Nonpoint Source
Pollution Management initiatives; as more information is gathered and programs
are evaluated the schedule may be revised to allow for mid-course
corrections.  The Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program's annual work
plans and budget requests to EPA will be developed using this schedule as
guidance. Greater detail on specific implementation tasks will be provided in
these work plans.












                                     VII-l








                                  PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR RESOLUTIONS AND PRIORITY ACTIONS
                                                      FY 1990 - 1993

 NPS Category/                   Resolutions                                 Implementation Schedule
 Subcategory
                                                          FY 90          FY 91           FY 92           FY 93


Land Disposal/            Assessment of 20 landfills
  Landfills                 (5 landfills/year).

                        Determination of leachate
                        treatment and fate.

                        Closure, monitoring, and
                        remediation of unlined landfills

                        Review/permit actions for
                        proposed lined landfills.

Construction              Prepared draft amendments
                        incorporating phased development                 >
                        and construction.

                        Prepared draft amendments
                        minimizing areal disturbance.

                        Complete the revised 'Guidelines
                        for the Preparation of Site >
                        Specific Applications'.









                                                          FY 90           FY 91          FY 92           FY 93


 Construction (cont'd)    Develop an educational program
                          re: erosion and sediment
                         control and drainage control >
                         measures.

                         Develop a statewide technical
                         guidance handbook.

                         Prepared draft amendments
                         incorporating 'Guidelines for
                         the Preparation of Site Specific
                         Applications'.
C)
                         Request CORD approval and
                         adoption as policy.

                         Evaluate erosion and sediment
                         control staffing.

                         Prepare a binding resolution for
                         CORD adoption re: projects using >
                         state funds.

                         Promote and facilitate
                         implementation of procedures
                         contained in the statewide
                         guidance handbook.







                                                 FY 90          FY 91           FY 92           FY 93


Construction (Cont'd)    Provide technical assistance to
                    promote local adoption of >
                    erosion and sediment control.

                    Seek adequate funding to meet
                    needs for providing technical >
                    assistance.

                    Implementation of education
                    program.

                    Preparation of multi-media
                    education materials.

                    Establish maintenance criteria
                    for erosion and sedimentation
                    control measures, include in
                     'Guidelines for the Preparation
                    of Site Specific Applications,
                    and prepare and distrubute
                    guidance materials.

                    Develop, prepare, publish, and
                    distribute guidance materials                    >
                    re: maintenance.








                                                            FY 90           FY 91           FY 92            FY 93


Construction (Cont'd)    Complete 'Drainage Control
                         Guidelines Handbook, revise,                                       >
                         publish, and distribute.

                         Communicate inspection and
                         enforcement needs to state
                         officials re: erosion and
                         sedimentation control.

                         Encourage regional coordination
                         for inspection and enforcement                                                                     >
                         of local requirements.

                         Prioritize waters for inspection 
                                                                                        >
                         and enforcement action.

                         Distribute limited funds and
                         personnel for inspection,
                         determination of BMP performance
                         and .enforcement.
                                                .
                         Develop watershed sensitivity
                         assessment procedures that
                         monitor and predict NPS and
                         hydrologic impacts.

Subsurface Disposal        Review and revise ISDS and
                           ~~~Systems  V~IC BMP~~s~~.~~>
  Systems                 UIC BMPs.







                                                          FY 90          FY 91           FY 93           FY 94


Subsurface Disposal       Revise installation regulations
  Systems (Cont'd)       to incorporate BMPs.

                        Revise the variance procedure
                        re: critical area provisions.

                        Evaluate staffing levels,
                        funding, and funding mechanisms.

                        Develop guidelines for septic
                        system densities in areas of >
                        highly permeable soils.

                        Develop guidance materials for
                        municipal officials re: siting
                        requirements.

                        Support research of
                        de-nitrifying septic systems.

                        Provide technical assistance to
                        towns in revising/adopting
                        septic system maintence/
                        management regulations.

                        Prepare and distribute
                        educational materials re: ISDS
                        maintenance.








                                                            FY 90          FY 91           FY 92           FY 93


Subsurface Disposal       Evaluate replacement
  Systems (Cont'd)        alternatives.

                         Evaluate the need for an MOA
                         between DES and DH&HS for                        >
                         investigation failed systems.

Junkyards/Auto Salvage   Develop a consensus definition.                   >
  Yards
                         Develop BNPs.                                                     >

                         Prepare regulations based
                         on BMPs.

                         Inventory and map existing
                         facilities.

                         Bring existing facilities into
                         compliance.

                         Revise regulatory definition,
                         if necessary.

Urban Runoff              Assist municipalities in
                         evaluating local ordinances and
                         regulations for conflicts with
                         objectives.

                         Prepare and distribute technical
                         materials and provide training.







                                                     FY 90          FY 91          FY 92           FY 93


Urban Runoff (Cont'd)    Develop technical guidelines for
                      stormwater management measures.

                      Establish stormwater quality
                      requirements.

                      Evaluate staffing levels and
                      funding mechanisms.

                      Provide technical assistance to
                      municipalities in adopting
                      stormwater management
                      requirements.

                      Provide technical assistance to
                      local public works officials.

                      Assist municipal officials in
                      evaluating funding mechanisims.

                      Develop and conduct an
                      educational program targeting >
                      municipal officials.

                      Develop and establish
                      maintenance procedures.








                                                            FY 90          FY 91           FY 92           FY 93


Urban Runoff (Cont'd)    Establish state permit
                         conditions re: permittee as
                         responsible party for
                         maintenance.

                         Prepare, publish, and distribute
                         stormwater management guidance
                         materials.

                         Develop standardized procedures
                         for site inspection and                          >
                         enforcement action.

                         Complete waterbody
                                                                         >
                         prioritization.

                         Inspect stormwater control
                         measures and take enforcement                                                                   >
                        action when necessary.


                         Strengthen coordination between
                         state and local regulatory                                                                      >
                         agencies.

                         Establish a stormwater
                         maintenance program for                                                                         >
                         stateowned/managed facilities.








                                                              FY 90          FY 91           FY 92           FY 93


Urban Runoff (Cont'd)    Implement and evaluate .
                          stormwater management measures                                                                  >
                          (BMPs).

                          Support coordination of
                          stormwater management planning
                          on concurrent development                                                                       >
                          projects within the same
                          watershed.

                          Provide technical- assistance to
                          municipalities re: drainage.                                                                    >
     '0'8~~  ~networks.

                          Evaluated and establish policy
                          prohibition of direct
                          stormwater discharge.                                                                            X
                                                                                                                            x
                          Incoporate drainage retrofits as
                          part of new/upgrading highway             ?               ?              ?               ?
                          projects.

                          Evaluate state and federal
                                                                    ?              ?               7               ?
                          policy and funding mechanisms.

                          Evaluate the role of NPDES in
                          regulating stormwater discharge.








                                                            FY 90           FY 91           FY 92           FY 93


Urban Runoff (Cont'd)    Prepare, publish, and distribute
                         educational materials on waste                    >
                         oil recovery and recycling.

                         Promote UNH soil testing
                         services.

                         Establish mandatory vegetated
                         buffer requirements.

                         Research available information
                         on chemical transport from turf.

                         Develop and promulgate
                         guidelines for chemical use on                    >
                         lawns.

                         Demonstrate alternative
                         landscaping and site vegetation,
                         and prepare and distribute
                         educational materials.

                         Review and revise, if necessary,
                         the states pesticide regulations
                         re: commercial and private
                         applicators.








                                                              FY 90           FY 91           FY 93           FY 94


Urban Runoff (Contrd)    Develop and maintain a
                          computerized pesticide tracking                                                                  >
                          system.

Land Disposal/            Establish legislative authority
  Sludge                  for WSPCD to control.

                          Promulgate new rules.                            >

                          Establish new permit system for
                          sludge utilization.

                          Provide funding for upgrading
                          municipal facilities.

                          Develop BMPs and revise
                          applications.

                          Provide funding for
                                                                    ?              ?                 ?                ?
                          regionalization.

                          Identify and prioritize sludge
                          disposal areas in need of                         >
                          remediation.

                          Establish requirements for
                          reporting by facility operators.








                                                              FY 90          FY 91           FY92            FY93


Land Disposal/            Address industrial sludges.                                       >
  Sludge (Cont'd)
                          Review and revise, if necessary,
                          disposal/utilization practices.

Land Disposal/            Establish legislative authority
  Septage                 for WSPCD to control.

                          Promulgate new rules.                            >

                          Establish New Permit system for
                                                                            >
                          septage utilization.

                          Provide funding for upgrading
                          municipal facilities.

                          Provide funding for
                          regionalization.

                          Identify and prioritize septage
                          disposal areas in need of                        >
                          remediation.

                          Establish requirements for
                          reporting by facility operators.

                          Develop BMPs and revise
                         applications.







                                  CHAPTER VIII
                 POTENTIAL FUNDING ALTERNATIVES AND STRATEGIES



      The successful implementation of New Hampshire's Nonpoint Source
Management Plan will require a commitment of significant local, state, and
federal funds. Given the current economic forecasts, it would be
inappropriate to expect that all of the outlined Program Actions for each of
the major nonpoint source categories will be funded within the next four
years. Nevertheless, New Hampshire is committed to addressing nonpoint source
problems by priority waterbodies and priority needs.


      This chapter will outline potential funding sources and their
limitations. This is not intended to be exhaustive of all possible sources but
         I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
will highlight those sources most likely to be available.


Federal Sources


      The Clean Water Act provides a number of possible funding avenues to
address NPS concerns:


      Section 205(1i)(5), the nonpoint source program, has provided state
agency funding for program development through FY90 and for implementation
projects beginning with FY89 funds. The focus is to provide funds to address
NPS implementation actions and requires a 40% non-federal match. Available
funds for FY90 total $100,000.
      State Strategy: The DES-WS&PCD will continue NPS program development
      efforts through 1990 utilizing carryforward funds from FY88 and FY89
      205(j)(5) grants. A shift towards implementation efforts was initiated
      in the fall of 1989 and will gradually supplant program development
      activities. Some of the actions outlined in the previous chapter will
      be supported under these funds during FY90.


      Section 205(Ji)(1), the water quality management program, may be used for
nonpoint source program objectives.  There are no non-federal matching
requirements. Available funds for FY90 total $100,000; however it is not


                                      VIII-1







anticipated that excess funds would be available for NPS project
implementation at this funding level.
      State Strategy: The WS&PCD will focus these decreasing funds on basic
      water quality monitoring programs (ambient monitoring at fixed
      stations), as well as support of wasteload allocation studies. During
      1990, these funds will support baseline assessment of water quality in
      the Loon Mtn. area as part of a three year investigation of the
      effectiveness of UPS controls during ski area development.


      Section 319(h), the newly funded nonpoint source implementation program,
provides matching grants to support actions outlined in approved state NPS
Management Plans. As with the 205(j)(5) program, a 40% non-federal match is
required. The FY90 allocation for New Hampshire has been set at approximately
$270,000, of which approximatey $35,000 is dedicated to groundwater planning
actions involving NPS problems. Eligibility requirements and the grant
application deadline of January 15, 1990 may limit opportunities for
involvement of cooperating agencies for the initial funding round.
      State Strategy: Given the requirement that state NPS Management Plans
      be EPA approved prior to award of 319(h) funds, the WS&PCD has focused
      its resources on developing a fully approved Plan during the first
      quarter of FY90. The WS&PCD intends to aggressively seek 100% of its
      319(h) allocation, including the groundwater component, with submission
      of a detailed work plan by January 15. Due to the 40% non-federal match
      requirement, governmental lead agencies identified in the previous
      chapter may not be able to successfully compete with non-governmental
      entities for these funds.  It is anticipated that targeted projects in
      critical watersheds will successfully comply with grant requirements and
      receive EPA/state support under these grant funds.


      Section 106(b), the groundwater component of the general water
management funds, may be used for nonpoint efforts related to groundwater
actions as outlined in the NPS Management Plan. For the FY90 period, a total
of $97,300 is available.
      State Strategy: The 106(b) funds will continue to be focused on
      groundwater and wellhead protection activities including those related
      program development as well as implementation.


                                    VIII-2








State Sources


      New Hampshire state government is supported in general via taxes and
fees, nearly all of which are unrestricted revenues which flow to the State
General Fund. There are few programs for which revenues are restricted, or
dedicated to particular uses and state departments.  One example of a
dedicated fee is the surcharge to the boat registration fees which is
deposited into a dedicated program fund.  The mission of the program, which is
administered by DES-WSPCD, is to control and eradicate water milfoil. Milfoil
is an exotic aquatic weed which is spread between lakes via boats and boat
propellors, automobiles and boat trailers, and jet skis.


      In general, the following are potential funding sources for implementing
NPS measures:


      Taxes are-generally not of the broad-based type in New Hampshire, yet
they are responsible for a significant portion of all state revenue sources.
It is not anticipated over the four year planning period of the NPS Management
Plan that state taxes will be a substantive NPS funding source.
      State Strategy:  An increase in taxes will not be proposed to cover
      program development or implementation efforts under the NPS program in
      NH in the forseeable future.


      Fees are more widely accepted in New Hampshire as a revenue source since
they are levied on particular activities and not based on the ability to pay.
For example, WSPCD is granted by the Legislature the authority to require
payment of fees for water tests for drinking water, for septic system permits,
for licenses for designers and installers of septic systems, etc. Fee
increases are established by the Legislature and may or may not be restricted.
      State Strategy: The DES is aggressively seeking increases in existing
      fees and Legislative support for new fees to provide the basis for
      meeting program staff support and for seeking new and innovative
      solutions to NPS problems.


      Revolvinq Loan Funds are newer to state government.  The NH Water
Pollution Control Revolving Loan Fund was established in 1989 to provide


                                    VIII-3





 assistance to municipalities and governmental sudivisions to plan, design, and
 construct water pollution abatement projects, including septage and sludge
 facilities.  This dedicated fund'is designed to provide low interest loans to
municipalities and is administered by WSPCD. Federal capitalization grants
are made under Title VI of the federal Clean Water Act, which also requires
the state to provide an amount equal to 20 percent of each federal
capitalization grant received. A priority list of-projects eligible to'
 receive loans from the fund is mandated. Details of this revolving fund are
described in DES regulations Env-C 500. New Hampshire will encourage
municipalities to utilize this funding source when NPS pollution presents a
 significant threat to safety, health and economic viability and when other
 potential funding sources have been exhausted.
       State Strategy: Initial capitalization of the State Revolving Fund and
       existing demands for its funds based on projected priority needs will
       limit the availability of this revenue source for NPS projects. It is
      anticipated that in four years or so, sufficient pay backs will have
      occurred to allow for support of smaller NPS program implementation
      activities to be funded, assuming these projects meet eligibility
      criteria.


Local Sources


      Municipalities play an important role in providing services, including
environmental control programs such as erosion and sedimentation, drainage,
and stormwater management.  Local governments' primary responsibilities are
education, health and welfare, highways, police and fire protection, as well
as environmental protection. Nonpoint source pollution resulting from land
use is best controlled at the local level of government given the
municipalities' reliance on property taxes and user- and impact-fees for
revenues. These taxes and fees provide a wide range of potential revenue
sources to local governments and, with the need for revenues for environmental
assessment and abatement rapidly increasing, municipalities are aggressively
revising local' regulations to meet burgeoning financial responsibilities.
These changes need to be supported at the state level with appropriate
measures and services.
      State Strategy: Local revenues are largely based on real estate taxes.
      These are not likely to be increased to meet the needs for NPS pollution


                                    VIII-4








      controls except when the problem involves municipal property.  Increased
      interest in impact fees imposed on developers as a condition of local
      approval of projects will likely increase as a mechanism to address
      potential NPS concerns. Increased user fees, such as increased tipping
      fees at wastewater and solid waste facilities, will also be utilized by
     municipalities to address NPS needs at the local level. The WS&PCD will
      encourage and support community efforts to transfer the direct and
      indirect costs of NPS pollution on to the benefitting user. Individual
      property owners ultimately will continue to be responsible for funding
      solutions to NPS problems or for installing and following BMP's to
      control NPS of concerns.


      The Plan outlines the first four years of actions nessessary to achieve
water quality improvements.  It is estimated that full funding of the state's
portion of the Plan over a four year period would require $8.2 million. The
State's expected level of participation over the four years is $1.9 million.
To initiate the first year of the Plan, $41,000 under 205(j)(5), $40,000 under
604(b), $27,500 under the Federal UST program, and $402,000 under 319 would be
required.  The second year of the Plan would require $100,000 under 205(j)(5),
$10,000 under 106(b), $40,000 under 604(b), $27,500 under the Federal UST
program, and $350,000 under 319.  At least $377,500 under UST and 319 funds
would be required for the third and forth years.







                                            CHAPTER IX
                                        CONSISTENCY REVIEW



         Background


             The federal consistency provisions of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
         require states to identify those federal financial assistance programs and
         review federal projects for potential impacts on water quality and consistency
         with the state's approved Nonpoint Source Management Program.  The mechanism
         for this consistency review is the state's existing intergovernmental review
         process established under Executive Order 12372 and implemented through the
         New Hampshire Office of State Planning (State clearinghouse). Other
         processes, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
         environmental review process, A-106 pollution abatement process, Coastal Zone
         Management programs, and Section 320 National Estuarine Management Plans, may
         be used to promote and ensure federal consistency with State Nonpoint Source
         Management Programs. Any federal assistance programs and development projects
         which may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the state Nonpoint
         Source Management Program will be subject to a review as determined by the
          State Clearinghouse Single Point of Contact (SPOC). If the State NPS Program
          Coordinator (reviewer) determines that an application or project is not
          consistent with the provisions of its NPS Management Program, the federal
         agency, where mandated by EO 12372, must accomodate or address the state's
          concerns. Listed below are the relevant federal assistance programs included
          in 1989 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.  This list is followed by
          selected federal development projects eligible for Section 319 consistency
   *     reviews.













                                                IX-1


I-      ----i---ï¿½-:---------'---  ---_---:   ----:'--ï¿½  ------ 






SELECTED FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS


Department of Agriculture

10.054  Emergency Conservation Program
10.062 Water Bank Program
10.063 Agricultural Conservation Program
10.064  Forestry Incentives Program 
10o068  Rural Clean Water Program
10.069  Conservation Reserve Program
10.414  Resource Conservation and Development Loans 
10.416  Soil and Water Loans


(USDA, contd) 

10.418  Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities
10.419 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans
10.652  Forestry Research
10.901 Resource Conservation and Development
10.902  Soil and Water Conservation
10.904  Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
10.906 River Basin Surveys and Investigations

Department of Commerce

11.405  Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation
11.407  Commercial Fisheries Research and Development
11.415 Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantees
11.417  Sea Grant Support
11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Administration Grants
11.420  Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research Reserves
11.426 Financial Assistance for Marine Pollution Research
11.427 Fisheries Development and Utilization - Research and Demonstration
        Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program
11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program

Department of Defense

12.100 Aquatic Plant Control
12.101 Beach Erosion Control Projects
12.104  Flood Plain Management Services
12.105  Protection of Essential Highways, Highway Approaches and Public Works
12.106  Flood Control Projects      -
12.107  Navigation Projects 
12.108  Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control 
12.109 Protection, Clearing and Straightening Channels
12.110  Planning Assistance to States






                                   IX-2







Department of the Interior

15.600 Anadromous Fish Conservation
15.605 Fish Restoration
15.611 Wildlife Restoration
15.916  Outdoor Recreation - Acquisitions Development and Planning

Department of Transportation

20.106 Airport Improvement Program
20.205 Highway Planning and ConstructiQn
20.308 Local Rail Service Assistance

General Services Administration

39.002 Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property

Small Business Administration

59.031 Small Business Pollution Control Financing Guarantee

Environmental Protection Aqency

66.418 Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works
66.433  State Underground Water Source Protection
66.435  Clean Lakes Cooperative Agreements
66.455  Construction Grants for Abatement of CSO Pollution in Marine Bays and
        Estuaries
66.456  Comprehensive Estuarine Management
66.458 Capitalization Grants for State Revolving Funds
66.459  Nonpoint Source Reservation
66.600 Environmental Protection Consolidated Grants Program Support
66.700 Pesticides Enforcement Program
66.802 Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (Superfund)

Department of Enerqv

81.065  Nuclear Waste Disposal Siting
















                                    IX-3






SELECTED FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS


USDA- Forest Service

Forest Plans
Resource Area Analyses
Integrated Resource Management Plans
Chemicals/Pesticides
Area Analysis/cumulative impacts analysis
Recreation Development
Transportation Plans
Soil and Water Management
Water Uses and Development
Soil and Water Improvement Projects
Public Water Supply Watershed Management
Hydrologic Modification
Wetlands Protection
Riparian Management Programs
Minerals Exploration &.Development
Hydropower licensing activity in coordination with FERC/Special Use Permitting
ORY Activities/off-road vehicles
Fire Protection
Soil and Water Monitoring Program
Road Construction and Maintenance
Watershed Condition Program
Municipal Watershed Management Program
Floodplain Modifications


USDA Soil Conservation Service/Aqricultural Stabilization and Conservation
      Service

ACP (Agricultural Conservation Projects)
PL-566 (Small Watershed Projects)
RCWP (Rural Clean Water Projects)

Department of Defense

Defense Installations
      Land Management Plans
      Waste Management Plans
      Re-vegetation Plans
      Location, design and acquisition of new or expanded defense installations
      Plans, procedures and facilities for handling or storage use zones
      Establishment of impact, compatibility or restricted use zones

Corps of Engineers
      dredging
      channel improvement
      breakwaters
      other navigational works
      erosion control structures
      beach replenishment


                                     IX-4







      Department of Transportation

      Federal Highway Administration
            Highway Construction/Reconstruction

      Federal Aviation Administration
            Location/design, construction, maintenance, and demolition of Federal
             aids to air navigation

      Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service

            Proposed acquisitions

      Department of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service

            Fisheries Management Plans

      National Park Service

            Proposed acquisitions




      Proqram Needs


            In order to assure that the NPS Program Manager is provided the
      opportunity to review and comment on proposed actions which may have an impact
      on the state's sensitive surface and groundwaters, it has been agreed that a
      Memorandum of Understanding will be developed during 1990 between the Office
      of State Planning (State clearinghouse) and DES to clarify the roles of the
I      agencies in consistency review determinations.  Within DES, the WS&PCD will
      develop criteria which it will use in conjunction with the Commissioners
      Office to evaluate projects for consistency.
















                                            IX-5








                                  CHAPTER X
           PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION



      A number of individuals representing state, federal, and private
organizations have been involved with the development of this Management
Plan. A report entitled 'Findings and Recommendation of the Technical
Advisory Committee is included in Appendix D.  The Nonpoint Source Advisory
Committee (NPSAC) was very helpful reviewing the Assessment Report and in
developing the Plan.  At a meeting held on July 12, 1988, the interested
members agreed to be involved with the plan implementation and review, and
proposed to continue to meet at least once every six months. A copy of the
Plan will be submitted to the NPSAC members for review.


      In addition to the NPSAC, a number of other organizations representing
the public's interest were contacted by WSPCD staff,members in order to
solicit input toward the development of this Plan.  As required by 40 CFR 25,
public announcements and legal notices were issued in newspapers statewide
allowing time for public review and comment on the final NPS Management Plan.
Public involvement will continue to be encouraged during the implementation
and re-definition of this plan.


      The following public meetings, conferences, and forums were attended by
WSPCD staff. Presentation and discussion of the Draft Management Plan were
held after which comments were received and noted. All comments were
addressed, where possible, during the finalization of the document. Comments
received after the December 21, 1989 deadline are contained in Chapter XI,
Responsiveness Summary.



May 31, 1989  -  In-service water quality training workshop for Cooperative
                  Extension staff and others at Squam Lakes Science Center,
                  Holderness.


August 16, 1989  -  Public informational meeting on the final NPS Assessment
                     Report and draft NPS Management Plan.








August 25, 1989  -  Meeting with NH Association of Conservation Districts.
                     Also in attendance were SCS staff, including the State
                     Conservationist.


September 20, 1989  -  Public informational meeting on the draft NPS Management
                        Plan and program implementation.


October 6, 1989  -  In-service water quality training workshop on BMPs for
                     foresters at Shieling Forest, Peterborough, sponsored by
                     BRED-Division of Forests and Lands, UNH Cooperative
                     Extension, Society of American Foresters, and SCS.


October 12, 1989  -  Wellhead Protection Program Advisory Committee meeting.


October 24, 1989  -  NHACD Water Quality/Urban Committee Members meeting to
                      review areas for future activity including pesticides
                      and water quality, nonpoint source pollution, and
                      stormwater management model ordinance. Also in
                      attendance were SCS, UNH-Coop. Ext., NHDA-Division of
                      Pesticide Control.


October 27, 1989  -  Meeting with UNH-Coop. Ext., NH Dept. of Ag., SCS, and
                      NHACD to establish an interagency Manure Management
                      Committee for purposes of reviewing and developing BMPs
                      for small-farm manure management.


November 5 and 6, 1989  -  Floodplain Management Conference hosted by NHACD,
                       the City of Keene and COE.


November 9, 1989  -  NPS Advisory Committee meeting regarding the
                      implementation of the NPS Management Plan and
                      designation of subcommittees.


November 20 & 21, 1989  -  'Wetlands - No Net Loss' Conference hosted by DES
                      in cooperation with NHACC and EPA.



                                     X-2







 December 14, 1989 - Wellhead Protection Program Advisory Committee meeting.


 January 19, 1990      Public informational meeting on the final NPS Management
                      Plan and program implementation.



        Public presentation of the NPS Management Program will be- given when
 possible upon request at meetings and events sponsored by interested groups
 and organizations, including:


 Audubon Society of New Hampshire
 Federal Agencies
 Forestry Societies
 Lake and Pond Protection Associations 
 Legislative Committees
 NH Association of Conservation Commissions
 NH Association of Conservation Districts
 NH Association of Municipal Officials
 NH Business and Industry Association
 NH Home Builders Association
 NH Municipal Association
 NH Natural Resources Forum
 NH Timberland Owners Association
 NH Resource Recovery Association
 Regional Planning Agencies and Commissions
 River and Watershed.Councils and Associations
 Society for the Protection of NH Forests
 Solid Waste District Committees
 State Agencies
 Trail and Outing Clubs
 University of New Hampshire
 Wildlife Councils and Federations



       The NPSAC will continue to meet on an as-needed basis to review and
 evaluate program progress and provide guidance for future course corrections.
 As in the past, inter-governmental coordination will continue through these
 and other mechanisms, such as CORD and representation on committees.









                                       X-3








                                 APPENDIX A


                           PRIORITIZATION PROCESS



      All surface waterbodies shall be evaluated and assigned point values
according to the following criteria. Points shall be assigned to recognize
the presence and benefit of significant resource values, severity or risk of
impairment, and type of pollutant(s). Point totals shall be used to
prioritize waterbodies and guide the development of management and protection
measures. Waterbodies assessed as impaired or threatened are to be
prioritized with criteria pertaining to restoration or protection,
respectively. The resultant list identifying high priority waters may be
changed as necessary to reflect additional information and further analyses.





WATER OUALITY - 100 point maximum
         1.   Class A - 100 points
         2.   Class B -  70 points
         3.   Class C -  40 points


DESIGNATED USE CATEGORY - 100 point maximum
         1.   public drinking water supply - 100 points
         2.   industrial water supply -  70 points
         3.   agricultural water supply -  40 points


SEVERITY OR RISK OF IMPAIRMENT - 100 point maximum
         1.   present or imminent - 100 points
         2.   high -  70 points
         3.   moderate -  40 points
         4.   low-  20 points








           *:0~~ - 0 ~~~A-1







TYPE OF POLLUTANT - No point maximum
         1.   hydrologic modification - 50 points
         2.   thermal modification - 50 points
         3.   pH alteration - 50 points
         4.   nutrients - 40 points
         5.   organic enrichment - 40 points 
         6.   toxics, inorganics - 40 points
         7.   toxics, organics - 40 points
         8.   pesticides - 30 points
         9.   pathogens - 30 points
        10.   salinity - 20 points
        11.   suspended solids - 20 points


NATURAL RESOURCE CATEGORY - 250 point maximum
     Wildlife Resources - 100 point maximum
        1.   rare or endangered species - 50 point maximum
              (a)    national significance - 50 points
              (b)    regional significance - 40 points
             (c)    statewide significance - 30 points
        2.   natural wildlife habitat - 50 point maximum
             (a)    exceptional - 50  points
             (b)    good - 40 points
             (c)    moderate - 30 point
        3.   rare or endangered plant or habitat - 50 point maximum
             (a)    national significance - 50 points
             (b)    regional significance - 40 points
             (c)    statewide significance - 30 points
        4.   natural vegetative communities - 50 point maximum
             (a)    exceptional - 50 points
             (b)    very - 40 points
             (c)    moderate - 30 point
        5.   exemplary natural ecological community - 50 points
     Fish Resources - 100 point maximum 
        1.   rare or endangered fish or habitat - 50 point maximum
             (a)    national significance - 50 points
             (b)    regional significance - 40 points
             (c)    statewide significance - 30 points


                                    A-2








         2.   natural aquatic habitat - 50 point maximum
              (a)    exceptional - 50 points
              (b)    very - 40 points
              (c)    moderate - 30 point
         3.   fisheries travel corridor - 50 points
         4.   fish reproduction - 30 point maximum
              (a)    natural reproduction - 30 points
              (b)    some stocking - 20 points
              (c)    stocking - 10 point
         5.   anadromous fish - 30 point maximim
              (a)    restoration begun - 30 points
              (b)    documented restoration plan - 20 point
      Shoreline/River Corridor - 50 point maximum
         generally undisturbed natural environment - 50 points
         primarily rural and natural - 30 points
         human modification clearly evident - 10 points


CULTURAL RESOURCE CATEGORY - 100 point maximum
      Archaeological or Historical Resource
         national significance - 100 points
         regional significance -  70 points
         statewide significance - 50 points
         local significance - 30 points


RECREATIONAL RESOURCE CATEGORY - 100 point maximum
      Fishery - 40 point maximum
      Boating - 40 point maximum
     Other Recreation - 40 point maximum
     Access - 20 point maximum
        1.  on publicly-owned land - 20 points
        2.. on privately-owned land - 10 points









                                     A-3











        1:f:                                          











                                           APPEN:DIX B
I










                                    COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF
                          FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL NPS-RELATED: PROGRAMS









            : Excerote-d fr o Appndix i f  of the  :88 an









            :  issionS:.in Nfby :a~ory-:M,              :bpdkfo runi ial Cnseeratio
            :~ ~ 'h inO y         Ma : j :                      jetr
            ;                 :
    I~         
  :I  






                    S   0  0   0  :i   ;:    ;  :APPEN0DIX   B 

                 0    0 0 t 0  : 2   0COMPREHENSIVWE SUMMARY OF 
          ;    0   0 0; 0  :FEDERALs STATE AND L oCAL NPS-RELATE:D PROGRAMS

  I~    :  : :i:           t    :  :      i
    I  ~Ei                
  I~                   fS0:R0                            :S  
  I::                  :                 
    I~~          
   :I                          0   

      I~~~X      :      
           (Ecrpe  fro  Ape:      i ;    of th:98Hnbo oMncplCnevto
           Comsin  in NH byMror     Swoe   xctv   ietr

  I                                                     










                                     APPENDIX B

                                SOURCES Of ASSISTANCE


                                 G OVRNMENT AGENCIES


FEDERAL

Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army
    New England Division                                              (617) 647-8490
    A24 Trapelo Road, Waltham, MA 02254                               1-800-343-4789
     - Directly oversees planning and construction of small flood control projects
     - Conducts regional, interstate and intrastate water supply/water resources
       studies at the request of Congress.
     - Issues permit for dredge and fill in "waters of the U.S." Federal Water
       Pollution Control Act ï¿½404, River and Harbor Act of 1899 ï¿½9 and ï¿½10
Farmers Home Administration, US Department of Agriculture
    District Office for southern NH:  Clinton Street, Concord, NH 03301    224-9598
    District Office for northern NH:  PD Box 8, Laconia, NH 032,46-          528-1924
     - Provides funds for the development, repair or expansion of rural
       (communities under 10,000 people) water supply and waste disposal systems.
     - Provides loans for soil and water conservation programs on farmland.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior
    22 Bridge Street, Concord, NH 03301                                      225-1411
     - Researches and comments on plans for federal and federal aid highways and
       projects of agencies such as EPA, FERC, Corps of Engineers, etc. for
       development in and near water bodies.  Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act

Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture
    PO Box 640, Durham, NH 03824                                             868-5576
     - State and Private Forestry section provides cooperative forestry assistance,
       answers general forestry questions and provides literature to the public
     - Forest Research section oversees the Bartlett Experimental Forest and the
       Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest and provides information on forestry
       research, such as new genetic strains of trees, ecology and forest
       management and soil and water conservation

    White Mountain National Forest, Federal Building, Leconia, NH 03246    524-6450
     - The Forest Service manages the White Mountain National Forest for the
       multiple uses of recreation, timber, clean water, wildlife and wilderness.

Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture
    Federal Building, Durham, NH 03824                                       868-7581
     - Assists state agencies and local communities in the planning and
       implementation of small watershed projects for watershed management or
       protection, flood control.
     - Conducts soil surveys.


                                       B-1







     - Provides technical and advisory assistance.to individuals and groups on
       improving water resource management for agricultural purposes.  (See also
       Conservation Districts)

State Water Resources Research Institute, US Geological Survey
    Water Resource Research Center, Science Bldg., UNH, Durham, NH 03824   862-1924
     - Provides technical assistance and grants for research in water-related
       problem areas through the Water Resource Research Center at the University
       of New Hampshire

US Environmental Protection Agency
    Region I:  Room 2203, 3FK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203       (617) 565-3424
     - Primarily a regulatory agency administering a variety of environmental
       protection laws, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
       amended, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the ResourceeConservation and           I
       Recovery Act.
     - Issues and enforces permits, regulations and standards.

US Geological Survey, Department of Interior
   525 Clinton Street, RFD 12, Box 352-A, Concord, NH 03301                  225-461
     - Hatches state funds and cooperates with the NH Water Resources Board to
       conduct stream flow gauging and groundwater investigations, including the
       sand and gravel aquifer mapping program funded in 1985 


STATE         -


Air Resources Division (DES  271-3505)
    64 North Main Street, P0 Box 2033 Concord, NH 03302                      271-1370
     - Administers programs under federal Clean Air Act of 1970, Resource Recovery
       and Conservation Act (RCRA) Hazardous Waste  nheineration, and Toxic
       Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB Inspection Program.
     - Regulates and monitors emissions RSA 125-C'
     - Regulates release of toxic chemicals into the air RSA 125-I

Office of the Attorney General (AG), Environmental Protection Division
    State House Annex, Concord, NH 03301                                     271-3658
     - Reviews state agreements and contracts,
     - Enforces regulatory authority of state agencies.
     - Reviews intergovernmental agreements (including agreements between
       municipalities to supply water) to see that they meet the requirements of
      -the statute.  RSA 53-A
     - Initiates legal action against those whose activities may effect water -
       quality, such as illegal dumping or dredge and fill.                             I

Department of Environmental Services (DES)
   Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302                                271-5505
      Divisions:  Air Resources, Waste Management, Water Resources, Water Supply        I
                 and Pollution Control (see also separate Division listings)
     - Created in 1987 by combining Air Resources, Office of Waste Management,
      Water Resources Board, Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission, and
       the State Geologist (formerly with DRED) Chapter 202, Laws of 1986.
     - Laboratory Services analyzes air, drinking water and wastes.
     - The Geology Unit, led by the State Geologist, gathers and interprets data on I



                                   B-2 i







       the geologic and mineral resources of the state, including information on
       surficial and bedrock geology as it relates to the availability of ground
       water. RSA 12-A
     - Public Information and Permitting provides information -on and tracks permits
       in all divisions of DES.

Fish and Game Department
    34 Bridge Street, Concord, NH 03301                                       27o-3421
     E- nforces fish and game laws and regulations.
     - Conservation officers may enforce laws relating to protection of the
     environment and dumping and littering.  RSA 206:26 XI
     - May acquire and manage wildlife conservation areas
     - Responsible for endangered species of fauna, subcontracts research to
       Audubon Society of NH  RSA 212-A

Governor's Office of Emergency Management
    State Office Park South, 107.Pleasant Street, Concord, NH 03301           271-2231
     - Plans for and coordinates state response to natural and manmade disasters
       RSA 107-C
     - Coordinating agency for National Flood Insurance Program

Division of Historical Resources, Office of Historic Preservation
    (Department of Libraries, Arts and Historic Resources)
    Walker Building, State Office Park South
     5 South Fruit Street, Concord, NH 03301                                  271-3558
     - The State Office of Historic Preservation is responsible for historical,
       architectural, and archaeological research and development, including the
       provision of technical assistance to local government agencies.  RSA 227-C

Department of Labor
    19 Pillsbury Street, Concord, NH 03301                                    271-3176
     - Enforces "Worker's Right to Know Act", which requires employers to notify
       their employees and the local fire department of toxic substances in the
       workplace.  RSA 277-A

NH Natural Heritage Inventory, Dept. of Resources & Economic Development
    Prescott Park, Building 2, 105 Loudon Rd.
    P0 Box 856, Concord, NH 03302                                             271-3623
     - Organized collection of data on the status and distribution of rare plant
       and animal species and exemplary natural communities
      -Conducts research on endangered and threatened plant species  RSA 217-A

Pesticides Control Board, Department of Agriculture
    Concord Center, 10 Ferry Street, Concord, NH 03301                        271-3550
     - Composed of representatives of state agencies concerned, including
       Agriculture, Fish and Came, Water Supply and others.
     - Registers commercial pesticides applicators and issues permits.  RSA
       *30:28-A8

Office of State Planning
    2 1/2 Beacon Street, Concord, NH 03301                                    271-2155
     - Administers the Section 106 groundwater program development by gubernatorial
       assignment.  Federal Watar Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
     Administers NH Coastal Zone Program.   Coastal Zone Management Act
     - Collects and organizes demographic and other statistics.  RSA a-C:3


                                      B-3







     - Prepares comprehensive state development plan. RSA 9-A
     - Provides regional and municipal assistance in areas of growth management and
       resource protection. RSA 4-C:7-8
     - Administers water protection assistance program. RSA 4-C:19-22
     - Administers Land Conservation Investment Program.  RSA 221-A (See also Trust
       for New Hampshire Lands)

Division of Public Health Service (DPHS), Department of Health and Human Services
    Health & Welfare Building, Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301                 271-4501
     - Makes and enforces rules and regulations to protect the public from
       nuisances and wastes.  RSA 147

Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
    B Old Suncook Road, Concord, NH 03301                                     271-2431
     - Sets standards for such things .as strength of water pipes and accuracy of
       water meters. RSA 370
     - Grants public utilities the right of eminent domain to acquire property for
       reservoirs, wells or water pipes for a public water supply. RSA 371
     - Has general supervisory power over the services that public utilities
       provide. RSA 374
     - Reviews rate changes proposed by public utilities, including non-municipal
       water companies. RSA 364:4, 378

;Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED)
    Prescott Park, Building 2, 105 Loudon Road                          1-B00-852-8782
    PO Box 856, Concord, NH 03302
       Forests & Lends, State Nursery 271-3456; Recreation Services (LWCF) 271-3627
       Bureau of Off Highway Recreational Vehicles (BOHRV) 271-3254; NH Natural
       Heritage Inventory (NHNHI) 271-3623
     - Required to develop a permit process to regulate prospecting for and mining
       of minerals, including-rules that address protection of surface and
       groundwater. RSA 12-E
     - The Division of Forests and Lands regulates timber cutting and slash
       disposal near surface water. RSA 224:44-a - 50
      - Upon request, the Division of Forests and Lands assists municipalities with
       management of town forests. RSA 31:114
     - Adopts list of and plans protection for endangered and threatened plant
       species RSA 217-A
     - The Division of Recreation and Parks. administers federal Land and Water
       Conservation Fund money for NH.
     - The Bureau of Off Highway Recreational Vehicles is responsible for a state
       trail system for off highway recreational vehicles and administers grants
       for construction and winter maintenance of trails.  RSA 215-A
     - NH Natural Heritage Inventory (see separate listing above)

Department of Revenue Administration
    61 South Spring Street, Concord, NH 03301
        Municipal Services 271-3397; Current Use 271-2191
     - Sets local property tax rates after examining records to ensure all
       appropriations are properly authorized.
     - Administers current use assessment RSA 79-A

Division of Safety Services, Department of Safety
    3ames H. Hayes Building, Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301                    271-3336
     - Regulates boats and navigation on waters of the state. RSA 270


                                      B-4








                - Regulates moorings on Winnipesaukee, Squam, Sunapee, Winnisquam, and
                  Newfound Lakes RSA 270:59-71
                - The Fire Marshal enforces standards for installation and closure of
                  petroleum storage tanks of the National Fire Protection Association (NrPA)
                  set forth in NrPA #30.

           Department of Transportation
               3ohn 0. Morton Building, Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301                   271-3731
                - Required to repair or replace private wells that are adversely affected by
                  construction or maintenance of state highways, including those contaminated
                  by de-icing salts.  RSA 228:34
                - Required to submit plans for a highway to be built in a public water supply
                  watershed to the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission for review
                  and approval prior to construction.  RSA 148:25-a
                - Regulates curb cuts (streets and driveways) on state roads
                - Issues-permits for junkyards and off premise signs on interstate, turnpike,
                  and federal aid primary highways.  RSA 236:69-110

           Waste Management Division (DES  271-3505)
               Health and Welfare Building, Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301-6509          271-o474
                - Created in 1987 by combining Office of Waste Management and section of Water
                  Supply and Pollution Control that administered federal "Superfund" hazardous
                  waste cleanup program (CERCLA)
                - Regulates solid waste disposal, including a permit process for sanitary
                  landfills.  RSA 149-M
                - Implements federal hazardous waste program under Subtitle C of Resource
                  Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
                - Regulates hazardous waste storage, transport, and disposal, including a
                  permit process for hazardous waste facility siting.  RSA 147-A, 147-C, 147-0
                - Administers federal "Superfund" hazardous waste cleanup program (CERCLA)
                - Administers NH Hazardous Waste Fund, which provides financial support for
                  the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and limited matching support for
                  collection of domestic hazardous waste. RSA 147-B

           Water Resources Division (DES  271-3505)
               64 North Main Street, PO Box 2008, Concord, NH 03302                      271-3406
                - One of two water divisions in DES, focuses on water quantity
                - Regulates construction, operation and maintenance of dams.  RSA 481, 482
                - Regulates flow and levels of inland waters. RSA 482, 484, 485
                -Cooperates with the US Soil Conservation Service and municipalities in the
                  small watershed program to provide watershed protection, flood prevention
                  and watershed management measures.  RSA 481:27
                Cooperates with the US Geological Survey in maintaining stream flow gauging
                  stations, conducting groundwater research, and preparing groundwater
                  avsilability maps.  RSA 481:21 and Chapter 376, Laws of 1955
                -Authorized to monitor use of surface and groundwater
                -Sets well construction standards, RSA 489-B
                - Collects information from well construction logs to add to the data on
                  groundwater availability maintsined by the Water Resources Board. RSA 489-B
                - Administers the Water Maill Board and the Wetlands Board isee below)

           Water Supply and Pollution Control Uivision tDLS  271-3505)
               Hazen Drive, PO Uox 95, Concord, NH U33,02                                 271-3503
               Coastal Program:  152 Court Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801                   431-9366
                - One of two water divisions in iES; the other is Water Resources.


3;           :                                       B-5








     - Principal regulator of water supplies and water pollution control with           3
       implementation responsibilities under various federal laws, such as Safe
       Drinking Water Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act),
       and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FlFHA)
     - Investigates water supply contamination and makes rules to protect public
       water supplies. RSA 148
     - Oversees construction, operation and maintenance of public water supply
       systems; investigates water supply needs of groups of communities.  NSA
       148-B
       Regulates design and installation of subsurface disposal systems.  RSA  149-E
     : Administers federal and state wastewater treatment plant grants.
     -Lstabliahes criteria for and certifies water distribution and waste system
       operators.  RSA )32-L
     - Regulates dredge and fill in or adjacent to surface waters as it effects
       water quality.  RSA 149:8-a                                                      I
     - Regulates surface drainage and sedimentation and erosion control for
       projects of 100,000 square feet or more.  NSA 149:8-a
     - Regulates industrial discharges and discharges to groundwater.
     - Regulates underground petroleum storage tanks of 1,100 gallons or more.
     - Investigates and monitors oil spills and other oil related problems;
       administers NH Oil Pollution Control Fund.  RSA 146-A                            3

Water Well board, Department of Environmental Services
    64 North Main Street, PO Box 2008, Concord, NH 0.3U2                     271-3406
     - Composed of representatives from the industry (water well contractors and
       pump installers), Water Resources Board and State Geologist; administered by
       the Water Resources Board.  RSA 489-B:3
     - Licenses water well contractors and pump installers.  RSA 489-B

Wetlands board, Department of Lnvironmental Services
    64 North Main Street, Box 20D08, Concord, NH 03302                       271-2147  I
    Coastal Program:  152 Court St., Portsmouth, NH 03801                    431-9366
     - Composed of 8 representatives of state agencies and 3 public members;
       administered by the Water Resources Boardo  RSA 483-A
     - Regulates any and all projects to excavate, remove, dredge, fill or
       construct any structure in or on any bank, flat, marsh, bog or swamp as well
       as in any surface fresh or tidal waters within or bordering the state. RSA 

     - Reviews applications for permits for major projects involving excavation, 
       dredge, fill or construction in public waters of the state and makes
       recommendations to the Governor and Council, who make the final decision on 
       these permits. RSA 483-A, 482:4l-e-:41-ig 488-A

Site Evaluation Committee (tSC) & Energy Facility Evaluation Committee (EFEC) 
    Public Utilities Commission, 8 Old Suncook Road, Concord,'NH 033U1       271-2431 !
     - Both committees are composed of representatives of state agencies concerned
       and must issue a permit before a facility my be sited or constructed.
     - SEC considers the various impacts of electric power plants, including their I
       role in water supply planning and management.  RSA 162-F
     -  FEC evaluates the impacts of all energy related facilities proposed for the
       state.  NSA 162-1                                                                3

Council on Resources and Development MCURO)
    cd  Office of State Planning, 2 1/2 Beacon St., Concord, NH 033U1        271-2155
     - Created to foster coordination and cooperation among state agencies and to


                                        B-6                                            I






               investigate natureal resource development issues. RSA 162-C
            - Charged with resolving, or, if appropriate, submitting recommendations to
               the Governor and Council or to the GeUsneral Court for resolving, differences
               concerning water management or supply resulting from agency plans or
               programs affecting water allocation.  RSA 162-C:2 V.
            - Decisions of CORD are binding on member agencies but advisory to the General
               Court and the Governor and Council.

       State Conservation Committee
           Dept. of Agriculture, Concord Center, 10 Ferry St., Concord, NH 033U1  271-3681
            - Composed of 5 present or former Conservation District (see below)
               supervisors and 4 state agency representatives and charged with appointing
               conservation district supervisors and with providing assistance to,
               coordination of, and communications between conservation districts   RSA
               430-S:3-4

       Urban Forestry Center
            45 Elwyn Rd., Portsmouth, NH 03801                                        431-6774
             - Established by John Elwyn Stone's gift to the State of NH of 15U acres and a
               trust fund and managed by the Division of Forests and Lands for the purpose
               of increasing public knowledge of urban forestry
              - Provides a demonstration area for urban forestry education and research
               programs
       e    - Assists municipalities to implement urban forestry projects and provides
       -       technical assistance on maintenance of urban trees and shrubs


        COUNTY AND REGIONAL


        Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, USDA
            Prescott Park, 105 Loudon Road, PO Box 1398, Concord, NH 03302            224-7941
             - Assists forest and agricultural landowners, including municipalities, by
               providing funds toward the cost of projects to conserve natural resources
               and enhance tuture productivity such as timber stand improvement, tree
               planting, and forest management inventory plans
              Sells aerial photographs at cost

        Regional Offices

          Belknap/Carroll:  Room 205, Federal Bldg., Laconia, NH 03246                 524-6819

          Cheshire:  Room 218, Federal Bldg., Keene, NH 03431                          352-2322

          Coos:   Kidder Bldg., Route 3, Lancaster, NH 03584                           788-4602

          Grafton:  Post Office Bldg., Woodsville, NH 03785                            747-3/51

          Hillsborough:  Chappell Prof. Bldg., Route 13 South, Hilford, NH 03055   673-1222
I..
          Merrimack:  Country Hills Center, Route 13, Bow, NH 03301                    225-5931

          Rockingham/Strafford:  Room 102, PD Annex, Front St., Exeter, NH 03833   772-4384

          Sullivan:  25 Mulberry St., Claremont, NH 03743                              542-4281


                                             B-7









Conservation Districts
     -.Established in each county, in cooperation with the US Department of
       Agriculture, for research, planning and promotion of conservation and
       development of soil, water and related natural resources. RSA 430-B (See
       also Soil Conservation Service above)
     - Each district has a soil conservationist who assists municipalities and
       landowners with conservation-related projects.
      - The Soil Conservation Service provides technical advice, personnel and
       materials to help Districts carry out programs.

  Belknap County Conservation District
    719 Main Street, Laconia, NH 03246                                       524-6615

  Carroll County Conservation District
    44 Main Street, Conway, NH 0381B                                        .447-2771

  Cheshire County Conservation District
    196 Main Street, Room Z2I2, Keene, NH U3431                              352-3602

  Coos County Conservation District
    RID 2, Box 165a, Lancaster, NH 03584                                     788-4651

  Cratton County Conservation District
    31 Court Street, Woodsville, NH 03785                                    747-2001
  Hillsborough County Conservation District
    Chappell Professional Ctr, Xte 13 South, Milford, NH 03055               6732409

  Merrimack County Conservation District
    525 Clinton Street, RFD 12, Box 354-D, Concord, NH 03301                 225-6401

  Rockingham County Conservation District
    Federal Building, Front Street, Exeter, NH 03833                         772-4385

  Strafford County Conservation District
    USDA Service Center, County Farm Road, Dover, NH 03820                   749-3037

  Sullivan County Conservation District
    25 Mulberry Street, Claremont, NH 03743                                  542-6681

North Country Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Area-
    Humiston Bldg, Main St., NRD 4, Box 240, Meredith, NH 03253              279-6546
     -Sponsored by the County Conservation Districts, North Country RC&D includes
       Belknap, Carroll, Coos and Grafton Counties
      The purpose of RC&D ia to encourage economic growth through development,
       conservation and utilization of natural resources.
     - Undertakes projects such as erosion and sedimentation control, flood
       prevention, oiA1 and water management, and special resource studies


Cooperative Extension Service, USDA 
    Forestry Program, Pettee Hall, UNH, Durham, NH 03824                     862-1029
     - Responsible for the general educational programs of the US Department of

                                      B-8







      Agriculture, including making available the results of research on the
      management and utilization of natural resources
    - County foresters provide information and technical assistance on
      multiple-use forest management to private forest landowners, the forest
       indvstry, and municipalities,

 Belknap County Cooperative Extension Service
   Beacon St. East, PO Box 368, Laconia, NH 03246                            524-1737

 Carroll County Cooperative Extension Service
   Main St., Box 367, Conway, NH 03818                                       447-5922

 Cheshire County Cooperative Extension Service
    800 Park Ave., PC Box 798, Keene, NH 03431                                352-4550

 Coos County Cooperative Extension Service
    14B Main St., Lancaster, NH 03584                   -                     7B4961

 Grafton County Cooperative Extension Service
    County Courthouse, North Haverhill, NH
    mailing address:  P0 Box 191, Woodsville, NH 03785                        787-6944

 Hillsborough County Cooperative Extension Service
    Cnappell Professional Bldg., Route 13 South, Milford NH 03055             675-2510

 Merrimack County Cooperative Extension Service
    County Nursing Home, Gerrish, NH                                          796-2151
    mailing address:  3Z7 Uaniel Webster Hwy, Suite 2, Boscawen, NH 03303  225-5505

 Rockingham County Cooperative Extension Service
    Extension Service Center, North Road, Brentwood, NH
    mailing address:  PO Box 200, Epping, NH 03042                            679-5616

  Strafford County Cooperative Extension Service
    County Administration Bldg., County farm Rd., Dover, NH 03820             749-4445

  Sullivan County Cooperative Extension Service
    45 Crescent St., Claremont, NH 03743                                      543-3181


Regional Planning Commissions RSA 36:45-53
     - Prepare comprehensive master plans for the development of the region and
       assist municipalities with planning.
     - Assist local planning boards with mapping, resource development,
       comprehensive plans, and drafting ordinances and regulations.

 Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission
    329 Daniel Webster Highway, Suite 3, Boscawen, NH 03303                   796-2129

  Lakes Region Planning Commission
    Humiston Building, Main Street, Meredith, NH 03253                        279-8171

  Nsshua Regional Planning Commission
    115 Main Street, P0 Box 847, Nashua, NH 03061                       -     883-0366




                                        B-9







  North Country Council 
    42 Cottage Street, Littleton, NH 03561                                    4-6303

  Rockingham Planning Commission
    121 Water Street, Exeter, NH 03833                                        7783885

  Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission
    University Center, 400D Commercial Street, Manchester, NH 03101           669-4664

  Southwest Regional Planning Commission
    RR 1, Box 261P, Keene, NH 03431                                           3570557

  Strafford Regional Planning Commission
    County Courthouse, County Farm Road, Dover, NH 03820                       742-2523

  Upper Valley-Lake Sunapee Council
    314 National Bank Building, On-the-Mall, Lebanon, NH 03766                448-1680


LOCAL


Building Inspectors RSA 673-677
  - Issue build ing   permits in compliance with local zoning ordinance and
       building code

Conservation Commissions
     - Established for the "proper utilization and protection of the natural
       resources and for the protection of watershed resources of the
       municipality."  RSA 36-A
     - Investigate dredge and fill permit applications and make recommendations to
       the Wetlands Board.  RSA 483-A
     - May report violations of RSA 483-A to the Wetlands Board in writing and to
       law enforcement officials. Wt 205.01, RSA 483-A:5-b
     - Research and map prime wetlands for municipal approval and filing with the
       Wetlands Board. RSA 483-A:7

Fire Departments
     - Maintain data on toxic substances in the workplace.  RSA 277-A
     - Regulate installation and closure of all underground petroleum storage tanks
       In accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards set
       forth in NFPA #30.

Health Officers  RSA 147
     - Make regulations for prevention of and removal of nuisances.
     - May require repairs to faulty septic systems with the costs to be paid by
       the owner.  RSA 147:17-a and -b
     - May adopt septic system regulations more strict than those of the state

Historic District Commissions  RSA 674:45-50
     - May research and prepare an historic district ordinance or amendment thereto
      Administers historic district zoning ordinance by reviewing building permit
       applications  RSA 676:6-10                                     




                                    B-10







Municipal Water Departments  RSA 38
     - Maintain and operate public water supply systems
     - May be established by city, town or village district.

Planning Boards  RSA 672-677
     - Develop and adopt a master plan to guide community development.
     - Draft, adopt, and administer subdivision and site plan review regulations.
     - Recommend zoning ordinance and amendments for consideration by town meeting
       or city council. Hold required public hearing(s).

Police Departments
       May prosecute as a violation work proceeding in a wetland without a posted
       permit. RSA 4B3-A:5-b

 Recreation/Parks (RSA 35-B)
     - A variety of organizational arrangements authorized for the provision of
       recreation facilities and programs
     - Acquisition of land and development of facilities authorized

Zoning Board of Adjustment (RSA 672-676)
     - Quasi-judicial body that may make decisions on special exceptions to and
       variances from the zoning ordinance and appeals trom the decision of the
       zoning administrator


                     OTHER SOURCES OF ASSISTANCE AND INFORMATION


PHIVATE ASSOCIATIONS


American Forest Council
     New Lngland Office:  415 River St., Troy, NY 12180                (518) 272-0062

     - Nonprofit, nonpolitical, informational and educational organization,
       supported by the forest products industry, whose purpose is to promote
       public understanding of forest management and the benefits of proper torest
       management
     -.National sponsor of the Tree Farm Program and Project Learning Tree, a
       curriculum for grades K-12

Audubon Society of New Hampshire
    3 Silk Farm Road, P0 Box 528-B, Concord, NH 03302                        224-9909
     - Nature interpretation and environmental action
     - Habitat preservation
     - Conducts research on endangered and threatened fauna under contract to Fish
       and Came  RSA 212-A

Association of New Hampshire Consulting Foresters
    54 Portsmouth Street, Concord, NH 03301                                  224-9699
     - Association of private consulting foresters that can provide names of
       members in an area of NH or in the entire state

Lake associations
     - Organizations interested in a variety of aspects and issues related to a


                                    B-ll








       particular lake and its surrounding environment, e.g. Lake Sunapee
       Protective Association, Squam Lakes Association
      - For information on existing associations or formation of an association,
       contact the Lakes Region Federation or the NH Association of Conservation
       Commissions

Lakes Region Clean Waters Association
    PO Box 339, Laconia, NH 03246
       An association particularly concerned with water quality in Lake
       Winnipesaukee

Lakes.Region Federation
    PO Box 500, Moultonborough, NH 03254
      - An association of groups in the Winnipesaukee and Squam Lakes area, founded
       in 19B4

Land Trust Exchange
    1017 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314                              (703) 683-777B
     - National network and service center to improve effectiveness of local and
       regional non-profit land conservation groups

League of Women Voters of New Hampshire
     3 Pleasant St., Room 3, Concord, NH 03301                                225-534
     - Study and action on environmental issues including air, water, solid waste,
       energy and land use.
     - Local leagues in New Hampshire: Durham-Dover, Exeter Area, Hanover,
       Laconia-Gilford, Litchfield, Manchester Area, Milford Area, Monadnock Area,
       New London Area, North Country, and Portsmouth

Local Land Trusts
     - Local non-profit organizations interested in land protection and
       preservation
     - Some acquire and hold land and easements, others do not
     - For information on existing land trusts, contact the Society for the
       Protection of New Hampshire Forests or the Land Trust Exchange

The Nature Conservancy, NH Office 
    7 South State Street, Suite 1, Concord, NH 03301                           224-5853
     - A national organization dedicated to the identification, protection and
       stewardship of ecologically unique natural areas and biological diversity

New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions
    54 Portsmouth Street, Concord, NH 03301                                    224-7867
     -Provides information and assistance to municipal conservation commissions

New Hampshire Historical Society
    Park Street, Concord, NH 03301                                             225-3381
     - Organized collection of NH historical documents and artifacts

New Hampshire Municipal Association
    PO Box 617, Concord, NH 03302                                              224-7447
      Provides information and technical assistance to municipalities




                                      B-12






New Hampshire Resource Recovery Association
    PO Box 721, Concord, NH 03302                                           224-6996
     - Assists municipalities with recycling and provides marketing information.

New Hampshire Tree Farm Committee
    54 Portsmouth St., Concord, NH 03301                        224-9945 or 224-9699
     - Cosponsored by the NH Timberland Owners Association and the Society for the
       Protection of NH Forests
     - Volunteer inspecting foresters certify as Tree Farms, eligible to display
       the green and white Tree Farm sign, wooded land of at least 10 acres whose
       owners practice multiple-use forestry in accordance with a management plan
       prepared by a professional forester.  Town and city forests -may become
       certified Tree Farms.-

New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association
    54 Portsmouth Street, Concord, NH 03301                .                224-9699
     - A nonprofit association of landowners, loggers, foresters, mill owners and
       other forest users working for sound public forestry practices, promoting
       proper forest management, and encouraging a healthy forest products industry

New Hampshire Wildlife Federation
    54 Portsmouth Street, PD Box 239, Concord, NH 03302                      224-2984
     - State affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation

River and Watershed Associations

    Connecticut River Watershed Council
      312 First NH Bank Building, Lebanon, NH 03766                          448-2792

    Merrimack River Watershed Council
      54 Portsmouth St., Concord, NH 03301                                   224-8322

    Nashua River Watershed Association
      484 Main St., Fitchburg, MA 01420                                (617) 342-3506

     - These are only three of the many organizations interested in variety of
       aspects and issues related to a particular river or watershed.  For
       information on additional associations, contact the Office of State Planning
       or New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions.

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL)
    5 Market St., Portsmouth, NH 0)801                                       431-5089
     - Promotes wise use of natural resources in the seacoast region
     - Active in wetlands protection and opposition to, Sebrook nuclear power. plant

Society for the Protection of New Hampshire forests
    54 Portsmouth Street, Concord, NH 03301                                  224-9945-
     - Land protection, conservation education, community assistance, natural
       resources conservation advocacy

Society of Soil Scientists of Northern New England
    PD Box 986, Durham, NH 03824
     I  - A nonprofit, professional organization of soil scientists
     - In 1987, published "High Intensity Soil Maps for New Hampshire: Standards
       and Origins"


                                     B-13








SPACE: Statewide Program of Action to Conserve our Environment ;
    PO Box 392, Exeter, NH 03833                                            778-1220
     - A nonprofit organization working to gain broad public support for
       legislation and programs to save open space


                                  PRI ATE FOUNDAT IONS                                   I
                                   r                      ' ,

Land Planning and Management Foundation, Inc.
    6 Loudon Road, Suite 6, Concord, NH 03301                                224-0355
     - A private organization to assist landowners with limited development of a
       parcel while preserving environmentally sensitive portions of that parcel
       Founded by Ottaquechee Land Trust (VT), Society for the Protection of NH
       Forests, and Trustees of Reservations (MA)

New Hampshire Charitable Fund
    I South Street, PU Box 1335, Concord, NH 03302                           225-6641
     - Manages a number of funds, some of which make grants for conservation
       projects or land acquisition

Trust for New Hampshire Lands
    54 Portsmouth Street, Concord, NH 03301                                 228-4717
     - Non-profit organization assisting NH Land Conservation Investment Program
       (see Office of State Planning) to acquire land or easements for conservation
       purposes


                POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION -- INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS


Antioch/New England Graduate School, 103 Roxbury St, Keene, NH 0431-         357-3i22
   Environmental Studies Program
     -,Program for secondary school teachers in environmental subjects
   Resources Management Administration
     - Graduate program in management of natural resources

Dartmouth College                                                                        I
   Environmental Studies Program
     314 Nurdough Center, Hanover, NH 03755                                  646-2B3 
     - Undergraduate program involving work on regional environmental and energy
       problems.
   The Resource Policy Center, Thayer School of Engineering                :
     Dartmouth College,.Hanover, NH 03755                                    646-3551
       Consulting research institute on resource issues, including water; also :
       graduate degree program

University of New Hampshire, Duham, NH 03824                                              I
   Civil Engineering Department, Kingsbury Hall                              862-1428
     - University courses in environmental engineering and hydrology
   Earth Sciences Department, James Hall                                     862-1020
     - University courses and master's degree in hydrology and water resources



                                      B-14







   Forest Resources Progr     Jam, mes Hall                                    862-1020
     - University courses and master's degree in forest and water resources
       management
   Freshwater Biology Group, Department of  6otany, Ne.mith Hall               662-2060
     - Sponsors Lake Lay Monitoring Program
   Resource Economics end Community Development, 325 James Hall                862-1020
     - University unit engaged in natural resource and community economics


Water Resource Research Center
    Science Building, UNH, Durham, NH 03824                                    B62-192a
      - Provides technical assistance and grants for research in water-related
       problem areas (see also federal and state above)




    Undergraduate colleges and many secondary schools, both public and private,
have programs in which students study and do research and field work in subjects
dealing with the environment. Some may be able to help with municipal projects.





































                                    B-15




I


I
I'
I
I
I
                                                APPENDIX C
                         NEW HAMPSHIRE'S NATURAL RESOURCES: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
I





I
I
I
                 |  : ;:;  fff~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ï¿½ :






I


               (Excerpted from Appendix I of the 1988 Handbook for Municipal Conservation
I              Commissions in New Hampshire by Marjory M. Swope, Executive Director)

!









                        I.           APPENDIX C

               NEW HAMPSHIRE'S NATURAL RESOURCES:  WHD IS RESPONSIBLE?


     The following table lists some typical natural resources issues and indicates
the agency or agencies responsible for dealing with each, the statutory basis of
authority, and the type of action which may be involved.  The Department of Envi-
ronmental Services has a Public Information and Permitting Section that can provide
Information on all permits 'issued by the Department and is establishing a tracking
system for permit applications.
     Under their zoning powers, municipalities may establish zones especially de-
signed for environmental protection.  These may be administered by the planning
board, the board of adjustment, or another local agency as determined by the local
governing body.  (RSA 674:21)
     The duties and authorizing statutes of federal, state, and local agencies are
listed in Appendix 11 with addresses and telephone numbers.

     The acronyms used in the table are:

       DOT      Department of Transportation, State of NH
       DES      Department of Environmental Services
       DRED     Department of Resources and Economic Development
       FERC     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
       FWPCA    Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also called the Clean Water
                Act)
       NPDES    National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (established under
                FWPCA)
       OSP      Office of State Planning
       PUC      Public Utilities Commission
       Safety   Division of Safety Services, Department of Safety
       US EPA   United State Environmental Protection Agency
      .WB       Wetlands Board, DES
       WMD      Waste Management Division, DES
       WRD      Water Resources Division, DES
       WSPCD    Water Supply and Pollution ControY Division, DES
       WWB      Water Well Board, DES















                                    C-1







  QUESTION OR PROtBLCM                    AGENCY AND SOURCE or AUTHOITY               ACTION


  AQUIFERSt See Croundwater

  BILLBOARDS See Signs

  BOATS:  pollution  toen WSPCD:  RSA 149-A                                           Registers; inspectsg enforces

  BOAT 100RINGt  Minnipeesukee, Sunapee, Saoety Services:  RSA 270:59-71              Issues  permit
     Newtound, Winnisqum and Squam

  BOATIS   speed                          Safetyr  RSA 270:12                         Sets & enforces speed limits
                                          NU Legislature                             Sets speed limits

  DAMS & IPOINIMEWNTSt  eaonstruction,     RDO:  RSA 4Q2.:-15                         Issues permit, inspects
     maintenance, safety                  ï¿½ERC (hydropower)                          Licenses

 DREDGE AND FILL IN PUBLIC WATERS          N:  NSA A8-A, 4-A, 482:41e-g                Issues permit
      (includes construction of docks      WSPCD-  RSA 149:8-a                        Issues joint permit with NO
      and breakwaters)                     Governor & Council:  RSA 483-A:1,11        Approves mejor doek projects
                                            RtSA 4Q8-A, 482:4le-g                    Grants right to use  State property
                                          Conservation Commissiont RSA 483-A, 36-A  Investigates &'reports to WE
                                          US Army Corps of Engineers:  rWPCA  404,  Issues permit
                                            Rivers & Harbors Act or 1899  10

   DREDGE & FILL IN WETLANDS               NO: RSA  983-A                             Permit & regulations
                                          WSPCD:  RSA 149:8-e                        Permit (usually with NO permit)
                                          Conservation tommlssiow: NSA 483-A, 36-A  Investigates  report to NB
                                          Planning Board, Permit Officer             Administers local wetlands
                                            Board of Adjustment                        ordinance
                                          US Army Corps of Engineers:  FPCA  b04   Permit for fill only

                                          NOTE: Town may designate prime wetlands
                                           for extra WB protection: RSA M43-A:7

   ENDANGERED SPECIESs  rfaun              rish & Came  RSA 212-A                      tnforces
                                          Audubon Society of Ni                      Provides information

   ENDANCERED SPECIES:  flora              DRED  RSA 217-A                             Enforces
                                          Natural Hleritnqe Inventory, DRID          Provides  nrformation








UESTION OR PROtLEN                      AGENCY AND SOURCE or AUT"ORITY             ACtION

EROSION CONTROLt  agriculture           Soil Conservation District:  RSA 430-B    Provides information and advice

EROSION CONTROL   building and road    WSPCD:  RSA l9:8-a                         Issues permit if 100,000+ sq rt
   construction, gravel pits                                                          disturbed
                                       Planning Board or Board of Adjustment      Administers steep slope ordinance,
                                                                                     excavation regulations

EROSION CONTROL:  logging operations   ORED:  RSA 224:4b-a - 4?                    Enforces
                                       Planning Board or Board of Adjustment      Administers steep slope ordinance
                                       Soil Conservation District                 Provides information & advice
                                       WSPCD: RSA 149:8-a                         Responds to complaints of water
                                                                                     quality Violations

EXCAVATION See Sand & Grevel, Mining

FLOODINCt FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT      WRDo  RSA 481a, 4803,   4                   Regulstes: wter level in lakes
                                       US Army Corps of Engineers                 Provides information & maps
                                       Covernor's Office or Emergency Mgt         Provides information & maps
                                       Municipslity                               Adopts & enforces flood plain
                                                                                    zoning & building code
                                       Soil Conservation District                 Provides information & maps
                                       Regional Planning Commission               Provides information & maps

FLUORIDATION                           Municipality:  RSA 31:17-a                  Adopts & enforces ordinance

GROUNDWATER: Discherge to & protection WSPCD:  RSA ]49:0 111                       Issues permit

GROUNDWATER: Source location maps      US GCeological Survey                       Provides information & assistance
                                       Water Resources Division                               "
                                       Regional] Panning Commission

CROUNDWATER:  Withdrawal               WRD:   Ch. 402, laws of 1983                Monitors use

JUNKYARDS on interstate, turnpike &    DOT:  RSA 236:90-110                        Issues permit
   federal aid primary highways        WSPCO:  RSA 149:3                           Reviews applications for compliance
                                                                                    with water quality standards

JUNKYARDS on other roads               Municipal zoninq:  RSA 674                  Prescribes location, conditions
                                       Monicipal Gnverninq Body: RSA 236:11-129 Issues permit








   QUESTION OR PRIOBLE                      ACENCY AND SOURCE OF AUTHORITY              ACTION

   LAND ACQUISITION/PROTECTION              DRED:  Land & Water Conservation Fund       Provides matching funds
                                          OSPs  RSA 221-A (Land Conservation          Provides matching funds
                                             Investmentment Program)

   LOGGING SLASH disposal                   DRED:  RSA 224:44-a-:47                     Enforces


   MINING (other than send & gravel)        DRED:  RSA 12oE                              Issues permit, requires reclamation
                                          WSPCD:  RSA 149:0-a                         Issues permit


    OFF HIGHWAY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES        DRED:  RSA 215-A                            Establishes trolslt regulations
                                          Fish & Game:  RSA 215-A:16                  Enforces laws & regulations


    OIL SPILLS                               WSPCO:  RSA 146-A                           Cleans up

    PESTICIDES                               Pesticides Control Board, Dept. of          Issues permit for applier
                                             Agriculture:  RSA 430:28-48
                                          SPCOD:  RSA 149:4 XII                       Monitors residual pesticides

    PETROLEUM STORAdGE   Underground tanks  WSPCD:  RSA 146-C                            Issues permits For 1100l   gal. tanks

    PETROLEUM STORMAG:  Above ground         Fire Marshal:  NH Fire Code (NFPA 130)    Regulates design & installation
                                           Local Fire Department                       May adopt stricter standards than
                                                                                       those in NFPA 030 & NH Fire Code

    PRIVATE WATER SUPPLYt Contamination   WSPCOE  RSA 140                                Issues cease & desist order
                                           Municipal Health Officer:  RSA 147

    PUBLIC WATER SUPPLYs  Contamination    WSPCD:  RSA I14                                Investlgete; require improvements
                                           Municipal Health Officer:  RSA 147             in disposal system; issue cease
                                                                                       & desist order

    PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY:  Development &    WSPCO:  RSA 14R-B                              Regulates & approves system
       expansion                             PUC:  RSA 362-366, 369-371, 374, 378        Regulates & approves system & rates
                                                                                       or public water utilities
                                           Municipality:  RSA 38                       Constructs & operates
                                           Village District:  RSA 52   
m-m-                                             m m _me -'- __





  :QUESTION OR PROBLEM AGENCY AND) SOURCE OF AUTHORITY ACTI


  tJESTION OR PROBLN                       AMGENCY AND SOURCE or AUtHORITY             ACtlON

  Public Water Supply continued            Private Water Company:  RSA 362:4, 148-8  Constructs a operates
                                         Municipal Water Company                                      "


  ROAD CONSTRUCTION:  Damage to water    NH DOT:  RSA 228:34 (state roads)             Repairs or replaces water supply
    supply From                            Municipal Road Agent & Health Officer          "    "
                                            (town roads)
                                         WSPCO: RSA 14l:25-a (public water supply  Approves prior to construction
                                           watersheds)

  ROAD SALTt  Contamination of water       NH DOT:  RSA 228:34 (state roads)           Repairs or replaces supply
     supply                               Hunicipal Health. Officer

 SAND & GRAVEL EXCAVATION                 WSPCD:  RSA 149:8-a                         Issues permit
                                         Planning Board:  RSA 155-E                  Issues permit, requires reclamation
                                         Municipality:  RSA 31:l1-b                  Adopts hazardous pits ordinance

.    SEPTIC SYStEMSs  Pollution From       WSPCD: RSA 108:23                           Issues permit, cease & desist
                                         Municipal Health Officer: RSA 147             order, repair order
                                         Building Code:  RSA 48-A, 673-677           Issues building permit

 SEPTIC SYSTEM:  Design & Installation  WSPCD:  RSA 149-E                             Issues permit
                                         Municipality:  RSA 149-E:, 147              May regulate more strictly than
                                         Planning Board:  RSA 672-677                  state

 SEWAGE:  Municipal                      WSPCD:  RSA 149, 149-0                       Sets standards, helps finance
                                         Municipality:  RSA 31:39                    Constructs & operates
 SEWAGE:  Private                        WSPCD:  RSA 149-E                            Issues permit
                                         Municipal Health Officer RSA 149-E:3 ill May regulate more strictly than
                                                                                       state
 SIGNS:  Off premise on interstate,      DOT:  RSA 236:69-89                          Issues permits
   turnpike, federal aid primary roaed

 SIGNS:  all others                       Municipal zoning:  RSA 674                  Prescribes size & location

 SURFACE WATER:  point sources of         WSPCO:  RSA 149:8; US EPA:  FWPCA            Issues NPOES permit
    pollution







 IIUESTION OR PROBLEM                      AGENC Y AND SOURCE OF AUTHORITY              ACTION

 SURFACE WATERe nonpoint sources of    VSPCD:  RSA 149:8-                              lIssues permit
    pollution (see erosion control)


 TOWN FORESTSS  designstion                Town meeting; city council:   RSA 31:110

 TOWN FORESTS   mnansgement                Conservation commission or Forestry
                                           committee: RSA 31l:12

 TOWN FORESTSS  lncome from                Forest Management Fund:  RSA 31:t11

 TOWN FORESTSs  essistance with            DRED, Div of Forests & Lands: RSA 31:114  Assistance with management
                                         Cooperative Extension Foresters                plans


  VIOLATION OF PERMIT or ACTIVITY           Responsible Agency                           Issue cease & desist order,
     WITHOUT PERMIT                        Selectmen, Enforcement OFficer                   initiate court action
                                         Office of Attyo General, Environmental    Initiate court action
                                         Protection Division:  RSA 7:18-a-c

  WASTE DISPOSAL IN GROUNOWATER             WSPCD:  RSA 149:8 III                        Issues permit

  WASTE DISPOSAL:  hazardous                WMD:   RSA 147-A, 1T7-8, 147-C, 1*7-O        Issues permit
                                         Municipal Review Comm.:  RSA 147-C           Investigates & advises OWM
                                         Municipality:  RSA 147-C:6
                                                                                   Issues permit
  WASTE OISPOSALt  solid                    WMD:  RSA 147:45 and following
                                         Municipality: RSA 31:39 1 (r), 147:45-47  Constructs & maintains disposal
                                                                                     facilities

  WATER LEVEL IN LAKES & STREAMS            WR):  RSA 482, 418

  WATER POLLUTION  See discharge into
     water, erosion control, pesticides

  WATER TESTING                             DES Laboratory:  RSA 131
                                         Privnte L'bnratory

  WATER US0E               "                WRO:  RSA Bn:3                               Collects data
WATER US V--   mS -  -01----3-








QUESTION On PROBLE-                     AGCENCY AND SOURCE OF AUTHORITY             ACTION

WATER WELL:  Constructon, siting        Water Well Board:  RSA 409-8                 Licenses water well contractors &
                                                                                     pump installers; regulates
                                                                                     construction

WEEDS, ALGAE, AQUATIC NUISANCES         WSPCD:  RSA 149-r                            Provides grants for control
                                        UNH                                         Conducts research on control

WETLANDS MAPPING                        Conservation Districts                      Prepare & provide soill map
  See also dredge & fill                Regional Planning Commissions               Prepare overlay maps

                                        Conservation Commission; Town Meeting      Designate prime wetlands
                                          or City Council:  RSA 403-A: 7
                                        Wetlands Board:  RSA 483-A:7               Establishes criteria for prime
                                                                                      wetlands





                     Ouit   P e;1w CP. 0'M SEF&lW. rF7)FWl RilLATIrNS IMPAClTIM ACrIVITIES IN WetANS

                         A \                             Activities Permitted
  Agency       Author ity___as Dtefined                      or Regulated                Special Provisions/Exemptions
                        " 1                                                                      Exemptions

   cOR;: Sec. 404 OCHPn   sky4        s of United       O Discharge of dredged or         O Normal farming & silvacultural
            OPeumit   t.          t pss includes        fill material into waters         activites.for prod. of food &
            W"tforcemdit   ?      Iands which           of TIS.                            fiber & forest products of an
            ,(Fed. Reg.  S.      e defined as                                             ongoing farming operation
             Arol."51 No. 219 .-'areas having                                             which are part of normal acti-
              11/13/R6)        Hydric soils &                                             vities including maintenance
                               >50% llydrophytic                                          404(f)
                              1req &                                                   o Const. of Fed Proj. specifi-
                               hydrology to                                               cally auth. by Congress 404(r).
                               support hydra-    I -                                      NPS discharges not covered by
                                 phytes                                                    act

                                                                                    Nationwide Permits* See Attach.
                                                                                                      for your State
                                                                                    -  Allows certain activities to
                                                                                      occur w/o formal permit appl.
                                                                                      providing conditions met &
co gBmp's
                                                                                    - Bank'Stabil. <500' Length
                                                                                                   <1 cu yd/lin. ft.
                                                                                    - Minor Boad Crossings
                                                                                                   <200 cu yds fill
                                                                                    - Discharges into <1 acre
                                                                                       @ headwaters*
                                                                                    - Must inform to determine if
                                                                                      permit req, in headwaters if
                                                                                      area is greater than lac and
                                                                                      less than lOac

           River & Harbor      Navigable waters       Construction of any structure      Applies without limitation to
           Act  of 1899        defined as those       in or over any vavigable water    all structures from smallest
            Sec. In            waters subj, to                  or                       recreational dock to largest
                              -  BR & flow of tide    excavation, obstructions or       commercial undertaking.
                              &/or are or subj.     alteration in a navigable
                              to use to transport   water of T1.S.
                              ï¿½commerce
  *Headwaters are defined as that point of the drainage area above which the avg, ann. flow is less than 5 cfs.  Each
   state has specific requirements of exceptions under nationwide permits.  Mass. requires state water quality certifi-
   cation prior to application to CoEp for a nationwide permit. Special conditions for nationwide permits established
   by each state must be followed or the permit will become invalid        _      _                  
                    -   -   -   -   m   -                    -   ~~~~~~~~ -




&  '- --                                           - --                               - .-- :::


                    (IVICK MFWERENC RTO S.FX."TED F EflRAL RJCML"ATIONS TMPAC MNG ACTIVITIES IN WtLANDMS

                                                         Activities Permitted
 Agency       Authority           Areas Defined              or Regulated                 Special Provisions/Exemptions

                                                                                                     Exempt ions

  EPA      Sec. 404 CWA           Same as COf          ï¿½Sames as COE                        .Same as COE
           ï¿½F.st. ruidelines
           ï¿½Can Deny Permits
           ï¿½Enforcement


tISFWS    404 CWA                ï¿½Same as COR         :ï¿½Must be consul.ted regarding      ï¿½No regulatory authority
          0 review & comment                            impacts to fish & wildlife
            responsibility                             for projects proposed or
                                                       authorized by Fed, Agency
                                                      or License where waters of
                           '               :           If.S. are to be 'altered".



.,SCS     ï¿½Food Security         ï¿½Same as MOE          ï¿½Determines farmer compliance    ï¿½Wetland in cropland prior
              Act                                      w/swampbuster provision of                to 12/85
                                                      FSA, & eligibility for
                                                      participation in Fed. Final
                                                      assisted prog.




I                                       :


I :



I;
  I~~~~~~~~~

-I
                         - : ::: : : APPENDIX D
              r                ~~~~~~INDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
               --                ~~~~~TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
       I~!I





I                       : 

              I~I  
 I '


I









               FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

                  TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Introduction


     The New Hampshire Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Technical

Advisory Committee (TAC) first met on March 17, 1988. The Committee's

general charge was to provide public participation on the development

of New Hampshire's NPS Management Plan for compliance with the 1987

Water Quality Act.


     In accordance with the delineation of the Management Plan as set

forth by EPA's December 1987 NPS Guidance Document, the TAC undertook

the following specific objectives:   Evaluation of the NPS Assessment

Report;  Identify and Prioritize NH NPS Issues; Recommend Short- and

Long-Term NPS Management; and Prioritize Field Demonstration Projects.



     The Committee subsequently met April 19, May 31 and July 12, 1988.

The TAC membership roster is attached.  In addition, the TAC Chair and

Vice-Chair met with EPA and State DES officials on May 24.



Review of the NPS Assessment


    The assessment raised as many questions as it was meant to answer.

Paramount was the actual data base used to create the assessment maps
and conclusions.  The TAC feels that there is as much NPS information

perceived in the document as there is hard and fast data.   The TAC

opinion  is that there is a need for increased data collection for








Winnepesaukee  River, again  with  caveats  similar  to  Great  Bay

monitoring.


Prioritization of Field Demonstration Projects



     As directed at our first meeting, the TAC was to aid in selecting

specific projects to prevent and mitigate NPS pollution.   For field

demonstration, the TAC initially took paired water bodies, one severely

impaired and one threatened, from each of the six major watersheds in

the state.   These watersheds, their status and impairments appear in

Table 1.  At the time of this writing, it is not known whether or not

the stream impairments are real or perceived.   What is recommended is

that these water bodies be placed on a monitoring schedule. During the

10- month public participation workshops  for  the  NPS Assessment,

additional public comment will be evaluated for these particular water

bodies.   After the first year,  there will be a clearer picture  of

impairment of these water bodies from nonpoint sources.  At this time,

BMP's should be evaluated/proposed/implemented on any or all of the

selected sites.   This is meant to be a step-by-step method such that

decisions can be made after new information is gathered. The TAC also

recommended that evaluation of the BMP for landfills be performed.,  In

this case,  the landfill closure BMP is capping.   This practice  is

basically to prevent leachate occurrence through prevention of rainfall

infiltration.   Evaluation  of  this  technique  would  require  the

monitoring of groundwater at a capped and uncapped site.





                           D-4









     assessment purposes as well as better documentation on existing data

     sources.


3.   Identify and Prioritize New Hampshire NPS Issues


         After the first TAC meeting, the members were polled on the key

     NPS issues currently facing New Hampshire.  The results of the poll,

     plus further discussion by the TAC, yielded the following high-

     priority NPS issues:   Dumps and Landfills;  Filling and Dredging of

     Wetlands; and Effects Due to Site Development (including stormwater

     runoff, septage management, lawn fertilizers and pesticides, erosion

     and sedimentation, and subsurface disposal systems).



4,   Recommend Short-and Long-Term NPS Management


          The general NH NPS Management Plan should incorporate the

     following:  Institutional Aspects; Technology Transfer; Prevention; and

     Monitoring/Assessment.    Institutional  Aspects  includes  reviewing

     existing programs and evaluating their effectiveness  outside of DES

     offices.  That is, the process of design and review works efficiently,

     but enforcement and authority at the local  level  is lacking.   The

     necessity for an institution-alization from the local-level to the

     state-level is desired.   That is, clear policy and organization must

     occur from the state down to the level at which the NPS problem is

     occurring.





                               D-2








    Technology Transfer sho uld occur through state-sponsored workshops

at the state and Ilocal Ilevel.  This is a -good opportunity to link the       I

state and the Cooperative Extension together as the current dominant

Extension directive is water. quality.  Activities to be included here

are: statee-sponsored video on NPS issues and BMP's; workshops on site3

development, wetlands, etc.; informational brochures; and news releases

on the NPS management plan strategy.I


    NPS Prevention is the most effective goal which the state should

pursue through various means.   Some of the more important objectives

here are.   increased compliance monitoring/inspection and technology

transfer.   Other areas within this task should include:   increased 

permitting~, evaluation of specific programs, updated literature search

on BMP's, effectiveness of programs, land use mapping and specific NPS
solutions to some specific problems.   Under the Prevention topic, the

state should use some foresight anticipating emerging issues; for

example, land farming of sludges.  This would allow research to begin

on such areas before a critical need arises.


    The TAC feels that more ass essment data needs to be collected

throughout the state.  This is to include extensive monitoring of the

Great Bay system.   Although the NPS program does not seem to be the

primary vehicle for a complete study of Great Bay, the NPS program

should invest significant efforts in the delineation of non'point versus

point sources of pollution.  Also to be monitored/ assessed is the

Lakes regi~on and any or all of the five major lakes on the




                            D-3



I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                             APPENDIX E
I
                                   FUNDED NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS
*                                                   IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I







           THE IMPACT OF BACTERIAL AND NUTRIENT LOADING FROM

       HIGH-VOLUME RUNOFF EVENTS ON WATER QUALITY IN GREAT BAY




The purpose of the proposed research project is to eivaluate the pollution threat (bacterial
and nutrient) of high-volume runoff events in New Hampshire estuarine and coastal
waters. Little specific documentation is available regarding the significance of pollution
from high-volume runoff events. Quantification of a relationship between water quality
and stream discharge would be a useful tool for predicting the impact of runoff events on
water quality. This type of research is essential for developing more specific research
projects related to the Great Bay Estuary, and is thus important and timely with the
designation of the estuary as a National Estuarine Research Reserve.  This research can be
expanded in the future to include other areas within Great Bay Estuary and the deter-
mination of what effects the pollution may have on receiving coastal and river waters,
including existing and potential shellfish harvesting areas. Recreational shellfishing,
boating, and duck hunting are popular outdoor activities in Great Bay. A better under-
standing of factors such as high volume runoff events that affect water quality can help
management practices that can enhance such outdoor opportunities and protect those that
participate in such activities. Data on nutrient levels and bacterial contamination can also
be used to interpret and to project what impact future development and improvements of
wastewater treatment facilities will have on the water quality of the estuarine system.

Great Bay and the Squamscott River, including the wastewater treatment plants in Exeter
and Newfields, will serve as a model system in this study.. This system was chosen
because there is an ongoing monitoring project (conducted by Jackson Estuarine Labora-
tory) in the Squamscott River and at Adams Point in Great Bay, as well as its proximity
to potential and existing approved shellfish areas. In addition to the wastewater treatment
facility; point sources, the Suamscott River probably has additional sources of bacterial
and nutrient pollution, including private sewage disposal systems, runoff from urbanized
and agricultural areas, resuspension of potentially contaminated bottom sediments, wildlife,
and boaters. The relative importance of point versus nonpoint sources of pollutants within
the system is of critical interest because many of the major point sources on New
Hampshire rivers, i.e., wastewater treatment facilities, will soon be improved; while
pollution control strategies for nonpoint sources are often expensive and technologically
difficult (Flanders, 1988). Thus, more information concerning the nature and extent of
nonpoint source pollution is needed in order to optimize management practices for
enhancing shellfish resources and restoring the quality of coastal and estuarine waters.

Relationships between different bacterial indicators will be evaluated.  New Hampshire
uses total coliforms as an indicator of pathogens in water. However, for over a decade,
the preferred indicator for surface water quality has been fecal coliforms (US. E.P.A.,
1976).  Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that enterococci are superior to all other in-
dicators for determining risk of disease hazard in marine (Cabelli, 1983) and fresh (Dufour,
1984) waters. Finally, recent evidence indicates that many indicator or pathogenic bacteria
can enter a dormant, viable, and potentially virulent metabolic state and yet be non-
culturable by traditional methods that require growth of the bacteria (Grimes et al., 1986).
Determination of viable, non-culturable bacterial pathogens using alternative, direct
methods (Kogure et al., 1979; Grimes et al., 1986) thus allows for testing the. validity of
traditional methods for indicating the presence of bacterial pathogens in water. These
results of these analyses will provide valuable information for assessing the hazard to
public health posed by water within the Great Bay Estuary.

Levels of nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon, in the estuarine system

                           ~ E;~E- 1










will be determined. Nitrogen and phosphorus are often the limiting nutrients for
production in aqueous environments. Thus, added amounts act as fertilizers, and high
nutrient levels and the oxidation of organic carbon in wastewater discharged to rivers can
promote hypoxic conditions and excessive eutrophication. These results will provide
valuable information for assessing the potential for eutrophication within the Great Bay
Estuary (N.O.A.A., 1988).





                                       OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of the proposed research project is to assess the significance of high-
volume runoff events on bacterial and nutrient loading in New Hampshire coastal waters.
The specific objectives are four-fold as follows:

       1) to determine the impact of bacterial and nutrient pollution resulting from high-
       volume runoff events on the water quality of Great Bay and the Squarnscott River;

       2) to assess the relative contribution of point and nonpoint sources of pollution;

       3) to quantify the relationship between pollution concentrations and river discharge
       resulting from major runoff events;

       4) to evaluate the effectiveness of alternate bacterial indices as indicators of fecal
contamination and potential disease hazard.






                                  : .               .;. 'F


















                                             F-2









                                           METHODS AND PROCEDURES

               Initial studies will be conducted to relate duration and amount of rainfall to water level
               within the Squamscott River, New IHampshire, in order to properly design the temporal
               aspects of our sampling program.  Rainfall will be monitored in Durham, and water levels
               will be monitored at- Adams Point and at Chapman's Landing on the Squamscott River.
               Bacterial densities and nutrient concentrations will be monitored upstream, downstream,
               and at the wastewater treatment plants in Exeter and Newfields, at Chapman's Landing,
               the mouth of the Lamprey River, and at Adams Point before, during, and after several
               high runoff events. Sampling sites on the Squamscott River will:be chosen following an
               initial inventory of pollution sources and.bacterial and nutrient concentrations from above
               the treatment plant in Exeter to Chapman's Landirg.  The sites selected for the Squam-
               scott River will allow evaluation of the relative importance of pollution from the treatment
               plant compared to nonpoint sources in the river. The Lamprey River nd the Adams Point
               sites will provide information on amounts of pollutants from the Lamprey River and from
               tidal flow into Great Bay, respectively. Historical weather information will be reviewed to
               correctly time sampling around runoff events (spring runoff/snow-melt, summer thunder-
               storms, etc.). 'The Jackson Estuarine Laboratory is currently conducting a monitoring
               program at Chapman's Landing and at Adams Point. This monitoring program will
               continue at least until July, 1989. Data collected for the monitoring program will be
               useful as background information for developing sampling strategies and protocols for the
               proposed project,

               Water samples will be collected at all sampling sites. during high-volume runoff events.
               The timing of sampling will be based on analysis of river discharge associated with runoff
               events. Storm flow is highly seasonal and episodic events will be monitored throughout
               the year to determine seasonal differences in the relationship between water quality and
               river discharge. Nutrient analysis will include ammonium, nitrate, and total nitrogen, total
               carbon, and orthophosphate (A.P.H.A., 1985). Chlorophyll will also be determined.
               Bacterial analyses will include measurement by standard methods (A.P.H.A., 1985) of two
               traditional indicators, total and fecal coliforms. Two emerging (U.S.E.P.A., 1986a) in-
               dicators, enterococci and Escherichia coli will also be measured (U.S.E.P.A., 1986b). In
               addition, randomly selected samples will be analyzed for viable, non-culturable E. coli
               using fluorescent antibody labeling of cells processed with a direct viable counting proced-
               ure (Kogure et al, 1979; Brayton et al., 1987). Suspended load, pH, salinity, and tempera-
               ture will also be measured.

               I  The data on bacteria, nutrients, and water flow volumes will be statistically analyzed.
               Differences in pollution between sampling stations will be determined which will allow an
               estimation of the relative pollution loading from point and nonpoint sources. The
               relationship between river stage/discharge volume and pollutant Iloadings will also be
               quantified. The effectiveness of the different bacterial indicators for assessment of fecal
               pollution will also be quantified. Although the data generated by this study will be
                developed for the Great Bay/Squamscott River system, the study can be expanded to
               other estuarine systems in southeastern New Hampshire where wastewater discharge is
               also a pollution problem. This knowledge will provide a starting point for future studies
               that will be needed if shellfish harvesting areas in Great Bay are to be classified to some
               type of "conditional" status.


             E-3

I:-                          :          :                E-3






                                     JUSTIFICATION

The proposed project will contribute needed information to several of the 1989 Coastal
Program priorities. It will be useful to fish and wildlife management in the estuary by
helping to predict the impact of runoff events and nonpoint versus point source pollution
on shellfish management in New Hampshire.  Furthermore, there is some potential for
eutrophication from. nitrogen and phosphorus input to the estuary (N.O.A.A., 1988). A
better understanding of water quality issues (i.e. nonpoint versus point sources, effects of
storm/runoffevenits): in the Great Bay Estuary will be a crucial contribution the proposed
study. This information is essential to design of water quality management models for
the estuarine system.

Coastal resource protection. will be aided by the proposed project in several ways. The
project will provide: (1) an initial model for:understanding the relative importance of point
versus nonpoint bacterial and nutrient. pollution to part of the Great Bay Estuarine System,
(2) a baseline in time for detecting any future changes in bacterial or nutrient input to the
Squamscott River and Great Bay, (3) an assessment of the relative importance of run-
off/storm events to bacterial and nutrient loading in the estuary, (4) a greater under-
standing of what components contributing pollution to the Great Bay system need further
control measures in order to enhance shellfish management, and (5) an important baseline
model for the Squamscott that can be used for future studies of other N.H. tidal rivers. As
mentioned above, data from the proposed project will be valuable in providing a baseline
to detect fufture changes (positive or negative) in bacterial and nutrient water quality in
the Squamscott River and the Great Bay. The latter point is important in view of the
projected upgrading of the Exeter sewage treatment facility.  Therefore, it is extremely
timely to conduct the proposed project in Squamscott River over the proposed time
period. Results from the proposed project will be useful in a wide range of research and
educational programs conducted by the University of New Hampshire and several N.H.
state agencies.

The proposal not only addresses a wide range of the N.H.  Coastal Program 1989 policies,
but also is an area of investigation identified as a research priority of the Great Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve (N.H. Office of State Planning, i press). Further-
more, both the Great Bay map (another Coastal Program funded project currently in
progress at J.E.L.) and the proposed project will complement a variety of ongoing water
quality efforts currently conducted by the N.H. Water Supply and Pollution Division and
Department of Public Health.

The proposed water quality project will greatly enhance marine and estuarine research and
education in the seacoast region. The model developed during the project can be used as
the foundation for more research-related water quality programs by the Jackson Estuarine
Laboratory. The sampling stage of the project will include extensive use of volunteers
from the U.N.H. Marine Docent Program. Thus, not only will this allow active participa-
tion by the local public in an important area of regional estuarine research, but we will
provide training to these individuals in a variety of areas of water quality investigation.

                             SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION

 Task 1. 30 September 1989 - Initial studies to relate amount of rainfall to water levels.
 Task 2  30 December 1989 - Inventory of pollution sources and bacterial and nutrient
 concentrations.
Task 3. 30 May 1990 - Monthly. and episodic sampling at all selected sites.

Task 4. 30 June 1990 - Data analysis and interpretation.
                                             E-4








                 UTILI7ATION OF SLUDGE ON FOREST AND NON-
                               AGRICULTURAL LAND


                  Fate of Sludge-Derived Bacterial Pathogens in Soil and
                                       Water


                                   Stephen H. Jones


                                   JUSTIFICATION


        Disposal of sludges from waste treatment plants and other solid
        wastes is becoming an increasingly serious problem, especially in
        large metropolitan areas that have limited space for expansion of
        existing treatment facilities. The  common  management  alternatives
        for sludge disposal used by municipalities include incineration, ocean
        dumping, landfill, and land application (Bastian, 1986), although
        ocean disposal is being phased out because of strict regulations
        mandated in recent laws passed by Congress. Land application is a
        management practice that recycles sludge as a resource and accounts
        for approximately 13%  of the total sludge disposed of in the U.S.
        (Bastian, 1986).  Land application and landfilling are also common
        management practices for the disposal of septage pumped from on-
        site waste treatment systems that are used in much of New
        Hampshire and rural areas elsewhere in the U.S.

        Forestland is the major type of ecosystem available for land
        application in New England, representing nearly 80% of the total land
        area. Extensive forestland in New Hampshire and the rest of New
        England is often close to larger population centers and, consequently,
        forests offer a convenient, though underexploited, option for disposal
        of sludges and septage.  Forests are removed from the human food
        chain, are relatively isolated, and have lower land value than
        agricultural and developed lands. Other favorable characteristics of
        forestland  are that soils are usually well drained and thus surface
        runoff is minimized, surface layers are high in organic matter which



                                           E-5
*                                               E- 5








conditions (Morita, 1985). Small, starved bacteria can move further
through a solid matrix and have less of a tendency to attach to
surfaces because of smaller amounts of glycocalyx produced in
comparison to large, unstarved bacteria (MacLeod et al., 1988).

Consideration of all of- the above factors that govern or ï¿½influence
bacterial survival and movement is needed for developing predictive
models for the fate of pathogens in soil and water that can be used to
reduce the probability of microbial pollution of drinking water. These
factors are often not incorporated into predictive models because so
little information about these factors is available. The major
impediment to predicting microbial contamination of groundwater is
quantifying the process of pathogen transport, not in predicting
water movement through soil, which is fairly well understood (Yates
and Yates, 1988). The ability to predict the time of travel to and the
probability of pathogen survival in groundwater are essential criteria
for selecting safe sites for applying pathogen-containing sludge to
forest soils.




                             OBJECTIVES

The long-term goal of this research is to gain a better understanding
of how microbial pathogens survive and migrate in the subsurface
environment. In the present project, the proposed research is
concerned only with bacterial pathogens, with the following specific
objectives.

   1.) Monitor fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci as indicators of
       bacterial pollution in soil and water following application of
       sludge to a forestland disposal site.

  2.) Determine the presence of bacterial pathogens, such as
       Salmonellae, Escherichia coil. and Clostridium perfringens in
       the soil-applied sludge, and monitor survival and movement
       at the disposal site as a test for the validity of using typical
       water quality standards as indicators of the presence of
      pathogenic microorganisms.

                                 E-6







    Tide:               - Land Application of Municipal Sludge in New Hampshire
                          Forests: Minimizing the Risks to Groundwater Quality

I  - COWRR category:       05c

    Keyword #s:           101,222, 141, 158, 156

    Duration:             1 July 1989 to 30 June 1990

    FY 1989 Federa Funds:         $29,947    $29,947           0
                                   (Total)    (Direct)      ndirect)

    Non-federal Funds Allocated: $16 93        $ 2,715    $14 188
            ""  -t(Total)    (Direct)   (Indirect)

    Principal Investigators: William B. Bowden and C. Tattersall Smith

    Congressional District: 1



    Statement of regional and state issues

        The New England region is experiencing a rapid decline in the availability of landfill space
    to dispose- of wastes generated by society. One solution is to reserve the limited space for
    toxic substances, and to recycle non-toxic wastes as much as possible. Municipal sludges
    constitute a significant volume of the total wastes that have been deposited in landfills but that
    might be recycled beneficially. Recycling by land spreading is a particularly appealing option,
    not only because it is a renewable process, but also because sludges are often rich in nutrients
    that can increase crop productivity. In New Hampshire, where forests occupy over 80% of the
    land area, there is a great potential for tees to benefit from sludge application. In addition, tees
    have the capacity to store potentially harmful components safely out of circulation in plant
    biomass for long periods of time. The criteria by which the environmental impacts of forest
    land utilization systems will be judged include ground and surface water quality, soil chemical
    changes, bioaccumulation of constituents in the food chain, changes in plant species
*  Composition, and  ee  growth rates. Comprehensive ecosystem studies-that critically examine
    these criteria must be undertaken to understand the processes that will ultimately determine
    *hether land utilization is an acceptable option to our society.








                                          3  E-7







    Preservation of groundwater quality poses the greatest challenge to a successful, well-
managed sludge application program Approximately 20% of New Hampshire's water is
supplied by groundwater (Todd 1980). Yet current evidence indicates that waste disposal in
landfills and septic tanks constitutes the highest threat of contamination to groundwater in the
northeast United States (Pye and Kelly 1988). This clearly indicates the need to prevent further
occurrences of contamination, Groundwater contamination from land application of sludge can
be minimized if sludge loading and mineralization rates do not exceed the capacity of the soil
and vegetation to store various sludge constituents. For 'clean" sludges, (i.e. those that meet
the EPA guidelines for land application), we believe that land application programs that
specifically minimize nitrate leaching to groundwater will also have negligible environmental
impacts due to phosphate, heavy metals, and toxic organic compounds. This hypothesis is
reasonable since nitrate has higher mobility than most other sludge-derived contstituents.
However, we need to study the mobility of sludge-derived constituents following land
utilization under a variety of conditions to test this hypothesis and to develop Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for land utilization systems that are based on empirical evidence.

Statement of expected results

   This research project will provide information on the mobility of nutrients, heavy metals,
and pathogens in forested soils after land application of municipal sewage sludge. We are
expecially interested in those factors that promote or limit the potential for contamination of
groundwater resources. The project is designed to identify maximum allowable sludge
application rates that insure minimum acceptable environmental risks. This information will
directly benefit regulators and managers who are responsible for permitting and operating
sludge land application programs in the New England region. Although this study is focused
on characteristics of sludges from municipal sewage treatment plants, it is part of a larger group
of studies currently underway to study the environmental consequences of forest land
application of a variety of important residual materials (pulp and paper mill sludges, biomass
boiler ashes). ï¿½















                                                       -8                                          1~~~~~~






2. Proiect title

      The evaluation and impact of coliform bacterial and enteric virus pollution in Southeastern
New Hampshire.

3. COWRR category

       5OB

4. Descrintors

       19, 261, 271, 275

5. Duration

       July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1990

6. Fiscal vear 198'9 Federal funds:  .$28.606        $28,606        _-0_
                                       (Total).       Direct         Indirect

7. Non-Federal funds allocated:        $16,951           -0-         $16,951
                                       (Total)       Direct         Indirect

8. Princinal Investizators

       Dr. Aaron B. Margolin
       University of New Hampshire
       Department of Microbiology
       Spaulding Life Science Building
       Durham NH, 03824

       Dr. Stephen H. Jones
       University of New Hampshire
       Jackson Estuarine Laboratory
       Durham NH, 03824


9. Congressional district

       01-













                                          E-9








10. Statement of Problem

       Nationally, the incidence of waterborne disease caused by microbially contaminated water
is on the rise. In response, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has proposed
recommended maximum .contaminant goals (RMCG) of zero for enteric viruses in drinking
water,(Federal Register, 1987), and new concentration and contact time standards for the
disinfection of waste waters. Locally, dramatic population growth is occurring in New Hampshire,
especially the southeastern section.  In the last ten years, many communities have doubled or
tripled in size and are projected to continue to grow in the future. The rapid increase in
population has strained many communities wastewater treatment facilities and/or placed a heavy
demand on septic tank systems, leading to the introduction of fecal pollution into ground and
surface waters. Continual contamination of source waters will eventually result in bacterial and
viral contamination of our drinking and recreational waters and to some foods, such as shellfish.
       As an example, much of the Great Bay Estuary in New Hampshire and Maine is polluted
by inadequately-treated sewage, even though recreational harvesting of shellfish is an important
activity in the area. During 1987, 5818 of the 9698 acres of classified estuarine waters of New
Hampshire were classified as being prohibited for shellfish harvesting (Flanders, 1988). The 5818
acres included 724 acres that had been approved in 1986, and the "approved" classification of the
remaining 4818 acres is threatened by non-point sources of pathogens. All tidal rivers in the
Piscataqua River basin were contaminated with bacteria at levels that violate New Hampshire
water quality standards, and the Class B user classification of these rivers was not supported. In
addition, approximately one third of the non-tidal rivers in the basin that were assessed in 1987
were also in violation of bacterial standards. Finally, a large number of private groundwater
wells, as well as.a few public potable groundwater sources in New Hampshire, have been reported
to be contaminated with bacteria (Flanders, 1988).  Greater than two thirds of the known
groundwater contamination problem areas in New Hampshire are located in the southeastern
section. The increase in population and development in coastal regions, with the accompanying
increases in recreational uses and demand for seafood, increases the potential for disease
incidence caused by exposure to pathogens.


11. Results and Benefits

       The results of this study will be several-fold. Monitoring of coliform bacteria and enteric
viruses will help indicate the extent of fecal pollution in areas of southeastern New Hampshire.
Collection of this data will provide information on areas where inadequately treated sewage. or
wastewater is being introduced into the environment, potentially contaminating our ground or
surface waters. In addition to this, we will initiate studies of the effects of tides and high impact
runoff events on the concentration of coliforms and enteric viruses.
       This research will contribute to a better understanding of the ecology of indicator bacteria
and enteric viruses in groundwater, riverine, and estuarine environments, and will serve as an
informative test of the validity of currently employed methods for determining water quality.
Comparison of results from the different methods used in this project could indicate better
methods for detecting human pathogens and, if implemented by regulatory agencies, could
decrease the risk of disease from ingestion of contaminated water and food.










 2.  Project Title:  Evaluation of Solid Waste Management Models and
                    Development of Landfill Siting Criteria

 3. COWRR Category:  05E

4.  Keyword Numbers:  24, 137, 211, 262, 272

 5.  Duration:  10/1988 through 9/1990

 6.  FY 1989 Federal Funds:         $   780          $    780         $    0
                                    (Total)          Direct          Indirect

7,  Non-Federal Funds Allocated:  $  53,631         $  39,651        $  13,980
                                    (Total)          Direct          Indirect

8.  Principal Investigators:

                                Thomas P. Ballestero
                                Paul J. Ossenbruggen
                                Environmental Research Group
                                Department of Civil Engineering
                                University of New Hampshire

 9.  Congressional District:  One

10.  Statement of Critical Water Problem:

    The State of New Hampshire,  like many other states,  is faced with a
growing concern over the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. The amount of
municipal solid waste is continuing to grow.   In 1975 the nation generated
112.8 million tons and in 1984 it grew to 126.5 million tons.   Over this
period, the number of landfills in the U.S. has declined by one half. Public
health, environmental pollution and cost have caused society to reject many new
landfill proposals and to look upon incineration and recycling more favorably.
These alternatives, by themselves, do not offer a complete solution to the.
solid waste problem.   What is needed by all are well-integrated plans
consisting of landfills combined with incinerators and recycling facilities.

11.  Statement of Results:

    The purpose of this proposal is toaddress two important issues in
reaching a solution to the solid waste management problem for the State of New
Hampshire:

    A. Development of economic planning model(s) to assist the DES and
        regional solid waste cooperative districts in evaluating different
        solid waste management plans.   This model (or models) and planning
        methods will be placed into a guidance document for use by the State
        and solid waste districts.

    B.  Development of landfill siting criteria to minimize public health and
        environmental pollution risks to the State.   These criteria will be




                                  E-11








        assembled as a guidance document for use by the State andI
        municipalities.

    This research will utilize the current body of knowledge in solid waste
management and the principles of economics and risk analysis in establishing
landfill siting criteria and decision-making aids for ranking solid waste
management plans with the goal of minimizing the risk to the environment and

society in a cost-effecti ve manner,









        2. Title: Protocol Development for Incinerator Residue/Ash Management

       3.  COWRR Category:  05B

       4.  Descriptors:  196, 4, 78

        5.  Duration:  July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990

        6.  Fiscal Year 1988 Federal Funds:   $3,000    $3,000
                                            (Total)  (Direct)  (Indirect)

        7. Non-Federal Funds Allocated:       $81,653  $60,750    $20,903
                                            (Total)  (Direct)  (Indirect)

        8.  Taylor Eighmy                               Robin Collins
           Dept. of Civil Engineering                  Dept. of Civil Engineering
            University of New Hampshire                 University of New Hampshire
            Durham, NH  03824                           Durham, NH  03824

        9   Congressional District:  One

3  .   10o  Statement of Critical Regional or State Water Problems to be Addressed:

            The State of New Hampshire has undergone a rate of growth of 17% during
            the last six years. On a per capita basis, each resident is producing
            4 to 6 pounds per day of garbage.  Increases in population coupled with
            high levels of waste generation has precipitated a solid waste crisis
            in the State.

            One avenue that municipalities and solid waste districts have examined,
            and to some degree implimented, is the incineration of municipal solid
            waste  (MSW) in mass burn and refuse-to-energy incinerators.   Incin-
            eration does have advantages; waste volumes are reduced 60 to 90%, thus
           maximizing the use of valuable space within permitted landfills.
            Moreover, the leachate generated from infiltration through -landfilled
            combustion residue is often organically more benign than leachate from
            MSW. Presently, the State requires that ash landfills must be state-
            of-the-art.   Two liners and two leachate collection systems must be
            used.  Groundwater monitoring down gradient from the facility is also
            required.

            Incineration residues, however, are enriched in semi-volatile and non-
            volatile heavy metals (lead, cadmium, copper, zinc, nickle, mercury),
            which adsorb to fly ash particulates or remain in the bottom ash during
            high temperature incineration.   These heavy metals pose a potential
         threat to groundwater resources in the event of failure-of both liners
            in a state-of-the-art landfill facility., Additionally,  carbon
           particulate matter in the fly-ash contains aromatic organics and HCl.
            In the boiler,  these constituents  combine to form chlorinated
            hydrocarbons  (dioxins,  furans,  polychlorinated biphenyls) which
            associate with fly ash. While these semi-volatile compounds have very
            low solubilities in water, their presence in the ash (and in the flue



     If    ;j                            E5-13








     gas) has resulted in problems in the siting of incinerators and
     dedicated  landfills which  receive  the  combustion  residues.
     Consequently, landfills may not necessarily be sited in optimum
     locations for attenuation of leachate in the event of liner failure.

     Therefore, to maximize protection to human health and the environment,
     ash landfills should be sited on soils that will attenuate leachate
     migration in the event of liner failure,  We propose to examine how ash
     leachate behaves in three different New Hampshire soils under saturated
     flowing conditions,  We hope to show how these soils attenuate the
     advection and dispersion of heavy metals in the leachate compared to
     the behavior of more conservative anions (Cl-, Br-, S042) present in
     the leachate.   We plan to utilize simple one-dimensional transport
     models to evaluate data derived from extensive soil column studies.  We
     hope to quantify those soil sorption characteristics of importance that
     retard heavy metal transport.

11.  Statement of Results, Benefits, and/or Information:

     The results from this study will assist the New Hampshire Department of
     Environmental Services in developing ash landfill siting criteria.  The.
     results will help to "normalize" the process of site selection by
     indicating the preferred soil to situate a facility.  This will then
    minimize deleterious impacts to human health and the environment by
    adding one more layer of protection to the presently adopted double-
     liner, double-leachate collection system design.

    We are seeking support from the Water Resources Research Center to fund
     analytical costs for the soil column-work.  This work is matched by
    State dollars through a parent contract [Protocol Development for
    Incinerator Residue/Ash Management:  M. Robin Collins, David L. Gress,
    and T. Taylor Eighmy, (Principal Investigators) 8/87 to 8/89, $153,000,
    New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, grantor.

15.  Progress Review:

    During the last year, research on "Protocol Development for Incinerator
    Residue/Ash Management" has progressed in three areas relating to the-
    understanding of issues surrounding the leaching, use and land disposal
    of municipal solid waste incinerator ashes. These areas are described
    below.  These efforts are jointly funded under a cost-sharing agreement
    from the State of New Hampshire and the Water Resource Research Center.

    The influence of pH and oxidation-reduction potential  (ORP) on
    elemental leaching from incineration residues has been evaluated using
    batch leaching protocols and geochemical thermodynamic modeling.  The
    intent of these experiments is to describe domains of pH and ORP that
    promote leaching or immobilization, and evaluate and calibrate complex
    mass-balance and equilibrium-driven models using batch data. To date,
    batch leaching tests have shown that windows in the pH and ORP response
    surface exist that allow for heavy metal immobilization as insoluble
    new solid phases  or dissolution  of existing solid phases.   The
    geochemical thermodynamic equilibrium model MINTEQ has -predicted the
    same trends in the response surface.   These results suggest that


                                  E-14








                 Public ParticiDation and Technoloqvgy Transfer


   Most of the 234 N.H. communities function by the Town Meeting form of
government. Municipal boards that are primarily volunteer in nature,
administer the affairs of a community, as directed by town meeting. Boards of
Selectmen, Planning Boards, Zoning Boards of Appeals and Conservation
Commissions are responsible for carrying on the various functions of town
government related to natural resource management.
    The pressures and problems associated with rapid growth are causing a high
turnover in local community boards. New, inexperienced board members are
being placed in critical decision making positions without the training
necessary to make the profound decisions which have an everlasting impact on
the communities' natural resource base.
    Consequently, an effective educational program must be directed at the
municipal decision making level to bring the awareness to those who can
prevent nonpoint pollution. The State of New Hampshire has many programs
directed at solving or preventing nonpoint pollution. However, enforcement of
these programs is not effective at the local level. The need for a municipal
focus from an awareness point of view as well as for implementation of best
management practices becomes evident.
    Much of the failure of previous or existing educational programs for
municipal leaders is attributed to the demands placed on this audience; weekly
evening meetings, weekly site reviews, and frequent interruptions in personal
time for voluntary positions leaves little time or desire to attend
educational meetings. Educational programs which can be easily integrated
into the lives of these busy volunteers is needed.
    The project objectives would be to:
    1) Teach local decision makers about their responsibilities and roles in
        regard to water issues.
    2) Improve the knowledge base of more than 3,000 existing local decision
        makers.
    3)  Develop and implement a program that-will continue to serve New
        Hampshire's communities, and
    4) Demonstrate a successful program which will serve as a model for the
        New England region.




                                      E- 15








    Four separate yet related public education/participation elements have
been identified:


    1) To conduct a series of workshops throughout the 4-year period of the
NPS Management Plan process.  These workshops would serve three different
functions.


a. Public Participation Workshops-would be conducted throughout the various
regions of the state during the initial phases of the NPS Management Plan
implementation to both explain the goals of the NPS program as well as to
obtain public input regarding specific NPS concerns. Six workshops are
proposed to be held from September 1988 through April 1989.
b. To develop and conduct three Professional Consistency Workshops to be held
in September of 1989, 1990, and 1991 for the professionals who work with
public officials. The purpose of these workshops will be to insure the
consistent applications of HPS regulations. These workshops will also provide
a forum for exchanging NPS concerns and updates of the NPS program.
c, To develop and conduct Municipal Training Workshops each fall during 1989,
1990, and 1991 for local public officials. During each year certain
municipalities will be targeted based on priorities established by EPA and the
Division and the interests of municipalities, i.e. Great Bay, Lakes Region,
most threatened surface water areas. The technical guidelines and video
developed (see descriptions below) will be presented as well as suggestions
for use. The ultimate purpose of these workshops is to enable the community
officials to integrate this material during site plan review, master planning,
and ordinance writing. These workshops are consequently planned for September
through December to meet town meeting warrant requirements.  The information
will be presented, and the technical assistance provided on the community
level by planners and technical experts. It is hoped that these officials
will be able to develop ordinances and regulations that will prevent NPS as
well as be informed enforcers of state regulations and programs directed at
UPS prevention.


    2) To develop a video tape that will increase UPS awareness of citizens
and public officials. The tape will explain the NPS issues and the best
management practices for resolution and/or prevention of nonpoint source


                                     E-16.









pollution.  The tape will be completed by September 1989 and be available to
each municipality. A video tape will allow the individual public officials to
view the materials within their homes if they should miss the Municipal
Training Workshops.


    3) To coordinate the development and printing of technical guidelines
which explain in detail the NPS issues and provide best management practices
for resolution and/or prevention of nonpoint source pollution.  University,
Federal Agency (SCS primarily), state and Regional Planning agencies will be
included in the process of development and peer review of these guidelines.
Eight are proposed to cover the issues identified during the NPS Technical
Advisory Committee meeting and as a result of the assessment report. They may
include:
    o   NPS Overview
    o   Site Development
    o   Stormwater Runoff
    o   Fertilizer/Pesticide Use
    o   Erosion/Sedimentation
    o   Subsurface Disposal
    o   Filling and Dredging Wetlands
    o   Dumps and Landfills


    The guidelines will be completed in time for use at the Professional
Consistency and Municipal Training Workshops.




















       :I              ;      :       E-17





                         FOCUSING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
 A. PROJECT TITLE:  TARGETING PUBLIC CONSERVATION DECISION-MAKERS

 B. SUBNITTED BY:  NEW HAMPSHIRE

 C. PRIORITY:

 0. LENGTH OF PROPOSAL:  2 YEARS                      -.

 . COSTS:  $40,000; $20,000 EACH YEAR

 F. ABSTRACT:  This project focuses on improved and better informed decision
 making by key public officials relating to conservation issues. It targets
 training for lay Individuals who serve on conservation commissions and
 for other key public officials in each of the 234 New Hampshire. towns.
 These officials directly influence long-lasting public policy decisions, in
the second most forested state in the US at a time when rapid growth ts
 placing the forest resource at risk. Training will include the
 responsibilities, opportunities, and technical aspects of conservation.
 issues, emphasizing forests, water,recreation, and wildlife resources.
No other project will so directly, dramatically and positively influence
the formulation of public policies affecting NH's forest resources.

0. PROBLE STATEIENT: Forest land is being fragmented and taken out of
production at a rate in NH that exceeds any other state in the Northeast.
Many towns have uncontrolled growth while others are passing local
ordinances severely limiting legitimate forestry activities. Town officials
making decisions about NH's natural resources are often new to their pubcl1
positions and unfamiliar with technical aspects of forest resources and
public policy options. With NH's strong reliance on local control, these
key officials in town government must be targetted with accurate
Information -on resource issues if we are to positively influence sound
forest policy formulation.
    We will work with other public organizations to accomplish the
objectives of this proposal, Including the NH Association of Conservation
Commissions, NH Office of State Planning, Conservation Districts and the NH
Departments of Fish and Game and Resources and Economic Development.  LUNH
Cooperatve Extension also has resource people to cover non-forestry issues
as well as providing the services of Extension Foresters in each NH county.
    Now is a critical time to provide public policy decision-makers with a
proactive, research-based educational  program, before long-lasting,
hard-to-reverse local laws and policies are put into effect.
M. OBJECTYVE:  1) Contact the o800to 1,500 current town conservation-
related'officialrs n NH to make available individual training, using
printed materials, fact sheets, end audio cassettes. A correspondence
course will be considered; 2) Set up an on-going systm whereby new and
prospective cornmission members will receive the same material for
orientation; 3) Educationand: information will include the aspects of the
publc position and current conservation issues, Including technical
information; 4) Select .examples of effective techniques-for solving
problems which can be- used as demonstrations for other towns, using peer to
peer deliviry, saving duplication of development efforts;



                                      E-18    - 







 OBJECTIVE CONTINUED: 5) Work in concert with other public conservation
 agencies In progam development and delivery to gain creative ideas, to
 avoid duplication or missed opportunities, and to gain credability and
 assistance where necessary.  Through this interagency cooperation we will
 develop a network for a continuing program of education and information
 exchange with county Extension Foresters playing a key role.

 I. EVALUATION CRITERIA (HO  WELL DOES THE PROPOSAL: )

     1. ADDRESS THE FEDERAL ROLE:  Meets initiatives 1,2,3,L4 of 'People &
 Forests: Refocus on Opportunity' by focusing on the multi-state problem of
 urban impacts on forest land; the need for public awareness and action;
 improves product availability and meets land protection, environmental
 goals and planning goals in New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands
  Action Program for the 1980's.' 
     2. ADDRESS C004ODITY AND CNO-COI40ODITY 00GS AND SERVICES:  Managing
 the forest land will help provide forest. products to the marketplace with
 resultant multiple economic benefits.and will contribute to recreation,
 wildlife and aesthetic beauty of the forest.
     3. ADDRESS MULTI-STATE OR REGIONAL ISSUES:  Across New England, the
 effect of population growth and development on forest land is of prnmary
 concern to public policy makers and citizens as well as with the forestry
 community.  Successful techniques will be of regional importance.
     4. PROGRAM CONTINUITY:  This on-going program of orientation of new
 conservation commission members and continuing education of established
 members will be a foundation from which to work with Planning Boards and
 Selectmen. Improved policies and legislation developed as a result of this
 project will outlive us all.
     5. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH: Professionals in forestry, agriculture,
 community resource development, wildlife, water quality, soils, urban
 forestry education, law, and environmental planning are essential and
 available to participate in program development and delivery.
     6. DEMONSTRATE READINESS AND COWHITMENT: UNH Cooperative Extension is
 committed to forest resource conservation. Nationally, Extension is
 committed to working with comrnunity leaders In Conservation and Natural
Resources.  Public and private organizations have signaled their
willingness to work cooperatively with Extension on training of public
conservation leaders. Extension has the expertise to begin on this
proposal as soon as it is approved.
J. OMHER CONSIDERATIONS: 1) The 1988 New Hampshire legislature provided
 legislative encouragement for towns to seek educational assistance from
Extension CFM Foresters; 2) This proposal provides an opportunity for the
Forest Service to work cooperatively with USDA Cooperative Extension's
National Initiatives atthe grassroots level; 3) This is a critical time In
the environmental history of the Northeast population growth area.  This
program can be expanded to include other states facing growth problems; 4)
-The alternative to thtis proposal is to accept fragmentated, pot-luck forest
resource policy formulation rather than to develop well-informed key
conservation leaders who have developed a close working relationship with
the forest community.

K. SIGNATURE OF THE STATE FORESTER:
                                    John Sargent, NH State Forester


                                     E-19





                Survival of Pathogenic Bacteria in Oysters



                 Dr. D. Jay Grimes and Dr. Stephen H. Jones

                    Jackson Estuarine Laboratory and
               Institute of Marine Science and Ocean Engineering
                      University of New Hampshire
                     Durham, New Hampshire 03824


      Current  enumeration methods,  whether based on indicator
 bacteria or on pathogens themselves, are seriously underes-
 timating the true numbers of viable pathogenic bacteria entering
 and accumulating in estuarine and marine environments throughout
 the world. Recent evidence suggests that bacteria, especially
 Gram-negative organisms,  can enter a nonculturable yet viable
 state of dormancy, upon exposure to suboptimal growth conditions.
 This has been demonstrated for a number of bacteria in seawater,
 freshwater, and in other media. Bacteria in shellfish may also
 become dormant, although this has yet to be demonstrated. This is
 important because filter-feeding shellfish may take in pathogens
 with contaminated water; accumulation, concentration, or growth
 of these organisms within shellfish would then pose health risks
 to consumers. Thus, dormancy of bacterial pathogens in shellfish,
 in contaminated waters, and during depuration of shellfish, has
 important public health implications, especially when viable and
 potentially virulent bacteria are nonculturable by current
 methods for ascertaining quality of water and shellfish.

 The specific aims of the proposed research project are to:

      1. determine the potential for Vibrio vulnificus and
      Escherichia  col  to  enter  a  viable  yet  nonculturable
      physiological state in estuarine water;

      2. determine the validity of currently accepted, standard-
      enumeration methods for detecting indicator and pathogenic-
      bacteria in oysters (Crassostrea virainica) using
      Escherichiacoli and Vibrio vulnificus as test bacteria;

      3. evaluate the process of shellfish deputation by
      determining survival and clearance of pathogenic (E. coli,
     V.  vulnificus)  and  indicator  (E.  col)  bacteria  from
     Crassostrea Mirainica.

This research will contribute to a better understanding of the
ecology and physiology of indicator and pathogenic bacteria in
estuarine and marine environments, and will serve as a conclusive
test of the validity of currently employed methods for
determining shellfish and water quality.  Comparison of results
 from the different detection and enumeration methods used in this
project could provide better methods for detecting human
pathogens, which, if implemented by regulatory agencies, could
result in a decrease in disease incidence caused by bacterial
-pathogens in shellfish and water.

                                E-20









          EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS IN A
     CONTROLLED PURIFICATION. FACILITY FOR SHELLFISH

                                         Submitted by
                                    Dr. Stephen H. Jones
                                                to
                               Spinney Creek Oyster Company
                                         Eliot, Maine.

       Oysters, clams, and mussels are filter: feeders which filter out and consume particulate
matter from water. There is a broadrange of contaminants which are also filtered from water and
which present health risks to the consumer, including microbial contaminants from sewage and
other sources. By far the most widespread public health problem facing the shellfish industry in
New England is microbial contamination. Unfortunately, most if not all New England estuaries
have been contaminated to some degree with sewage effluents, the principle source of pathogenic
bacteria and viruses. States attempt to regulate closure of shellfish beds based on sanitary surveys
and spot testing of the water. As evidenced by the number of outbreaks of shellfish related
illnesses, this practice is less than effective in protecting the consumer.
       An alternative approach to shellfish safety is to assume that all shellfish from estuarine
waters are potentially contaminated by sewage effluents. Therefore, the best procedure to follow
would be to process all shellfish through controlled purification, and test fecal coliform counts in
each shellfish lot before releasing them to the consumer. There are many factor which control and
limit the ability of shellfish to effectively purify themselves, including temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, initial microbial load, stress prior to processing, as well as species specific and
geographic anomalies in the shellfish. These factors are not well documented. In order to design,
construct, and operate a properly functioning controlled purification facility, more information is
required, and much of this information remains with the collective experiences of plant operators.
Spinney Creek Oyster Company (SCOC) designed, after careful consideration of existing facilities
in Maine and Massachusetts, and constructed a modular controlled purification facility in 1983 for
the purpose of processing hard shelled clam.
        The proposed project will provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of controlled
purification using different species of shellfish from restricted waters in Maine. Reduction of
bacterial contaminants in shellfish lots will be determined by measuring total and fecal coliforms in
shellfish using the APHA mulitple tube fermentation test. The reduction of At bacterial pathogen,
such as Salmonella from shellfish by controlled purification will also be studied. Ten commercial -
'ts of American oysters harvested from the restricted waters of the Piscataqua River will be
evaluated in detail. One specific lot will be sampled 10 times to evaluate the random error in the
Sampling scheime. Subsequent to the oyster analysis, three lots each of hard clams, soft clams, and
blue mussels from restricted waters will be evaluated in the same manner and compared with the
oyster results. Shellfish will' originate from restricted water instead of open water to increase the
likelihood of encountering higher microbial loads and specific bacterial pathogens. In this manner,
we may better focus on the limits of the process.









                                               E- 21












                         NEW HAMPSHIRE COASTAL PROGRAM

                 Planning/management Project (306) Application

                        Rockingham Planning Cowsission




Project Synopsis: Prepare digitized coverages of hydrography, s.oils, wetlands,
                   'floodplains, land use, zoning, property boundaries and re-
                   lated analysis maps in the Coastal Zone .of the Town of
                   Stratham.


o.  PROJECT NARRATIVE AND TASK DESCRIPTION

    In 1988 the Office of Coastal Resources Management designated the Squamscoet
    River and its immediate shoreline environment as part of the "second tier"
    coastal zone in New Hampshire.  Stratham is the most rapidly growing of
    the five communities which front the Squamscott River.  Between 1970 and
    1980 the Town's population grew from 1512 to 2507 or 66x; according to
    OSP figures it grew an additional 41% between 1980 and 19t7 to 3531.  Land
    adjacent to the Squamscott River has come under increasing and unabated
    development pressure.  Although the Town has limited shoreline protection
    measures in effect, the need exists to develop a permanent information
    base of the resources, natural features, land uses and property ownership
    patterns in the coastal zone.  This information can be used to better
    support and improve existing shoreline protection regulations and to
    identify environmentally sensitive areas to be targetted for land acquisi-
    tion or conservation easements.

    The Stratham Conservation Commission has requested that the Rockingham
    Planning Commission (RPC) utilize its pcARC/INFO based Geographic Iiforma-
    tion System (GIS) to build such an information base, including a set of
    digitized map overlays ("coverages") of natural resource and property infor-
    mation.

    The. project is intended to not only benefit the Town of Stratham but will
    serve as a demonstration of the techniques :and procedures for utilizing
    GIS in coastal and shoreland resource. analysis, to eventually be applied
    to the remainder of the Squamscott River and Great Bay.

    The'following coverages will. be digitized or otherwise acquired for the
    land areas of Stratham within the Squamscott River Corridor.  For the pur-
    poses of this study, this corridor will be defined to extend approximately
    2500 feet upland from the river's edge.






                                       E-22












     Coverage                      Source

     surface hydrography           USGS 1":24000" quadrangle maps*

     soil types                    CSRC 1":2000" coverages  (from Rockingham
                                  County Soil Survey)-.

     wetlands                      Soils; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National
                                  Wetlands Inventory Maps

     flood hazard areas            FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps

     existing land use             1986 Aerial Photography  (SCS - 1':24,000'
                                  scale)

     zoning districts              Stratham zoning map and ordinances

     property boundaries with
       parcel attribute data       1988 Squamscott River Property Inventory
                                  (Rockingham Planning Commission)

     *Stable-base mylar


Political boundaries and major streams will be digitized townwide.  All coverages
created for the project will be fully compatible with the N.H. Office of State
Planning's GIS.

In addition to creating the coverages described above, a number of overlay and
selection analyses will be performed including:

     -environmentally sensitive areas
     --shoreline building setback boundaries
     -'current use" and protected parcels
     --priority acquisition parcels
     --development suitability with zoning and land use

The analysis will be used to identify key parcels for conservation acquisition
or easements, to determine the adequacy of existing shoreline protection regula-
tion, and to analyze the relationship between existing land uses, zoning and
coastal resources.


i  2.   VORI TASK S:ND PRODUCTS

     Work Task 1:. Hydrography and Flood Eazard Areas

     Stratham's political boundaries and its coastal zone tier 1 and 2 boundaries
     will be digitized; Hydrography (surface drainage) will be digitized from
     USGS 1":24,000" mylars.  Flood hazard areas will be digitized from FEHA
     Flood Insurance Rate Maps and will include 10, 50, and 100 year elevations,
     as available.

                                       E-23











     Work Product 1:

     a.   Setup; organization of source materials and maps
     b.   Political Boundary Hap
     c.  Suface drainage and flood hazard area map (combined)

     Person Weeks: 2.0


Work Task 2: Soils and Wetlands

Digitized soils data for Rockingham County will be obtained from UNH/Complex
Systems Research Center and transferred to RPC's pcARC/INFO GIS. A soils
coverage will be created for the study area.  A wetland soils coverage
will be created and National Wetlands Inventory Haps (U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service) digitized if significant differences in area are observed.  Tidal
and fresh water wetlands will be differentiated.

     Work Product 2:

         Soils Map
     b.  Development Suitability Map
     C.   Soil Based Wetlands Map (poorly and very poorly drained soils)
     d.   National Wetland Inventory - Based Wetlands Map

     Person Weeks: 2.0


Work Task 3:  Land Use, Zoning Districts and Property Boundaries

Existing land use will be digitized from 1986 SCS ortho photos (1":24,000O
scale) and zoning districts will be digitized from the Town zoning map
and/or zoning ordinance definitions.  The Shoreline Protection District
and Wetlands District overlay setbacks will be created using the ARC/INFO
'buffering' utility. Property boundaries will be digitized from maps deve-
loped for the Coastal Program report entitled 'Squamscott River Property
Inventory' (1988, Rockingham Planning Commission).  Attribute data including
tax parcel ID, owner, size and current use designation will be added.

    Work Product 3:

    a*   Land use map
    b.   Zoning districts (including setback buffers)
    Co   Property boundaries map with parcel attributes

    Person Weeks: 3.0







                                  E-24












    IWork Task 4:  Overlay/Analysis Maps

    Using the information digitized in Tasks I through 3, analyses maps will
    be generated to show the relationship between environmentally sensitive
     areas, existing and potential land use, zoning and property ownership.
    Alternative shoreline setback distances will be displayed.

         Work Product 4:  Analysis maps to include the following

         a.  Development Suitability and Zoning Comparison
         I  b.   Development Suitability and Land Use Comparison
         C.   Critical Resource Area Hap
         de   Critical Resources with Property Map
         e.   Critical Resources with Existing Land Use


         Person Weeks:  2.0


3.  RELATIONSHIP TO COASTAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

    This project addresses the following Coastal Program policy objectives:

    Policy 1: Coastal Resource Protection -- A permanent GIS information base
              of key natural resources and land uses will enable more complete
              understanding of resources and the threats from incompatible
              land use. Specific problem areas and properties can be identified
              and appropriate steps taken to protect important resources.

    Policy 2: Fish and Wildlife Management -  The information base will provide
              an easily referenced and updated source for identifying important
              wetlands based habitat along the Squamscott and evaluating the
      I       impact of nearby development.

    Policy 5: Rare and Endangered Species -  Various flora and fauna have -been
              identified along the Squamscott River as threatened (e.g. Stout
              Bulrush and the Common Gallinule).  General habitats associated
              with these species will be identified.  Known locations of en-
              dangered species can be added when identified.

    Policy 6: Unique Natural Areas -  The information base will provide the
              opportunity to include,  add, and amend information regarding
              --unique natural areas and environmentally sensitive areas.  It
              is the starting point of a land and resource information system
              that can be developed over time and integrated into all land
              use decision making.

    Policy 7: Recreation Facility -  Information will include recreation-based
              land uses and will identify parcels with potential for acquisition
              for conservation and recreation purposes.



                                    E-25














     Policy 8: Rural Quality of Great Bay -- Use of the information base may
               lead to improvements in existing Shoreline Protection measures
               and help preserve the existing aesthetic quality of the Great
               Bay and Squamscott River.

     Policy 9: Floodplain Protection -- FEMA identified flood hazard areas will
               be identified and included in analysis maps.

     Policy 11: Water Quality -  To the extent that the information made avail-
               able  through. this project will improve land use decisions and
               further support shoreline, wetlands, and other resource protection
               ordinances, it will have a positive effect on the future water
               quality of the Squamscott River and Great Bay.

     Policy 16: Research and Education I-   n part, the creation of a coastal
              zone information base for Stratham will serve as a demonstration
              of the usefulness  of GIS to Coastal Resources management and
              planning that could be applied to and integrated with other com-
              munities in the coastal zone.



A4    MAPS

    A Map showing the Town of Stratham and the study area in attached.  (The
    boundary shown represents a 2500 foot wide corridor with some variation
    with topography and hydrography)o


* 5.   SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION

    Project starting date: July 1, 1989 (or upon execution of contract if later)

    Work Task 1: September 30, 1989
    Work Task 2: November 30, 1989
    Work Task 3: February 28, 1989
    Work Task 4: April 30, 1989

6.   BUDGET AND FINDING SOURCES

    Budget

    Salaries and benefits ...................................$5640
    Supplies (plotter paper, pens, source maps) .............  300
    Travel ..o...e........................ .......o.......  250
    Indirect (rent, telephone, utilities, computer/repro,
              office supplies)   .     ....    .................. 1810


                                                     TOTAL $8,000

                                     E-26













     Funding Sources

     Local match from Town of Stratham (20X)                     $2000
     Local match from Rockingham Planning Commission (30%)    $2000
     Coastal Program Funds (50%)                                 $4000


                                                       TOTAL $8,000

7.   PROJECT AHIINISTRATION 

     The project will be administered by the Executive Director of the Rockingham
     Planning Commission,

8.   CONTACT PERSON

     Cliff Sinnott, Executive Director
     Rockingham Planning Commission
     121 Water Street
     Exeter: NH  03833
     (603) 778-0885































       I                  0              E-27







           Watershed Resources Manaqement Project for Lake Waukewan


                        Diana Morgan, Project Manager
             North Country Resource Conservation and Development


    The study was based on three methods of research: maps and aerial
photographs, field surveys, and computer data analysis. Maps of the soils and
topography based on work of the Lakes Region Planning Commisssion were drafted
on a scale of 1" = 500'. The watershed boundary was delineated on the topo
map and then field checked for accuracy. Checks were made for possible
diversion of natural flow patterns caused by man made structures such as
ditches or culverts. A survey of land use was made determining the location
of all buildings and other impervious areas and lawns in the watershed. A
land use map was created using this information in conjunction with aerial
photographs. The field-work was done on foot and in car.
    The watershed was divided into 10-acre grid squares with data sheets for
each indicating soil type, ground cover, slope, and area. This information
was the input data for the Critical Watershed Evaluation (CWE) computer
program, a prototype model developed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
exclusively for N.H. The program can determine an amount of soil loss
resulting from sheet and rill erosion expressed in tons/year and a Runoff
Curve Number (RCN) for each cell, a group of cells, of for the entire
watershed. The RCN is a dimensionless expressio between 0 and 100 that
indicates the run-off potential of a particular soil and ground cover
combination. The RCN's can then be converted to a depth of runoff expressed
in inches. This depth is the portion of a 24-hour rainfall event that can be
expjected to run off the soil rather than infiltrate into it.
    Another program, WHATIFTR55, developed by SCS in N.H., calculates peak
discharge. This is the volume per unit time (e.g., cubic feet per second)
that can be expected from a specific flood event.  It is estimated using the
size of rainstorm that it is usual for that specific flood event. The 25-year
flood was chosen for this study because it is a common flood used by engineers
to design culverts and retention/detention ponds.
    The output from CWE includes total areas of each ground cover, average
slope of each, the weighted RCN and erosion, as well as a composite for each
ground cover. An entire watershed may be analysed or selected portions may be


                                     E-28








designated subwatersheds and studied separately.
    The following is a description of the real and hypothetical scenarios
tested in this study:


Entire Watershed-
    Once the present watershed conditions were entered into the computer and
the RCN and erosion rates calculated, a total build-out of the watershed based
on the current subdivision and zoning regulations was modeled.  Total
build-out of an area is usually considered by planners to be the worst case
situation and should be anticipated.  No provisions were made for special
exemptions that may be granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The
assumption was made that the minimum amount of green space required by present
regulations was all that was retained.  The rest of each lot was assumed to be
covered with impervious surfaces such as buildings and parking areas.  An
average of 1/4 acre of lawn per building unit was used. This figure for lawn
was based upon field reconnaissance.  No temporary storage of runnoff waters,
other than in existing wetlands, was assumed.


Forest Subwatershed-
    Next a subwatershed of approximately 86 acres was seelcted in a nearly
totally forested part of the watershed to assess the effects of various
amounts of development on runoff and erosion on forest land. This area does
not represent a true drainage area based upon topography.  It was chosen
merely for ease of manipulation and for demonstration purposes. Erosion
potential during construction was modeled.  This subwatershed was treated as a
proposed subdivision with in the Lake Waukewan watershed to show that models
can be used for site assessment. This particular subwatershed was chosen
because it is typical of the portions of the Lake Waukewan watershed yet to be
developed.


Shoreline Subwatershed-
    Finally, the Shoreline Subwatershed surrounding Lake Waukewan, was
tested.  This area follows the present shorline zone for Lake Waukewan
designated on the 1988 Zoning Map. All forested areas were included in this
subwatershed.  This zone was chosen because it was thought to have the most
immediate effect upon the lake water quality.  Its forested nature represented



                                      E-29








a large portion of the watershed and the regulations governing it seemed
fairly permissive considering Lake Waukewan is a public water supply. The
present condition of the Shoreline Zone around the lake was analyzed and
compared to a total build-out condition under the current regulations. Then
the situations of the total build-out with varying setbacks from the lake and
a maximum percent lot coverage were compared to total build-6ut under current
regulations.  The setbacks of 75, 100, and 125 ft were chosen because these
are common setbacks from surface water used in planning. A 50% reserved green
space with the 65 ft setback presently allowed was also modeled.


Summary-
    Based upon findings made and the impact of the physical characteristics of
the watershed upon CWE, it appears that the greatest benefit to the Town of
Meredith from this study will be to use CWE and WHATIFTR55 for case by case
site assessments of proposed developments. The forest subwatershed was tested
as though it were a potential subdivision.
    The models do not work as well for the Lake Waukewan watershed as they do
for watersheds with well-defined stream systems. This factor prevented the
study from properly assessing the peak discharge and the resultant required
storage for the whole watershed. However, the models work quite well for
smaller subwatersheds, such as the FOrest Subwatershed. The models estimate
the amount of potentially eroded soil that can be expected during
construction, the amount of increased runoff to be expected after
construction, and the amount of storage needed to contain it. This
information can be extremely valuable to planners and egineers alike in
determining what measures need to be taken.


















                                     E-30




               Lake Sunapee Phosphorus Budget Proposal
zntroduaiont  a
    As pressures from development and recreational use increase upon
our lakes, there is growing concern over degrading water quality:
algal blooms, declining fisheries, shoreline erosion etc. Of primary
concern  is  cultural  eutrophication,  increased  nutrient  loading
resulting  in  accelerated  plant  growth  (submerged  aquatics  and
planktonic algae) within the lake. It is generally believed that.
phosphorus supply within a lake exerts the primary control over algae
and plant growth. Thus, it is important to obtain an understanding of
the sources and amounts of phosphorus supplied to a lake from its
watershed as well as determine the lakes capacity to handle these
phosphorus  loadings.  The best method to achieve this  is by the
development of a phosphorus budget. The resulting information can then
be used as a diagnostic tool- to better determine the present state of
the lake and locate areas of concern, as well as a predictive tool- to
develop intelligent management plans and guidelines.
 Outline of iroleats

 Phae    - Development of a water budget.
  Rationale! The relative contributions of the lakes sub-watersheds as
well as the inflow, outflow and water residence characteristics of the
lake are necessary to estimate total nutrient loadings to a lake.
   XMthods: Stream Gauge installation and monitoring, Calculations of
stream flow from ratings curve data. Determination of sub-watershed
drainage  areas  and  important  lake  morphological  parameters  (ie:
Volume, area, flushing rate, drainage density). Rain Gauge monitoring.
       Data collection and Freauencv: For the past three years, Lake
Sunapee has been sampled intensively on a monthly basis (June through
September) by the FBG. This program will continue in 1989 with the
addition of at least one winter sampling trip and a spring-melt trip
specifically added for the nutrient study (see below). During each of
the 6 FBG trips in 1989 the FBG field team will monitor the gauges.
Sunapee Lay Monitors will monitor the gauges weekly after ice-out and
during storm events. FBG will also obtain lake height data from Outlet
dam station.  Four rain gauges will be monitored by Lay Monitors.
Portable pH "pens" might be used by one or two monitors to measureQ
acid activity of rainwater. Supplemental weather information will be
obtained by the FBG from US Weather Service (USWS) station at Mt.
Sunapee. Evaporation data from USWS Lakeport station will be obtained
by the FBG and extrapolated for the Sunapes area.

Thase a--  1hosphorus monitoring.
       Aethds: Collection of water samples from lake sites, streams
and outlet, preservation of sample at time of collection, storage of
frozen samples until analysis at FBG analytical laboratory.
         Data collection and Freauencv: Monthly throughout ice-free
season (during the six FBG sampling trips) and during various flow
 regimes/weather events (Sunapse Lay Monitors).
       Eanomnt: Critical measurement times are during spring melt and
precipitation events. The existence of the current lay monitoring
network will greatly facilitate sample collection as well as gauge
monitoring.

Notes Supplemental samples will also be taken from minor streams where
loadings might be suspected (ie. "smelly" or particulate laden stream
or drainage culverts). Also, if any residents still utilize or have an
operating  shallow  well,  samples  will  also  be  taken  to  obtain

                               E-31




                                        FBG-LSPA Nutrient Study
information on ground-water phosphorus. As the FBG does not know of
any such sampling options it will be the respagonsibility of the Lake I
Sunapee Protective  Association to provide the necessary  "resident
expertise" and suggest possible sample sites as they become known.
Phase a - Phosphorus budget.
      JetXhga  Integration of water budget calculated from stream and
weather data, phosphorus data, land Sunapee Shoreline survey data to
produce a breakdown of phosphorus loadings.
       Yrouct:  An Interim Diagnostic Report on phosphorus loadings in
Lake Sunapse. Critical watershed areas, the subwatersheds that have a
greater contribution of nutrient influx will be determined. Critical  3
lakeshore areas will be analyzed in the same manner. The report will
also explain where Lake Sunapee is in terms of its capacity to process
nutrients (its "tolerance")  This interim report will then be used to
develop protection plans for Lake Sunapee and its watershed.

Note: There have been other nutrient budgets developed with limited
data collection for Squam Lake (Harvard Univ.) and Lake Winnipesaukee |
(Reckow, Office of State Planning) in the seventies. More recently,
data collected by the FBG and lay moniteors have been integral in the
development of nutrient budgets for smaller, southern New Hampshire I
lakss (Babooeic Lake-Amherst and Merrimac and Silver Lake-Hollis).
However, the forsight of the Lake Sunapee Protective Association in
both  maintaining  a  comprehensive  water  monitoring  program  and 
conducting a recent shoreline survey of the lake will enable the FEQ
to prepare one of the most complets nutrient budgets ever attempted
for a large, oligotrophic New Hampshire lake.
Phase 4 - Development of lake response model.
      Rationale: With the use of water and phosphorus budgets for
axisting conditions a model will be developed to predict changes in I
phosphorus loadings and related water quality parameters likely to
come about from changes in land use.
    M     .atd.u EEvaluation of current applicable nutrient models, use of
long-term monitoring data to predict parameter variability, evaluation
of model error and predictability.
     Mroadlu. Predictive computer model to estimate probable outcomes
of changes within the lake watershed.
Phase 5 - FINAL REPORT: Compilation of diagnostic and predictive model
with results of various development  scenarios in a final report. The
report will include phase 3 results and non-technical sections I
explaining the model results as well as technical sections on the
reliability of the model in terms of model errors, assumptions and
confidence limits. Recomendations of Use of the model as well as
protective strategies for the watershed will be included. Development
scenarios will include (but are not limited to) increase of
population/cottaqge-use  at  selected- lakeshore  areas,  expansion  or 
breakdown of Me. Sunapee septic system and benefits of sewering of
selected areas.






                              E-32 




          I                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~FBG-LsPA Nutrient Study


I     ~Status /Proposed timetable to of 4/1/89

      Phase X- Xnstallations complete,
                Height/Flow model developed.
                Initial readings taken through~ summer.
               Ratings curves for primary sub-watersheds constructed0

             DO:M
               Recalibration. of flow Zodel recommended in spring 1989
  I           ~~~~during maintenance check,4*(Started and will continue
                th~roughmumr) 
               Obtain past and curent lake outflow information.
                Install Main Gauges. *(Monitoring at Newbury has begun
               other sites will be initialized when gauges are shipped)
3     ~~Expected completioan of Water Budget: FebuaryI1990.
      Phase 2- Phosphorus mamples, collected: Phompborus datIa processed to
                date include spring-Summer 1987 and 1988. As noted above
  I           ~~~sampling  will  continue  under  1989  long-term  monitoring
                program as well as additional sampling dates specific to
                nutrient study.

I      ~~Sampling sites:  (FBG/LSPA station designations)

            Subwatershed Streams and Outlet,
  I           ~~~~7 Sites (Tl-T7)
            Deep-water stations.
  3             ~~~~3 Sites (22t22Ar22B)
                at A depthsa0.5 motors; mid'-epilimnion, metalimnion,
                hyyolimnion.
 I         ~~~Shore/Bay-Stations.

 I         ~~~Additional streamu or shoreline sites will be added as

        Frequency of sampling:
H         ~~~Winter  1988/1989-sampling  at  tributary  and  selected  sites
      (21 22A, 22,14,,22B,17) *Undortakcen*t Spring ice-out- tributaries and
      outlets  May  through  September  (monthly)-  sampling  all  -site.;-
      Precipitation events (2 ate budgtetd)- sampling At tributaries (Tl-T7)
      during~ and selected sites (1-3 5 9A,3.2,14,,171l8t.20t21125) just after,
I         ~~~Estimated number of samplefs: 275.
           (Past FBG trip samples were about 100/yr)
      NOTE: The lack of precipitation during the fall and winter of 1988/89
      may cause a lower than normal water table condition for the study.
      While the-historical data collected during the spr ing and summers of
      previous years will allow for~ the detection of any anomalies in~ the
      parameters measured, a second winter trip during 1989/90 might be
      necessary to supplement the study.

       U                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~E- 33






Title: The Great Bay Estuarlne Research Reserve: A Laboratory for Public
           Education

Applicant: B. Sharon Meeker
           Marine Extension Educator
           Sea Grant Extension Program
           15 Garrison Avenue
           University of New Hampshire
           Durham, N.H.,.03824
           603-862-3460

Project Period: August 1, 1989 - February, 1991. (18.months)

Total Budget Request: $13,395

Proposal Category: "Creative and innovative methods and technologies for
implementing interpretive or educational projects."

Statement of Project: To utilize the Great Bay Estuarine Research Reserve as a
living laboratory for public involvement, with the following objectives:

     1. Foster citizen involvement and responsibility for the wise use of
       the Great Bay estuary as a whole.

     2. Focus public attention on-the newly created Great Bay Estuarine
           Research Reserve.

     3. Provide a valuable experiential learning resource for teachers
           students and the general public.    ' -

     4. Add to the data-base being developed to the describe the Great Bay
           Estuary.

    To accomplish these objectives, a two-pronged approach would include a
Great Bay Floating Laboratory Program and a citizens' monitoring project.









                                        E-34






     The Great Bay Floating Laboratory Program (GBFLP) would include the
following components:

           -a day-long teacher workshop
           -a resource manual with curriculum to be taught in the classroom
           -a 5-hour program with an on-shore component,
                 and a sampling trip aboard a research vessel
                 in the Great Bay Estuary.

     The Great Bay monitoring program would be a pilot program involving the
University of New Hampshire Marine Docents, and would include the following
activities:

           -a 3-day intial training session, with monthly updates
           -monthly and bi-monthly monitoring of the water column
                 flora and fauna, weather conditions, etc. in sites
                 that will extend and augment the monitoring done
                 by the Jackson Estuarine Laboratory.
           -monitoring in the wake of discrete events.
























                                       E-35





                                 TASK 89-5.2.2

          STRATHAM & NEWFIELDS WATER RESOURCES PLANS AND REGULATIONS
                        ROCKINGHAM PLANNING COMMISSION

Background:       The New Hampshire Legislature enacted a 1987 law requiring
                  that all local water resources management and protection
                  plans be reviewed by the NH Office of State Planning (OSP)
                  for consistency with established state criteria prior to
                  local adoption.  The OSP further has adopted administrative
                  rules requiring a water resources plan for communities prior
                  to the enactment of local ordinances pertaining to water
                  resources.  Without a water resources plan, any change to a
                  water-related ordinance is of questionable legality.

                  The Town of Stratham shows particular interest in developing - 
                  protection strategies for its land along the Squamscott
                  River. Stratham is the fastest growing of the five
                  communities fronting the Squamscott, a tidal river feeding
                  into Great Bay.  Because of recent and continuing
                  development pressures, there is a need to improve the Town's
                  capabilities in the control of development and in the
                  protection of valuable coastal resources.

Obiective:        The objective of this project is to prepare Water Resources
                  Management and Protection Plans for the Towns of Stratham
                  and Newfields, bringing them into compliance with state law
                  requiring such plans prior to adoption of local water
                  resources ordinances.  Further, the objective is to
                  recommend specific changes or additions to Stratham's master
                  plan, shoreline protection ordinance, zoning and subdivision
                  regulations, shorefront building setbacks, and riverfront
                  land acquisition priorities.

Description:      The proposed project involves the drafting of Water
                  Resources Management and Protection Plans for the Towns of
                  Stratham and Newfields.  As coastal communities, much of the
                  planning activity in these towns focuses on coastal issues
                  such as the protection of tidal and subtidal wetlands,
                  shorelands and floodplains. As Stratham and Newfields
                  continue to grow, both towns need to respond by updating
                  their ordinances related to water resources. As required by
                  state law, prior to updating these ordinances, these towns
                  must first adopt a Water Resources Management and Protection
                  Plan.  This project will fund only the portion of the plan
                  dealing directly with coastal areas.

                  The proposed project further involves utilizing the
                 Rockingham Planning Commission's expertise in land and water
                 use planning, specifically in using an automated geographic
                  information system to inventory and analyze lands and waters
                 of and in close proximity to the Squamscott River.  From the
                 analysis the Rockingham;Planning Commission will make
                  recommendations to Stratham for changes in various
                 ordinances, plans and acquisition priorities as necessary.




                                       E-36











                                 TASK 89-5.2.3

                     COCHECO RIVER HARBOR MANAGEMENT PLAN
                      NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PORT AUTHORITY


Background:    The New Hampshire Port Authority is responsible for the
               maintenance and development of the ports, harbors and -
               navigable tidal rivers in New Hampshire, and to encourage the
               establishment of accommodations for recreational boaters within
               these coastal waters.  With the state's tidal waters in a  aj6ror
               transition phase, this project serves to guide development and
               insure public access, use and safety along the Cocheco River.

Objective:     The objective of this project is to develop-a plan which
               provides a balanced and equitable approach to the allocation of
               harbor resources, and to establish a management framework to
               implement the plan's goals and objectives through existing and
               proposed regulations, ordinances and authorities.  The
               completed plan will provide the basis for coordinated decisions
               affecting river use and for the, enforcement of it's provisions.

Descrintion:   The Port Authority proposes to establish a Harbor Management
               Plan for the Cocheco River. This project includes an inventory
               and analysis of the physical conditions of the tidal portions
               of the Cocheco River including channels, anchorages,: mooring
               areas, natural resources such as marshes, mudflats, shellfish
               beds, public access points, and adjacent planned and existing
               land uses.  The Port Authority will provide an opportunity for
               public participation in developing the plan through workshops,
               hearings, brochures, press releases, and meetings with
               interested groups and individuals. The City of Dover and the
               Strafford Regional Planning Commission will be heavily involved
               in the development of the plan.  After identifying key issues
               and opportunities relative to the use of the Cocheco River,
     II  ;     goals and objectives will be formulated, consistent with
               federal, state, and municipal regulations. Policies and
               recommendations will then be developed to guide the use of the
         I0    Cocheco River.

Work Tasks:    *    Project Start-up Scoping Session
               s*  Situation Analysis
                    Interviews and Data Collection
               *    Draft Harbor Management Plan
               *    Assemble/Assess Public Response
               :  i*   Final Harbor Management Plan

Estimated Costs:    See Attached Budget Page

Project Duration:   Eight months

Resnonsible Agency: New Hampshire State. Port Authority



                                      E-37








                                 TASK 89-5.2.5

                 OYSTER RIVER LANDING AND SEAWALL RESTORATION
                                 TOWN OF DURHAM                                         I

Backeround:       The Town of Durham's town landing on the tidal Oyster River
                  has experienced severe deterioration over the past year               I
                  resulting in Town Council action to limit access at the
                  site.  Concern for the safety of the general public at this
                  location was prompted when, in the Spring of 1988, portions           I
                  of the seawall along the landing's riverbank collapsed,
                  resulting in a dangerous situation for those attempting to
                  gain access to these tidal waters.  The town landing is    --
                  located within the Town of Durham's Historic District, where
                  during the 1700's and 1800's many ships were built and
                  launched.  Now a recreational area, this site was the
                  colonial town center of Durham.

Obiective:        The objective of this project is to repair the existing
                  deteriorated retaining wall along the tidal Oyster River in
                  Durham, thus restoring public access to the tidal river,
                  Little Bay, Great Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, and improving
                  shoreline stabilization along the riverfront.

Descrintion:      The project involves repairs to approximately 1,270 linear
                  feet of seawall along the Oyster River in Durham.  This
                  retaining wall contains roughly 1,000 feet of granite blocks          I
                  and 270 feet of railroad ties. The granite portion of the
                  wall is in need of rebuilding and realignment of individual
                  granite blocks.over the entire length, while the remaining
                  portion will be completely replaced due to the collapse in
                  Spring of 1988. This latter portion is the actual town
                  landing frontage.

                  The proposed project will involve the use of conventional
                  construction methods.  The granite wall will be repaired
                  with hand labor and the use of light construction equipment
                  to facilitate the arrangement of the larger granite blocks,
                  The new timber wall will be constructed just in front of the
                  existing structure.  Wooden piles will be driven every six
                  feet to a minimum depth of 18 to 20 feet.  Four-by-six
                  timbers will be loosely stacked on the inside of the
                  retaining wall, and the space between the existing wall and
                  the new wall will be backfilled with crushed stone to
                  provide for proper drainage.

                 As part of the overall project, the town will dedicate
                  handicapped parking spaces at the existing town landing
                  parking lot and will install paved walkways, making the
                  existing docking facility accessible by the handicapped.
                  Permits required prior to start of construction include Army
                  Corps of Engineers, NH Wetlands Board, and local Historic
                  District approval.



                                         E-38










                                TASK 89-5.2.7

                        RYE HARBOR MOORING REALIGNMENT
                      NEW  HAMPSHIRE STATE PORT AUTHORITY


Background:    The New Hampshire State Port Authority is mandated to
               encourage the establishment of accommodations for recreational
               boaters.  Since most of the moorings set in  the anchorages in
               Rye Harbor were positioned by private contractors with little
               direction, space has not been effectively utilized.  The
               mooring gear has varied substantially in size and scope, and
               combined with current speed and irregular placement, this
               creates a navigational hazard.

Objective:     The objective of this project is to allow for the proper
               distribution of mooring spaces to improve navigational safety
               and identify new spaces for allocation, which will increase the
               number of available mooring spaces in Rye Harbor.

Descrintion:   The Port Authority will develop a management plan by plotting
               'the existing mooring sites, identifying owners of record and
               identifying unused and new mooring sites.   A bottom profile
               will be developed and used to provide reference data for the
               assignment of new mooring sites..  The location of new moorings
               will be plotted on a grid map  as they are placed in the water.
               Old, unauthorized  mooring equipment (engine blocks, boilers
               etc.) will be removed and replaced with safer, modern
               equipment.


work Tasks:    *    Develop site plan of existing moorings

               *    Develop bottom profile and plot new mooring sites

               *    Realignment of existing moorings and placement of new
                    moorings

Estimated Costs:    See Attached Budget Page

Proiect Duration:   Twe1ve months

Resdonsible Agencv: New Hampshire State Port Authority













                                      E-39





                                                                                  I




                                TASK 89-5.2.8

              4-H SOFT-SHELL CLAM AQUACULTURE EDUCATION PROJECT
                      UNH COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

Background:          Early in 1988 the University of New Hampshire Cooperative
                    Extension Service (CES) acquired a Marine Education
                    Aquaculture Facility.  This facility, located at-the 
                    Seabrook barge landing, is owned by the Department of
                    Resources and Economic Development and is operated by CES
                    through a Memorandum of Agreement.  The purpose of this
                    facility is to provide coastal'communities 'and youth with
                    a 4-H Marine Program.   The facility provides a learning
                    environment for 4-H youth 8-19 years of age; elementary
                    school enrichment programs and high school marine science.
                    Marine education activities include hands-on exploration,
                    group activities, guest speakers and field trips.

Obiective:           The objective of this project is to provide an
                    opportunity for youth to participate in an educational
                    research project on soft-shell clam aquaculture.

DescriPtion:         This project will involve raising 100,000 soft-shell clams
                    in the upwelling system at the 4-H Aquaculture Facility.
                    Intensive management and study will be conducted at the
                    Facility by 4-H youth and volunteers, under the guidance
                    of CES staff.  Students will participate in the
                    measurement of clam growth, maintenance of the upwelling 
                    system, salinity monitoring and other scientific studies.
                    The 100,000 clams will be seeded in the Hampton-Seabrook
                    estuary in order to enhance the restoration of clam
                    populations in that area.

Work Tasks:          *    Weekly measurements of clam growth

                    *    Weekly maintenance of the upwelling system           -

                    *    Seeding of soft-shell clams

                    ï¿½*   Salinity monitoring of Hampton-Seabrook estuary

                    *    Bimonthly checks of sediment and habitat conditions

                    B*   Microscopic analyses of clams and other organisms
                         found in the upwelling system, and comparison between
                         these and estuarine organisms.

                    *    Baseline studies of natural soft-shell clam
                         populations and comparison between Seabrook and
                         Hampton populations (involves clam densities and
                         size).

                         Develop a series of charts, graphs and posters based
                         on the information gathered throughout the project.
                                    E-40






                                 TASK 89-5.2.9

                             EXETER WATERFRONT PARK
                                 TOWN OF EXETER

Background:        The Exeter Waterfront Park Project is located along the
                  Squamscott River immediately behind the downtown business
                  district. This project has been in the planning stages for
                  over twenty years, and was included in the 1979 Waterfront
              -I  Development Plan which was completed with Coastal Program
                  funds.- Engineering plans and specifications are currently
                  being prepared, through a 1987 Coastal Program grant, and
                  will: be completed by June of 1989.  All activities t6 be
                  funded are located within the NH Wetlands Board's
                  jurisdiction and are, therefore, within the second tier of 
                  the expanded coastal zone.  All required permits have been
                  obtained for the fill, however, amendments are needed prior
                  to installation of the floating dock structure.

Obiective:         The overall objective of this project is to increase public
                  access to the Squamscott River for recreational purposes
                  through completion of the Waterfront Park Project, with an
                  ancillary goal of improving public safety by providing for
                  fire suppression access behind the downtown buildings.

Description:       The proposed project, as part of the overall Exeter
                  Waterfront Park Project, consists of the installation of 370
                  feet of wood boardwalk and 160 feet of brick sidewalk, in
                  the creation of a waterfront walkway.  The project also
                  includes the installation of a 60-foot floating boat dock
                  which will be connected to the new walkway.  The overall
                  Waterfront Park Project includes the filling of a portion df
                  the river along the west bank (not included as part of this
                  request) to create land on which to provide: vehicular access
                  for fire-fighting equipment to the rear of downtown
                  buildings currently inaccessible by fire suppression
                  equipment. The walkway will be constructed on the river
                  side of this vehicular accessway atop the new fill. The new
                  waterfront walkway and the attached floating boat dock will
                  increase public access for recreational boating and fishing,
                  and will connect the existing Swasey Park with the new
                  Waterfront Park, as well.

Work Tasks:        *   Construction of Wood Boardwalk
                  ï¿½*   Construction of Brick Walkway
                  ï¿½ *   Installation of Floating Boat Dock

Estimated Costs:  Boardwalk          $52,000
                  Brick Walkway      11,000
                  Boat Dock          35.000

                                    $98,000  Total Budget
                                    -49,500  Less Match
                                    $48,500  Federal Request

Project Duration:   Twelve Months

Resnonsible Aeencv: Town of Exeter
                                       E-41












                             WORK TASK 88-5.2.9

                      TIDAL RIVERS LAND PROTECTION STUDY
                    STRAFFORD COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT


Background:          The Strafford County Conservation District recently
                    assisted in the formation of the Stafford Rivers
                    Conservancy, a private, non-profit land protection agency.
                    The goal of the conservancy is the protection and
                    conservation of natural resources within New Hampshire's
                    Strafford region in order to maintain a balance between
                    the natural environment and it's public and private uses.
                    The study area for this project includes lands along the
                    Salmon Falls, Lamprey and Oyster Rivers.

Objective:           The objective of this project is to plan for the
                    protection of conservation lands along the estuarine
                    rivers in the Strafford region (not-covered by the ongoing
                    Dover Land Acquisition Study).

Description:         This project will identify and list in order of priority,
                    significant parcels to be acquired and/or protected for
                    preservation, open space or recreation.  Prioritized
                    parcels will be targeted for acquisition through purchase,
                    donation, or acquisition of easements. Parcel
                    identification will be based on NH Coastal Program
                    criteria which include fish &,wildlife habitat, rare &
                    endangered species, rural quality of Great Bay, historical
                    significance, and public access/recreation. A land
                    suitability study will also be conducted to determine the
                    best use of each identified parcel. The results of the
                    study will be used to establish a long-range plan for the
                    acquisition and protection of key parcels.  A final report
                    (with map) incorporating the prioritized inventory, land
                    suitability study will be prepared, and a public
                    presentation will be conducted by the Strafford Rivers
                    Conservancy.

Work Products:       *    Prioritized inventory of lands to be acquired.

                    ï¿½ Land suitability study indicating best use of each
                         tract to be acquired.

                    ï¿½ Long-range plan for acquisition and protection of
                         identified parcels.

                    ï¿½ Final report and public presentation.





                                    E-42









MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED EDUCATION PROJECT


by Judy Silverberg, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department



    New Hampshire and Massachusetts are embarking on an interstate education
project for the Merrimack River watershed.  Because the river provides water
for recreation, municipal water supplies, fisheries and wildlife habitat and
industrial use, it is important to understand the impact of changing water
quality in the river over time. To meet this challenge, high school students
will investigate the water quality of the various segments of the river system
and the land use activities that influence that quality.


    The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department and the Massachusetts Division
of Fisheries and Wildlife will provide coordination for the project. The New
Hampshire project has received assistance from DES-WSPCD and UNH-Cooperative
Extension. The Massachusetts project is in its planning phase.


    Teachers from 11 schools in New Hampshire participated in developing the
activity model to be used in the classroom.  The model is designed to
encourage the integration of ecological, economic, social and political
aspects in the resolution of water quality issue. Biology and social studies
teachers joined together in creating a unit that links students' education
with real world issues. This model is based on a program implemented in
Michigan by William Stapp PhD.  Environmental problem solving and involving
students in actual research are the major thrusts of the project.


    Several teachers are working with the Manchester Historical Society to
develop materials on how the river was used in the past.  This will allow
students to learn why the river looks the way it does.  The materials will
define the watershed and how it was formed, as well as focus on man's use from
pre-historic time through the industrial revolution.  A special segment will
look at on today's use and the future of the river.  This will provide an
opportunity for students to expand and use critical thinking skills.





                                       E-43








    Oyer the years, many science classes have conducted water sampling an dI
testing on local streams and ponds. This has been useful but has missed its
full potential because the study was limited to a small segment of the 
watershed. Students did not develop a sense of the meaning of their results,

a sense of how upstream activity influenced downstream quality.  The MerrimackI
River watershed education project overcomes this by linking all the schools
together.  Efforts are being made to develop a computer network so data can be
shared quickly and analyzed by the schools involved in the project will be
brought together for a Watershed Congress to share and di-scuss their findings

and explore actions they might take to improve of water quality throughout the
drainage.


    Plans for Fall 1989 are underway. New Hampshire will monitor the river in
October. The northern test point will be in Lincolnon the East Branch of the
Pemigewassett. The southern-most site is just north of Nashua. The project
for this year is focusing on the main stem of the river. Testing sites were
selected because of their proximity to the school and are at or near a site
tested by DES-WSPCD. Data from each site will be shared among the schools, so

each will develop a picture of the water quality on the whole river in New
Hampshire for this one day. The student congress will be on October 21.


    Plans~ for the project include expanding the number of schools involved and
have monitoring sites on all the major tributaries.  The long ralnge goal is to
make people in both states aware of the Merrimack watershed and how they
affect it; a citizenry committed to restoring and maintaining the watershed in
an ecologically healthy manner for all.










52630





                                      E-44







                                                                                /34
                                          1989 NH WO POW- AGRICULTv;                  L
                                          PROJECT # 2                 :; ".-  


          MANURE AND FERTILIZER NITROGEN USE MANAGEMENT TO MINIMIZE    X
             IMPACTS ON GROUNDWATER IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AND VERMONT


Situation:

      Dairy and livestock farmers in New Hampshire and Vermont grow 120,000 acres
of silage corn, all of this acreage receives substantial amounts of nitrogen from
fertilizer and/or manure. There has been an Increasing concern that improper
use of these nutrient sources on cropland may be contributing to elevated nitrate
levels In drinking water. A survey of farm wells in the vicinity of corn fields,
conducted by the Vermont Department of Agriculture, shows 35% with elevated
nitrate levels, 4 ppm or greater, and 8% with 10 ppm or greater.

      An Extension information program is needed to provide specific guidelines
of dairy farm practices that will minimize the potential for nitrate pollution
and maximize the return from economic levels of input.

Oblectives:

      1.   Increased awareness of need to protect water quality (400 farms).

      2.   Improved application and management practices relating to manure and
           fertilizer nitrogen use on 75 farms in New Hampshire. This goal would
           be achieved bythe incorporation of a nitrogen and manure management
           technical guideline publication into all ongoing Extension crop/soil
           educational programs.

      3.   Use of nitrate nitrogen soil testing by farmers (25 farms).

      4.   Increase the awareness of citizens about the role of nitrogen and
           manure In our production of corn and forages and about the potential
           for groundwater pollution when best management practices are not
           routinely observed.



      1.   Write and .         -- -formNew Hampshire and
           Vermont Dairy Crop, Livestock Farmers, and other growers. This guide
           would Include the following:

           1) Determining  realistic  yield  goals,  2) contribution  of  soil
           nitrogen,  3) nitrogen  credits  from  legumes  and  residual  manure
           applications, 4) value of the Vermont Soil Nitrate Test, 5) field
           management practices, 6) estimating the nitrate leaching potential of
           our soils as described by SCS cooperators.

      2.   D:ve1'e.. S'incd 'tr~tr ~eR~21trogen1nanagement fact sheet, a condensed
           version of the Nitrogen Management Guide for use with the general
           public.
                                         E-45






     3.  Assist Extension Educators and cooperating agencies in delivery of
          Extension programns designed to reduce fertilizer inputs and production
          costs while maintaining the quality of our water resources.
Evaluation:                                                                               i
     Measure impact of this program by surveying on-going change in nitrogen
use practices, use of Vermont Soil Nitrate Test and maintenance of reasonable             I
crop yields.
                                                                                 m
                                                                                  m
                                                                                  l
                                                                                  I

                                                                                  !
                                                                                  m
                                                                                  I
                                                                                  m

                                                                                  m
                                                                                  m
                                                                                  m



                                       E-463








                                          1989 NH WO POW - AGRICULTURE
                                          PROJECT # 3


             INTERACTIONS OF PESTICIDES, SOILS, AND WATER QUALITY


Situation:

      There is increasing concern about groundwater contamination by pesticides.
Numerous studies at both the state and federal levels have attempted to clarify
the scope of the problem and identify necessary preventive measures.  Recently
EPA has identified 77 pesticides that have been found in groundwater in-39 states
 i- ncluding the New England region.  As testing programs expand, these numbers
are likely to increase.  The potential for groundwater contamination, and the
various costs that would result if contamination occurs, are factors to be
considered when farmers and others select pest control strategies.

      To control pests with minimal water quality impact requires access to a
large amount of information from three domains:  (1) soil properties and site
conditions, (2) pesticide properties, and (3) management practices, Pesticide
applicators generally lack access to much of the information needed, and lack
ways of integrating information from these three domains to make appropriate
decisions.

      Growers' guides have typically identified restricted substances and have
sometimes identified water quality issues generically but have not ranked or
identifiedleading potential leachers, much less attempted to identify potential
probl.em substances for specific soil or site conditions. A system for pesticide
selection, which uses soil and pesticide databases, has been under development
by specialists from Massachusetts and Connecticut.  It provides the basis for
site-specific guidance to farmers regarding pesticide selection.

Objectives:

      1.  Increased awareness of potential pesticide impact on water quality
           (500 users and 20 Extension staff).

      2.  Farmers  and  growers  select  pest  control  practices  to minimize
           potential for water quality degradation (100 farmers and growers).

      3.   Increased knowledge of agricultural water quality issues by town
           planning boards (4).



      The  following  activities  will  be  carried  through  a  multi-state
collaboration.  The effort will be based on the University of Massachusetts at
Amherst with affiliated staff in each participating state.

      1. D  !4         sz " s ' ~{e'~ '~: 'Or-'F~rthern ::ew;EnTand'as part of
           o         .-deve:lopment of databases.


                                          E-47






                               J,.



      2.   Prepare/a guide to site-specific selection of pest-control products
          and practices for water quality protection, focusing on the three or
          four   imary commodities of New England               .

      3.   /ra                                                          d =   _  isatabase.3

      4.   Staff will deliver information to pesticide applicators via workshops,
          mailings, and newsletters. 

      5.   Provide ongoing telephone support to staff using guide and databases.

      6.   Work with authors of 1990 Growers' Guides to 4lnspa-- sew''lance
           reiga4hdgpesticï¿½de BchabtI1ty, -and promote useO-of. the database.

Evaluation:

      Participant reaction to the activities listed in action items (3), (4),
and (5) in plan of action. Follow-up questionnaires or interviews to assess the
impact on the pesticide practices will be used to evaluate the results of the
project.  Extension staff response to this project will be used in developing
refinements in subsequent years.

































                                         E-48



I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U                                                          APPENDIX  F
I                                                    SUMMARY  OF AGENCIES'
                                        WATER QUALITY ACTIVITIES

I

I
I
I
I
I
I.
I.




                       3  I         State of. New Hampshire

                      Department of Resources and Economic Development

                              DIVISION OF FORESTS AND LANDS

                         105 Loudon Road, Prescott Park, PRO. Box 856, Concord, N.H. 03301
                              John E. Sargent, Director  Tel. (603) 271-2214

         1.  ;000;                         _November 3, 1989          - 

                                                             :'f    :,"

   Richard Flanders                                           '-
   Supervisor - Water Quality' Section
   Dept. of Environmental Services 
   Health and Human Services Building
   6 Hazen Drive
   Concord, New Hampshire  03301

   Dear Dick:

   As promised, I am submitting a summary of those water quality activities
   the Division of Forests and Lands has been involved with.


                    New Hampshire Forestry and Water Quality


   Eighty-seven percent of the State's land area is forested, making New
   Hampshire the second most heavily forested State in the country.  Each
   county in the State is at least 70% forested. Therefore, activities in
   New Hampshire forests have widespread impact in all areas of our lives.
   Conversely, it is difficult to undertake land-based activities that do not
   in turn effect the forest.

   Forest based industries in recreation, timber, second homes, and related
   activities comprise a large segment of the State's economy, and the quantity
   and quality of water available for consumption and other uses is substantially
   related to forests and forestry operations. The challenge of the future
   is to meet increasing demands on the forest while maintaining and improving
   water supply and quality.

   The New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands in cooperation with other
   agencies and organizations has been actively promoting the need to protect
   water quality while timber harvesting since the early 1970's.  Some examples
   of these activities.are:

   1973         Sarge Goodhue, a forester with the Division of Forests and
                Lands, designed a pamphlet, Twelve Ways: to Reduce Soil Erosion
                and Stream Pollution On Logging Jobs.  This publication got
                wide distribution and was well received by the foresters and
                loggers.  (See Attached A)





 Forest Protection  (603) 271-2217                 Land Management    (603) 271-3456
  Forest Management   (603) 271-3456              Information & Planning (603) 271-3457








                                  - 2


1977         A technical advisory sub-committee was formed to aid the
             staff of the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control
             Commission to evaluate the impacts of forestry and timber
             harvesting activities on the water quality of our surface and
             groundwaters.   They compiled a series of technical land
            management practices that were directed toward practical
            methods for control of erosion and sedimentation on timber
            harvesting operations.  Today these practices fall under the
            -title of Best Management Practices (BMP's).

1979         The Technical Advisory Sub-Committee produced a booklet Timber
            Harvesting Practices for Erosion Control.  Approximately
             5,000 were printed and distributed.   (See Attached B).

1982         The New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands conducted a
             survey of 67 timber harvesting operations and quantified
            their impact on water quality.  (See Attached C)

            The purpose of the survey was:

             1.  To better assess the current water quality situation in
                the State in association with silvicultural operations.

            2. To design future education and training programs to
                address the areas of greatest weakness.

            3. To provide the ability to evaluate the success of our
                training programs as evidenced:by increased adoption of
                the Best Management Practices and improved water quality.

            The results of the survey showed:

            1.  Only 7 (10%) of the 67 harvesting operations had erosion
                rates greater than the Soil Conservation Service tolerable
                limits of 3 tons/acre/year.

            2.  Of the harvesting operations sampled, 27 involved streams
                and ponds where sedimentation was a concern.  Evidence of
                sedimentation occurred on 13 (48%) of these operations.

            3.  Foresters were involved:with 31 (46%) of the sampled
                harvesting operations.

            4.  The time of the year in which the lot was harvested was
                not a key factor 

            5.  On the whole timber harvesting operations in New Hampshire
                were having a minimum of impact on water quality.







                                    F-2








                                  -3  -


1983         The New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands and the
             University of New Hampshire - Cooperative Extension in
             Cooperation with the Granite State Division of the Society of
             American Foresters conducted (2) Water Quality Workshops.
             (See Attached D)

             The first workshop was held at Fox Forest in Hillsborl, New
             Hampshire and addressed-the topics of Acid Rain in New England
             and Streamside Timber Harvestingo  Approximately 110 foresters
             participated.

             The second workshop was held in Plymouth,- New Hampshire and
             addressed the topic of Streamside Timber Harvesting.
             Approximately 70 foresters participated..

1985 - 89    The University of New Hampshire - Thompson School has been
             using the slide/tape program Forest Management for Water
             Quality as part of their fall road building curriculum.  (See.
             Attached E)

             This program provides a basis for understanding how different
             forest practices can affect water quality, and what kinds of
             management decisions are needed to protect our forest water
             resources.

1985 - 89    Portions of the slide/tape program Forest Management for
             Water Quality have been shown to 22 elementary school classes,
             26 high school classes, 18 civic organizations and 8 natural
             resource organizations by Forest Information and Planning
             Staff of the Division of Forests and Lands.

1989         The New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands in cooperation
             with the University of New Hampshire - Cooperative Extension,
             Wetlands Board, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division,
             Soil Conservation Service and forest industry conducted (3)
             forestry forums dealing with Timber Harvesting and Water
             Quality were held in Lancaster, Hillsboro and Dover.  These
             forums discussed the permitting process for those harvesting
             operations in and around streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands.
             Approximately 170 in total attended these forums.

1989         The New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands began major
             revision of the 1979 publication Timber Harvesting Practices
             -for Controlling Erosion. The new publication Best Management
             Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations
             in New Hampshire will be completed in early 1990.  It will be
             printed in two formats, the first to be a reference manual
             with definitions, purposes, conditions where practice applies,
             guidelines, diagrams, charts, and tables; the second will be
             a-field guide with guidelines, diagrams, charts and tables
             for ready use on the job.  (See Attached F)



                                     F-3








                                   -4                                                1


1989         On August 1, 1989 the wetlands permitting process was modified
             to accommodate timber harvesting.  With the cooperation of
             the Division of Forests and Lands, Wetlands Board., Dept. of
             Revenue Administration and the New Hampshire Timberland Owners
             Association, a Notification of Forest Management Activities'
             Having MinimumWetlands Impact was developed.  Up until this
             time timber harvesting operations, which have very little
             impact on wetlands and development projects, which have major
             impacts on wetlands, were being considered equal and required
             a very lengthy review process.  This notification shortens
             this review-process as long as the Best Mangement Practices
             are followed.  (See Attached G) 
                                             ,.  . :  ,.  .'
1989         A New Hampshire Loggers' Workshop Series was sponsored by the
             New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, Northeastern
             Loggers Association, Division of Forests and Lands, University
             of New'Hampshire - Cooperative Extension and forest industry.
             The (6) workshops provided loggers with basic information on
             objectives of silvicultural prescriptions, opportunity to
             enhance their public image, and a greater sense of professionalism.
             A portion of these workshops dealt with water quality
             regulations and the need to follow the Best Mangement Practices.
             (See Attached H) 

1989         The New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands.in cooperation
             with the University of New Hampshire - Cooperative Extension,
             Wetlands Board, Soil Conservation.Service, Granite State
             Division of the Society of American Foresters and forest
             industry conducted (2) workshops titled Best Management
             Practices for Erosion Control.  These workshops were designed
             to help foresters become better informed about the best
             managment practices for reducing soil erosion and controlling
             sedimentation. Approximately 70 foresters attended. (See
             Attached I)

1990         Several workshops are in the planning stages.  Road layout,
             construction and retirement as they relate to water quality
             will be the emphasis.


These are just some of the water quality efforts that I have been directly
involved with.  I am sure that other agencies and organizations are also
active in this area.

                                          Regards,




                                          J.B. Cullen, Administrator
                                          Forest Information & Planning
JBC/sab




                                     F-4






        United-States       Soil
        Departaent of       Conservation    Federal Building
       Agriculture           service        Durham, New Hampshire   03824


                                                     October 30)D 1989


        Mr. Peter Davis, Executive Director
        New Hampshire Association of Conservation
          Districts
        Caller Box 2042
        Concords New Hampshire   03301


        Dear Pete:


        This is in response.to your request for information on the ASCS ACP Cost-
         Share program in New Hampshire.  Attached are five pieces of infonrmation:

              (1)  ASCS .'Distribution of cost-shares in percent of cost-shares for
                   all primary purposes - by practice0

              (2) ASCS - Distribution of cost-shares by county (in percent of cost-
                   shares for all primary purposes.)

              (3)  1989 FY Agricultural Conservation Program - ANA and LTA - Distribu-
                   tion of cost-shares by selected practices.

              (4)  1988 FY Agricultural Conservation Program - ANA and LTA   Distribu-
                   tion of cost-shares by selected practices..

              (5)  Glossary - National Practices and Guidelines.

         Please forward:these to Ann Poole for inclusion in the 319 Nonpoint Source
         Pollution Management Plan.



*I       -Sincerely,



                      ck
          a r Quality Coordinator

         Attachment

         cc:  D. Mufssulman, State Conservationist, SCS, Durham, New Hampshire
            -  A.-Poole --Department -of.  lr etl Emrn tlervlcaliate? Supply VF.blluition
            -'onat ro l-.6 --.Bagze trts't.;r ';B ,:;J::95. .~ ~~bels-;amp'l:."7eaF301







                / -~~~~~~~F-5






                             1-ACP                   EXHIBIT 3
                                           (PAR. 16, 35-38, 43,
                                          45, 48, 56, 58, 68-71)


            NATIONAL PRACTICES AND GUIDELINES

                                                         Page No. 

PREVENTION OF SOIL LOSS FROM WATER AND WIND
EROSION

SL1  Permanent Vegetative Cover Establishment                   18

SL2  Permanent Vegetative Cover Improvement                     20

SL3   Stripcropping Systems                                     23

SL4   Terrace Systems                                           25

SL5  Diversions                                                 27

SL6  Grazing Land Protection                                    29

SL7  Windbreak Restoration or Establishment                     31

SL8  Cropland Protective Cover                                  32

SL9   Conservation Tillage Systems                              33

SL11 Permanent Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas               35.

SL12  Vegetative Row Barriers                                   37

SL13 Contour Farming                                            38


SOLUTIONS TO WATER CONSERVATION PROBLEMS

WC1  Water Impoundment Reservoirs                               40

WC2  Spreader Ditches or Dikes                                  42

WC3  Rangeland Moisture Conservation                            43

WC4  Irrigation Water Conservation                              44







8-29-80                     Amend. 1                     Page 1


                                F-6





        ' .


         -r)-  - . 1-ACP                                             EXHIBIT 3
                                \,.~.-:' :     :(PAR. 16, 35-38, 43,
                                                       45-48, 56, 58, 68-71)

                                                                     Pa e No.

             SOLUTIONS TO WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS

             WPI  Sediment Retention, Erosion, or Water Control
                -    Structures                                               46

             WP2  Stream Protection                                           48

             WP3  Sod Waterways                                               49

             -   WP4  Animal Waste Control Facilities                         50


             CONSERVATION OF SOIL AND WATER THROUGH FORESTRY

             FRI   Forest Tree Plantations                                    52

             FR2  Forest Tree Stand Improvement                               54


             CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT

             WL1  Permanent Wildlife Habitat                                  56

             WL2  Shallow Water Areas for Wildlife                            57


             SOLUTIONS FOR LOCAL SOIL OR- WATER CONSERVATION
             PROBLEMS

             SP    Special Conservation Practices                             58


I.












             8-29-80                     Amend. 1                      Page 2

                                             F-7







             NEW KMPSHIRE                           ~~~~~~~~~U.S. Dertaent of Agriculture                                Prepared- 10/17/9
           ~~EW IW~~~SHIT~~               Ag~ricultural  tAlbilization and Conservation Service
Report ID. EfHFHi-Ml 1                                 -  ACP, CRP, ECP, FIP, RCWP, OTHER                                    Page:      1
                                               TABLE i .-DISTRIBUTION OF COET-S~WREZ
                                         IN PCERNT OF COST-SHARS FOR ALL PRIWdY M1OSES 
                                           Performance Date   10-01-68  Thru  09-30-89
                    NUHE        MBER NUMlDE                                                              PERCEN  OF COST-SHAIRE  FOR.
      ~PRACTICE.      OF          OF          SERVEDOR             OF              TOTAL           -El=UM   WATER  WATER    WUUD
      FRI                                           57.                              $12,793          IWO.
      FR2                                          306.1          Si17,039                                                     iee.e 
      FR3                                            7.0                                $314                                   10e.e
      SLI                                          551.3                              80 027          67.5              32.4
                 SLI I ~ ~ ~     ~     ~    ~    219,                                $50#n.           97.6       2.
      S11                                            14.0                             $1,769  IOU.
      S1.4                                          33.0                                $5710.                                                IW
      S51.51.                                                                           $59      M    00M
      51.2                                         81.8                            Si i .'361          9.1              91.9
      SU.                                           30.3                                $303   IOU.
      51.5                                          44.6                             $11, 796         912                6.7I
      51.6                                            I.e              I                $528                           100.0
      51.8                                       4,053.5                             $76,992.         47,8              52.1I
      spie                                          10.0                              $I1,75         100.0
      SP43                                         425. 0                             $8,1I71          3.1                      96.8 
      SP44                                      12,453.9                             $36,21 6         IWO.
      SP46                                                             I              $3.500                           10.0
                 WU       ~         ~        ~       ~~~~~194.5                         $873                                          100.0U
                 wpi                              ~~~~~~~~1061,0     1 6            $12,789          60.5              39.4
                 WP3                 ~~~~~~~90.0                                    $22,255          97.8               21.
                      WP4                                            ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~6 $19,00         O         N         100.0
TOTAL ACP-AMA                                    21,396.4             24            $471,638          41.6              42.4    157        .
      FR2                                           73.0                              $3.711I                                  1060
      SLI                                           51..4                             $7,002         100.0
      SLII                                           1.0           Si,928                            100.0
      51.2                                          4901                              $61,957       I       W      O       0  
      SL6                                            i.0               1$660                                           100.0
      SP44                                         314.0                                $785                                   100.0
                 WLI           ~~                    ~~~~~44.0                         $460            IWO0 
      WP4                                                             1 9          $11i6,488            .299.7
TOTAL ACP-LTA                                        s,520                           136991            6.0               90.2     3.2      .3
      FP2                                          542.5                             $3i1,508         IWO.
      FP3                                          S2~                                 4.62n                                   i 10.0I
TOTAL FIP-ANA                                       669.0                            $36,1I36         IWO,
                 FP2                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~17.0                    $815                                   100.0
'TOTAL FIP-LTA                             -       .17.0                                 $85          IWO,





I

L     awsHIRE                     U. S                     . De~artmet of Agriculture                                        Prepared: 10/i7/89
                                           Agricultulral stablization and Conservation Service
 Report ID:- C8iSm                                                      - ACP                                                    Page    
                                            TAOLE IA - DISTRIBUTION OF COST 2UA0  BY CO1XT
                                           IN PSENfT OF COST-SMWS FOR AL. PRIF0MY PR*OSEM
                                            Perfarance Date   10-01-88  Thre  09-30-89
                      HLIM   VimlDE    ADOE            MLNUPW                                  PERCNDT OF  W-           FOR:
                     LOF      OF        SSMEOR   OF                 TOTAL          wn;~m    wAiLK             WARX       WUUD
                     FARMS    PARTS    TREATED       SRUCTrI-  COST-SMIW t   NTROL   CONSRVATION QUALITY   PROTIMON   OTHER

                                            2981.0            0       M17,7T       62.6                     28.8           8.4
                                          LE2,4212            2       35,570       36.4                      29.5          34.0
CU0NIRE                                    6,294.4              5      $66,975       37.5                     38.8          23.5
                                            829.2             2      $89,147       24.6                     68.0           6.7           .5
      ON                                    3,542.5            20    $152,237        30.0                     60.7            9.1
                                          3,289,4              2     $M,419        25.2                      54.2          20.5
MRIKO2                                     1,972.8              3      $59,856       17.2                     76.5           6,1
ROCXINWWI                                  10334,4              3      548,689       44.3                     43 7          1.6           .e2
                                            798.5             1       21,383       43.0          2.2                      3.3          3.4
                                          1,176.5             6      565,578       52.2                     43.9           3.8
      TOTAL                               21,929.9             44    $608,629        33.6           53.2                     1,9           .2
















                  ;I
I






                  1=~~~~~~~~~~~~-







         1989 FY AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM - ANA & LTA
          DISTRIBUTION OF COST-SHARES BY SELECTED PRACTICES





                                             PERCENT           AVERAGE
                 TOTAL         TOTAL BY          BY          COST-SHARES
PRACTICE     COST-SHARES       CATEGORY      CATEGORY          PER FARM


  SLI u'i..3.   70,289 '-.                                    $ 1,326
  SL2 V,.      lQ. 105,422      246,223         50%             1,484
  SL8 cS ,c,   70,512                                             538


  WP4  ..'n..w. 122,561        122,561          25%             8,170


  FRI1  Pe_-"  12,793                                           1,279
  FR2   ..,,.  18,533                                             463
  FR3    P.pA,      250 -67,782                 14S                250
  SP43 mrb4-,    2,380-                                           793
  SP44  94.-    33,826                                            690


  SLll  dae,.-  29,949         37,557           7%               880
  WP1  PIbca9, . .7,6 08                                        1,268


 'SL3  .i~,r,    303                                              101
  SLS  d-os?-.   5,777                                          1,925
  SL14 R"L..t7.    570                                            285
  SL1S N,-t '      658          21,.63           4%               658
  WL1   4A2"^k 1,258                                             179
  WP3  "4 %ai    12,597                                         1,799


TOTALS                         495,286         100%
















                                    F- 10








     1988 FY AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM - ANA & LTA
       DISTRIBUTION OF COST-SHARES BY SELECTED PRACTICES





                                                       PERCENT
               TOTAL                  TOTAL BY            BY
PRACTICE    COST-SHARES                 CATEGORY        CATEGORY

  SL1          103,490-
  SL2           76,405              271,629                49%
  SL8           91,734 - -


  FRI         - 6,751
 IFR2          22,591                61 ,221              11%.
  FR-3 -         4,718
  SP44          27,161


  SLll                                  47,666              9t

  WP4                                   108,338            20%



  SL3            2,779
  SL4            5,164
  SL5           13,077
  SL13           1,199 .
  S-L15          2,115             \
  SP10           3,250  -              59,247              11%
  WCl            1,733 
  -WL1           2,857 
  WPI            9 5961
  WP3           17,477       -

TOTALS                                  548,101           100%

















                                  F-ll





Posted: Fri, Oct 20, 1989   5:02 PM EDT                  MsS: MGIJ-z882-7609
From:  1DMORSE
To:     SCS.INF
Subj:   INF--Release on Hydrologic Units

Following is a USDA news release issued Friday, October 20, at 3 p.m.


37 AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS SELECTED FOR WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

       WASHINGTON, Oct. 20--Thirty-seven agricultural watershed areas have
been selected for technical assistance to-improve water quality, Wilson
Scaling, chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation
Service, announced today.
        "These hydrologic unit areas were selected as part of the
 president's 1990 Water Quality Initiative because of their identified and
prioritized water quality problemsi" Scaling said. 
        The areas were selected by an interagency committee based on
factors such as agriculturally related problems, surface and ground water
 effects, feasibility of treatment, and identification within state water
quality assessment and management plans under Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act.
       These projects will be implemented through the cooperative efforts
,of SCS, USDA's Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, in coordination with the
Environmental Protection Agency and state and local agencies.
       The water quality projects selected are:

              State                            Name of Project

         Alabama                          Sand Mountain/LaKe Guntersv lie
         Arizona                          Casa Grande/Coolidge
         Arkansas                         Moore's Creek
         California                       Westside San Joaquin Valley
         Connecticut                      Housatonic River
         Delaware                         Inland Bays
         Florida                          Middle Suwanriee River
         Illinois                         Illinois River Sands
         Iowa                             Union Grove & Black Hawk
         Indiana                          Upper Tippacanoe
         Louisiana -                      Bayou Queue De Tortue
         Maine                            Long/Cross Lakes
         Massachusetts                    Buzzards Bay
         Michigan                         Sycamore Creek
         Minnesota                        St. Peter/Prairie Du Chien
        Mississippi                      Tangipahoa River
        Montana                          Godfrey Creek
        Nebraska                         Elm Creek
        New Hampshire                    Great Ba
        New Me.T co                      Dona Ana/Sierra
        New York                         East Sidney Lake 
        North Carolina                   Goshen Swamp
        North Dakota                     Bowman/Haley
         Ohio                             Indian Lake
        Oklahoma                         Battle Branch
        Oregon                           Olntario
        Puerto Rico                      Lake Loiza
        Rhode Island                     Pawcatuck
        South-Carolina                   Camping Creek
        South Dakota                     Richmond Lake
        Tennessee                     F1.Fork Creek    Fall I Creek
        T







                       UNH COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
                     WATER QUALITY PROGRESS REPORT
                 OCTOBER 1, 1988 - SEPTEMBER 30, 1989


ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

                                       Direct        .Exhibits       Staff
                                       Contact        & Media        Training

HOUSEHOLD:

   Individuals and household'           675'             10,000         20
   receiving information                households

   Hazardous waste collected            762
                                       households
                                       5,760 gallons

   Private wells tested                 209
                 :*~~~ ~~households

   Publications developed & produced   20 publications

AGRICULTURE:

   Tested for soil nitrate              25 growers

   Calibrated spreaders                 37 growers

   Calibrated sprayers                  3 growers

   Changed fertilizer practice           122 growers

   Informed about pesticides &          322 growers      1,950
   water quality                         283 other
                                       people

  Adopted IPM                           6 growers

  Reduced pesticide use                 12 growers

   Informed about other agriculture    112 people
   and water quality issues

   Fertilizer recommendations used      600+ acres

FORESTRY:

   Informed about erosion control       150 people
   and laws

  Woodlot roads planned                34 landowners
                                       (2,000+ acres)

   Informed about forestry water        100 people
   quality issues
                                   F-13
  Gravel mine restoration plans        2 properties
  implemented                           15 acres







.Page 2                                  Direct           Exhibits       Staff
                                        Contact         & Media      Training

COMMUNITY RESOURCES:

   Informed about water resource         52 citizens
   issues             '                  35 local officials
                                        45 other people

   Trained in water quality testing    6 volunteers                     20
   and monitoring                                                       staff

YOUTH EDUCATION:

   Learned about various water           1,206 campers                  23
   resource topics                       1,990 students                 staff
                                        168 teachers
                                        26 volunteers

MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION:

   Read news releases                                     ?

   Heard radio spots 

   Viewed exhibit                                                        1,000

   Received newsletters                  1,000

TOTAL PARTICIPATION (PERSON/PROGRAM)
  (With known duplicates eliminated)              -

Direct Contact:

   1,437    households

     922    farmers, gardeners and other agriculture people

     286  - foresters, loggers and landowners

     138    local officials, citizens groups and others

   3,196    youth

     194    teachers and adult volunteers

      63    staff training days times number of participants

TOTAL =
   5,176    people reached directly by Extension water quality programs

Indirect Contact:

   Newsletter recipients   1,000

   Exhibit viewed           2,950+ people

   News stories                      F-14
                                    F-14







Page 3


PROJECTS IN PROGRESS:

HOUSEIOLD:

   Septic systems - Publication and audio-visual materials and staff
   training (November 1989).

   Safe drinking water clinics

AGRICULTURE:

   Nitrate project - Continue

   Pesticide/soils data base - Conduct staff training (October 1989),
   improve and refine

   Livestock systems - Focus shifted to horse farm management, develop
   publication on manure management

   Best management practices - Staff training (January 1990)

FORESTRY:

  Erosion control - Develop slide series and distribute publication being
   produced by NH division of Forests and Lands

   Conduct 5 workshops for Extension staff, foresters and loggers in October
   1989

COMMUNITY RESOURCES:

  Assistance to communities with workshops, publications and audio-visual
  materials planned for Spring 1990, through focus project coordinated by
  Phil Auger

  Water quality monitoring - Great Bay Rivers Project to begin in Fall 1989
   (three years, with adult and student volunteers)

  Merrimack River Project - Continue in 1990

  Lakes monitoring - Expand promotion of LLMP through Extension offices
  and review plan in light of LLMP Joining Extension

  Conduct staff training and aquatic environments and monitoring (June
  1990), aquaculture (May 1990), and community water resources (May 1990)





                            I~F-15
             ;~~~~~~~~~~~F 15                              f:







 Page 4


 YOUTH:

   Camps - Continue

   Packaged group program - Produce pilot version and continue to seek
   outside funding for statewide distribution

   Pine Island - Continue

   Water quality monitoring - See "Community Resources', above

   Aquaculture - Train curriculum users

   Staff training - Conduct update (November 1989)

MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS:

   Continue

STAFF TRAINING:

   Focus on more detailed training as time goes on, and combining training
   with other agencies, e.g., Soil Conservation Service

STAFF REPORTING WATER QUALITY ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

WATER QUALITY TEAM:

           Dick Bonneville           Frank Mitchell
           Earline Burk              Jim Mitchell
           Francis Gilman            Faye Plowman

OTHER STAFF:

          Auger, Phil               Hunter, Barbara
         Ayer, Holly               Kalajian, Garry
          Barker, Larry             Luther, Robin
         Baxter, Charlene          Mates, Heather
          Belisle, Ann              McCarthy, Dorothy
          Black, Donald             McWilliam, Gall
          Bressett, Lauren          Patmos, Marshall
         Buob, Tom                 Pohl, Peter
          Burk, Earline             Porter, John
         Bush, Judith              Pratt, Margaret
         Buteau, Shirley           Schloss, Jeffrey
         Chickering, Andrea        Seavey, David 
         Clement, Bruce            Sorenson, David
         Crosby, Paul              Swier,.-Stan
         Duel, Nancy               Turaj, Steve
         Elliott, Linda            Wells, Otho
         Evans, Nancy              Wojtusik, Robyn
         Ferguson, John            Wood, Dot
         Gahm, Allan               Zweigbaum, Bill

                                  F-16







Page 5


TOTAL TIME REPORTED BY STAFF FOR WATER QUALITY:

    Professional:  4.4 FTE        44 Extension Educators
    Para Professional:  .2 FTE    28 Para Professionals
    Volunteer:  .5 FTE            68 Volunteers

ORGANIZATIONAL INTERACTION:

    The following groups participated or contributed to one or more of the
above projects, or projects now in progress:

  Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
  Appalachian Mountain Club
  Army Corps of Engineers
  Audubon Society of NH
  Conservation Districts
  Forest industry representatives
  Future Farmers of America
  Jackson Estuarine Laboratory
  Keene Water Dept.
  Manchester Water Dept.
  Manchester Historic Association
  Merrimack River Watershed Council
  NH Department of Environmental Services
  NH Division of Forests and Lands
  NH 4-H Leaders' Association
  NH Timberland Owners' Association
  NH Division of Parks
  NH Association of Conservation Commissions
  NH Fish and Game Dept.
  NH Wetlands Boards
 NH Municipal Association
  NH Department of Agriculture
  NH Organic Farmers' Association
  Other northeast states' Cooperative Extensions
  Plymouth State College
  Private sport groups
  Public and private schools.
 Regional Planning Commissions
  Science Center of NH
  Society for the Protection of NH Forests
  Soil Conservation Service
 U.S. Environmenail Proteacion Agency
 UNH Faculty in Forestry, Plant Biology and Zoology Departments
 UNH Water Resources Research Center
 Water Quality Association







                              F-17








                                              SECOND CLASS MATTER - NEwsPAPER - MARKET QuOATIoNsI

              State of Now HampshIre                                                 Department of Agriculture
                              Judd Gre g    g                ~       E 024249                                                        Stephen H. Taylor
                                 Judd Gregg                    WATER ~~~~~~~~POLLUTION CO                    M          Mcofu"11I01
                                                            Po BOX 95 NAZEN DR
                                                            CONCORD NH 03-101




                          WEEKLY MARKE BULLETIN
       Vol. 68                                          Concord, N.H., W~dell:  agNvmer11                                                                       No.32

      From Your Commissioner...                                        Extension to Most                                            Lawn, Care FirmI

      ASCS Continues Push                                              Two Sessions on                                          Penalized in Action
    On Pollution Abatement                                             Growth Hormone                                        by Pesticide Division
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~StingwhhrnsSThe UDA'                                                                   Lawn Medic of Haverhill and Newburyjort, Mass.
                       A~~~~~~~~~oneva Cine S~a".top) is In  thenw  .atefy VI MA imotant                                and Plaistow has been fined $150frvoain of the
      io Seric  (A CS) inspoto  holConserva.                  ,o ahdiyfalt  be inftmirtl as the DA  milk                 State~s Pesticide Laws. RSA 43028.48 and the ad-
    tion Seric  (SBCS)oe h                    atongl hacmsfodprocesw                                  mcnsuersand          rminitrative  ru    e  o h PestiieControl Board. The
    polutin pothers  ke    gmaking                                             d      eiso                                     engarigedTwhc frm =-t" rldln      tratment of
        contini g efsover the last decade have attacked        cldaftyo.AS.YO  1ahie0gvtuld                               lw'5ihpsiceS 10hanai 
        animal wste andsoil erosion problems on scores of      =dewhehe mouse or otue$ar.                                 $900of thepena"tltywt     l60ssedd  If h  on
    farms with dramatic results.         -.To help New  Hanrpshire dairy farmer  make in-                                 payde   o  omtayvoainihnte next
     For the federal fsayerwich ended on Oct. 1,               formed decisions regarding BST two educational            tOyas  h  upne   oto  ilb   avd
        A Spme    ome $608000 inore    i~h                     sessions have been scheduld Come and listen to              A                                               !oieainbteiirn   anMdc
           cntutoofwaste management srtue.                     heinom-to peetdaddsusyrcoens                              wspligpetiesihutdqaesupervi-
    proving sod cover. developing eroson-resistant forest      wtotedarprdcs.snungetidsadcoanrshtwrenot
        rodasand more.                       wlhTessinartobhldnWd.Nv15, Pier-                                             roellaldndidntcmetycopywithI
    7re thewaste management structures              rt         motTwhic Halado hra.No.1at te N.H.                        m   e   ue  ftePsiieCnrlBadcnen
    special attention, fo hmdramatically reduce pollu. a-ueuofc.Rue16Suhb  h  ucin                                        latfcto  ro to applying pesticides.
    tion ofgroundwater and streams asawell asconse n            f39,Cnodnticatinrls enacted early this year by the
    valuable nutrients for eventual use on crops. SjC         h      aed i~ s asmiiollPstiid Control Bo alateralnmost three years of de-
                               reports  that  44    structures    were   de~~~~~~~~~~~~~                               velpdwtcotvlopmentil require thatcortain 1rlght-tG-know'type in-
    shrepot tassistructueee   develope  wthe year .    11:00   lntrductio                  hn Porter, UNH Extension       formation begivento the person recaiving the servce,
     Grafton County led the way with 20 structures, Sul.                 DaiySeiia                                        ro to applying the pesticides. These rules were the
   Wavn had six and the rest were sprinkled overthe rest         tl:15   BST Research Data and Halrd Manage-             reut GI numerous requests and inquiries from the
   of mhe state.                                  ansoMont Factors, Slow Gibson, LIVM Exo                                public foet r infratinaottepsic            ids tha
         As diry armsth~nout In southern Now Englaknd~c          20           Dairyman                                    ThIs=nocmn  cinws h  euto  nls
                   too do the  suppliers who suppo             12.W Lurch, bring your own bag lunch. Milk and           liainconducted by Pesticide Inspectors from the
           too dothe spplier  who  uppor  those dairy popra-             coffee Provided!Dvso who are resoibefrnocngteLw
   lions. Last wean Roy Glin, a Pilki.    uIpn
   dealer in Canterbury travelled by truck  a:ferry to          12:30   Economic Analysis of BST. Mike Sciabar-          an eulations inNwHmsiepranng to
   Martha's Vineyard, Mass., to fix a milking system at                  rasi, UNH Extension Ag. Business Manage-        petciecontrol.
   that island resort town's Ions dairy farm.  He     w       a     s      nth Speils  and Joan Conklin, H                                      uryLM. *Drco
   nearest guy who could do me-    an the particular                     Exteso  Dairsy'Specialist                                            Dvso  fPsicd  oto
   brand of equipment on that fr.1:00    Milk Marketing. Bill Zweiobaum,   N
                                                                   Extension Ag Business goMongmntI
         rimeed of next year chicken will dasplace beef as               specialist
   thYNumber One meat in the dial of the American
       pol.Low cost is the primary reason for the surge in      1:30    Discussion of Dairy Farmerr Concerns
       cienconsumption, for which there seems to be no          2:00    Adjourn.
                               OW  in   sight.  ~~~~~~~~Pesticide Applicator
    end  in iht                                                                                    John C. Poter
            Al~~~~~~~~sig chien poeat    dsrlworIatutoneel                                        UNHExteiosln                     Recertification
      folwthe soanlas of 1chcen patties and
          chicen uggts.Loosoo  foagrounti chicken item
   that will subsitlute for hamnburge  and a finely ground,                                                                Tefloigmeighsbe   prvdb   h
   washed poultry surimilproductthatrwillcompeteagainst                                                                  Dvso  fPsiieCnrlfrrcriiaincei
   fis and seafood surimi items.                                                                                         Contact the Indlaidual named for more information
                                                                                                               re.garding Othsesin Currenftly cerifed New Hamp-I
           Belkn~~~~~~ap ConyEtninfrse   umner Dole                         Ashire appliators licensed or permitted in the catego-
     cal  anonrateto to1. thfac atSASCS ofie                                   grclurlres or cmoiygroups indicated are eligible to
   around Me state can supl  aerial photographs ofreevcedt
   virtually vry mmr of Neww Hamrpshire.                      C..alendar                                                 Session: Arbocr Expo '89
     The ASSoffices have libraries of aerial poo
    195s, the 1970  aNd  h ov. reen  rusdnei                        a         ;J NH Association of cosrvation            Contact Person: National Artionst Association, Inc
        191ad1982. Reproductions of specific geographic           Oitit" nulmetn.Rarradalmn, KEENE,PerGrseege
   areas can be ordered at very reasonable cost.                 r1:30p           ram.  n Proram: Importance of                           TemaeinPlaeMl
     'ASCS photography is scale accurate, and define.             Flo PanM   Managemtent, 2-4 p.m. Banuet                                 Rot 01, P0 B. ox"09
          sldaea   a   uickly be measured.' Sumner points        awards 6 p.m. On I11/6 registiratin I=~.Po                               mest   H00119
   oull. Groundfeatures such assw    s pod,     s        t         reams, Cretad  rure Responsiblilites of                                (603) 673-3311
   roads, fields, buildings and fene ies  can easily be           CMCon5SNl ion D strcuperviso. Business                                                                                                    I
   identiffied. In many cases, owneshpbndre   n                   meeting is at 1:15 p~m.                                EIgible Group. CorrmerciaJ Applicatoris
                      The photoraphscaribeputto arious uss,  ng  Nov  11:SheeWorkshopon NutritionforLato                Topic a ine                   CoeMy   Credit
             from spporsg Curentus  applcatios to reatngufs      Pi7ic   ndCniin               ing conducted            1) Integrated Pest
              at Christmas.~~~~~~~~~Qf                           byCemi Wokhop i ehld at                                   Maw~~dqm                        6           .
     Wsa necessary to visit the countyA!SS office to ge           WedfadLryMo'sam.odon ie                                                  ehitue            1         1
*  the correct grid reference riforato  and complete               Rd., L DO,1    m.Fean nt he                            2) Interpreting & ImpleentingI
   the order forms. Payment is required in advance and            EblcFonoenf.clCnor,                   50ora TreeDigo si                                   01~          G 1.0
   orders take about 30 days to process.                          tocwf.7625,3) major insects - Their LNG
    Irafascinatingt look atmte photos of specific areas               C         c        e                 n                o       t       o      s      G            .
*  taken in the I90 flights andinencomparthemwith                 Now. 13ï¿½ 14! NH Farm Bureau Federation              4      yle Injetontos:               01   The.o
   photostaken rem"tl. Hillsbarough SCrh.sadisplay                anatmeigPoRleRsr.NO H                                  4)ljctn:ohyr
   of mhe Nashua area 45  er   g   otatd               ~          CNA.Rcgiinlnhobnut                                       Dont They?                      GI         1.0I
   side with a viwo Im.aeCity region early in thi                 spaes Owarso   11.Rsrain                                ae: Now. 30 and Dec. 2
   decade                                                         qie. LontactiKnehMasal oncod                                     Cincinat Convention Centier
    Talk about th  March of development onto farm land       5 254194                        Eln Sm St
   -fse pictures tell it 5   .  a"lo. Coms~nrCincinnati. OhIo 48202




                                                                                             F-18






United States       Soil
Department of       Conservation     Federal Building
Agriculture          Service         Durham, New Hampshire   0382<


                                            November 2, 198-


Ms. Ann Poole   -
Assistant Planning Director    '
DES - Water Supply and Pollution Control
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95
Concord, New Hampshire   03302-0095


Dear Ann:


Enclosed are the narrative (proposal) (JUNE 1989) and approval letters for
the SCS initiative in the Great Bay Hydrologic Unit.  This initiative is
directed toward agricultural nonpoint source pollution, e.g., pesticides,
nutrients, bacteria, manure management, etc.

As we understand it, the amount of special USDA-SCS money coming into the
Great Gay Priority Hydrologic Unit will be $80,000/year in each of the next
three years (1990, 1991, 1992). We have "nothing official though on the
funding yet.

I hope this will contribute to the 319 NPS Management Plan effort - what's
next? Let me know when I can help.

See you at the meeting on November 9, 1989.


Sincerely,



John.   innAc                               :
Water Quality Coordinator

E     sures

















                                     F-19
         t   0           :              ~~~~~~~~F-19




Posted: Fri, Oct 20, 1989   5:02 PM EDT         C/       Msgs MGIJ-Z882-7609
From:   DMORSE
To:     SCS.INF
Subj:   INF--Release on Hydrologic Units

Following is a USDA news release issued.Friday, October ZO, at 3 p.m.


37 AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS SELECTED FOR WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

      WASHINGTON, Oct. 20--Thirty-seven agricultural watershed areas have
been selected for technical assistance to improve water quality, Wilson
Scal-ing, chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation
Service, announced today.
        "These hydrologic unit areas were selected as part of the
president's 1990 Water Quality Initiative because of their identified and
prioritized water quality problems," Scaling said.
        The areas were selected by an interagency committee based on
factors such as agriculturally related problems, surface and ground water
effects, feasibility of treatment, and identification within state water
quality assessment and management plans under Section 319 of the C:lean
Water Act.
       These projects will be implemented through the cooperative efforts
of SCS, USDA's Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural
Stabi il ization and Conservation Service, in coordination with the
Environmental Protection Agency and state and local -agencies.
       The water quality projects selected are:

              State                            Name of Project

        Alabama                          Sand Mountain/Lake Guntersvi lle
         Ari zona                         Casa Gran d e/C Cool i d e
        Arkansas                         Moeore's Creek
         Cal  if orn i a                  Westside San J oaquin Valley
        Connecti cut                     Housatoni c River
         Delaware                         Inland Bays
        Florida                          Middle Suwannee River
         II Ilino is                      Illinois River Sands
         Iowa                             Union Grove . Bl ack Hawk
         Ird i ana                        Upper Tippacanoe
        Louisiana                        Bayou Queue De Tortue
        Maine                            Long/Cross Lakes
        Massachusetts                    Buzzards Bay
        Michigan                         Sycamore Creek
        Minnesota                        St. Peter/Prairie Du Chien
        Mississippi                      Tangipahoa River
        Montana                          Godfrey Creek
         Nebraska                         Elm Creek
        New Hampshire                    Great Bay
        New Me>:x ico                    Dona Ana/Sierra
        New York                         East Sidney Lake
        North Carolina                   Goshen Swamp
        North Dakota                     Bowman/Ha ley
        Oh io.                           Indian Lake
        Okl ahoma                        Battle Branch
        Oregon                          rOntario
        Puerto Rico                      Lake Loiza
        Rhode Island                     Pawcatuck
        South Carol ina                  Camping Creek
        South Dakota                     Richmond Lake
        Tennessee                    F-20 N. Fork Creek : Fal l Creek
        Texas                            Upper North Bosque





                         S', SHUHrT 1.1ST LUCLUDtWG SELECTION CHLT{ERIA

                       I'HOl'OVI.D INYUROLOGIC UTLT WATER QUALITY PROJECTS
               Il::l)A '.JAT'I.:l QUAI,1 TY PDUCATION ANDU TEClItlICAL ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE
                                       FLSCAL YEAR 1990



      SUBJ.ECT:  .:ilecticon of Lhirty-seven (37) Hlydrologic Unit Water Quality Projects
       (IIUWQr)  f:oc iLampLeraenLatiol  in Fiscal  Yeac 1990 for the USDA Water Quality
      lnitiatitvc           ..


      BACKGROUND:  The  UGDA  Water  Quality  initiative  provides  for  additional
      education and technical assistance efforts to support implementation of State
      319 pLans in taretLed high priority hydrologic units.  Resources for the staff
      needs for this work will be distributed to areas that are not addressed by
      regionaln program priorities but have identified priority agricultural nonpoint
       source prtoblems.

            I.  HIydrologic units are to be selected based on consideration given
            to the:
                a. Magnitude and importance of agricultural sources
                b. Source prioritization weighting for pesticide (4.0), animal
                   waste (3.0), nutrient (2.5), salinity (2.0), and sediment (1.0)
                e. Integration with other efforts

            R. Selection of hydrologic units and plans for implementation needs to
            be given high priority to those proposals that:
                a. Have a slated impaired use, or the strong likelihood of developing
                an impaired use in the near future.
                b. The impediment is clearly a result of agricultural activities.
                c. Conservation measures exist that, if planned and installed, would
                produce the desired measurable effects.
                d. An adequate evaluation, or monitoring, system currently exists, or
                can be developed, that will demonstrate the projects' effects.


       ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES:

                1. Each state identified five (5) high priority hydrologic units.
                   (EXHIBIT HAP NO. 1)
                2. Each state ranked the priority hydrologic units and selected two
                   priority projects. (EXtIBIT HAP NO. 2)
                3. SCREENING PROCESS:

                     (1) Proposed HU Projects were sorted-based on numerical ranking
                     for total value of thirteen (13) criteria.  Priority No. 1 & 2
                     from each state were intermingled. (Attachment No. 2)

                     (2) Proposed HU Projects were sorted based on numerical ranking
                     for total value of thirteen (13) criteria separated b~ Priority
                     No. I & 2 proposals. (Attac;ment No. 3)

                     (3) Proposed HU Projects were sorted based on numerical ranking
                     for total value of following six (6) criteria: PRIORITY;
                     AGRICULTURAL SOURCE; HEASUREABLE RESULTS; PROBLEH UNIQUENESS;
                     GROUND WATER; and OUTSIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT.  Priority No. 1 & 2
                     from etch state were interminir.ed. (Attachment No. 4)

:N:000  a:0  :  i;    ;ta :     0     0     ;     0 F-21




                                    PA';I 2 OF J



              (,) PrI'oposl IllU 'tPojecs were sorted based on numericail Lankin,
              rfo  total value oCf foLowin& six (6) critecia: PRIOTITY;
              AGR1CULTUIRAL SOURCE; HEfASURE:ABLF RESULTS; PROBLE:M UNIQUENESS;
              GROUND WATER; and OUTSlDE FiNANCGAL SUPPORT.  Priority 1 and 2
              proposals were separated. (Attachment No. 5)

              (5) Proposed".HU Projects were reviewed by EPA through their
              AGCTRACK system.  As a result, 35 of the 100 candidates were
              found to be listed in AGTRACK as Section 319 NPS impaired water
              bodies.

              (6) Based on screening by EPA, sLate conservationists verified
              the status of the proposed project concerning inclusion in the
              State 319 Assessment Report and State 319 Management Plan.

              (7) The proposed projects were evaluated by the national
              technical centers (NTC) staff and priorities identified.

              (8) SCS Division Directors for Basin and Area Planning;
              ConservaLion Planning; Engineering; Ecological Sciences, and
              Watershed Projects evaluated the proposed projects in relation
              to ongoing program activities and had the opportunity to
              identify priorities.


PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS CONSIDERED:

         -1. Limit Hydrologic Unit Water Quality Projects to not more than one
         project per state.

         2. Use ranking and criteria based on the above 6 factors for the
         Priority No. 1 list of proposals with.EHMPHASIS ON GROUND WATER
         AND OUTSIDE OUTSIDE FINANCAL SUPPORT. (See Attachment No. 5)

         3. Omit states where SCS and EPA are currently providing significant
         resources to accelerate approved water quality initiatives i.e. the
         CHESAPEAKE BAY states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

         4. Omit states which did not submitted their State Water Quality
         Assessment Report to meet EPA's deadline for approval in response
         to Section 319 of the Water Quality Act.


RECOMMENDATION:                                                                                 I

         I. Agencies (i.e. USDA: ARS, ASCS, CSRS, ERS, ES, FS; USGS; and
         NOAA) give priority and direct accelerated funds into the Chesapeake
         Bay program.








                                            F-22








 I~~~~~2 Appcove THIl'yY SEVEN (37  sLaLos(:a-eas),  t  nev   ceeae

                 11rojects rvoin following, list which is RANKED IN ORDER OF PRIORITY:

 *     1/* 1. ~~WI- PLover/Whil~ng Wellifead Acoa  20. NY- East Cidney Lake 
            P.  lIV- SL.retnL"/Praivie Du Chieni    21. PR- Lake Loiza -21
         * 3.  iL-. Illinois River Santis          22. ND- Bowman/Haley Watershed
         * 4.  A-.- Casa Gvande/CooliJg            23. DR- Inl~and Bays Watev-shed
         *    . WY- Ocean Lake.                    24. OK- Battle Branch*
           6.  TX. Upper North Basque              25. MT- Godfrey Creek
I ~      ~ ~~~ 7.  WV. Greenhuiar RLVCV-            26. NE- Elm Creek
            8.  ME.- Long/Ccoss Lakes              27. FL- Middle Suwannee River Area

         * 9.  Ml- Sycamore Cvee.k                 28. CA- Westevn Stanisl~aus County*'2/
            IL M.  BuINsByPrjc.-.NH   ra   a Upper.Tippacanoe  2.OR- Ontario Area 2/

         21U.. AR- Hoove's Creek~                  31. NM- Dona Ana/Sierra
       2I* 13  RI- Pawcatuck                       32. IA- Union Grove & Black Hawk*
I      *  ~~~14. SC- Camping Creek                  33. VT- Lower Missisquoi
               15.LA  BaouQueue De Tortue          34. MS- Tangipahoa River  *2
            16. TN- N. Fork Cresk & Fall Creek    35. SD- Richmond Lake*
I        ~ ~~~1.7. UT- Little Beaver River          36. OHi- Indian Lake
            1.8. AL- Sand Mtn/Lake Guntersville    37.. NC- Goshen Swamp g/
            1.9. CT- Housatonic River


        SCS RECOMMENDS FOLLOWING~ STATES NOT BE CONISIDERED FOR SELECTION SINCE THEY ARE
        RECEIVING  ACCELERATED  ASSISTANCE  THIROUGH  SPECIAL  PROGRAMS  SUCH  AS  TUE
        CZ1ESAFFARE RAY STATES (i.e. MARYLAND, PENUSYLVAIIIA, VIRGINIA) AND STATES WITH
       COLORADO RIVER SALINITY CONTROL CCRSC) PROGRAM ACTIVITES; OR RANK BELOW 37:,

I          1~~~. CO,(9)- Lower Lone Tree Creek
            2.  GA(10)- Project Area 1   3/
            3.  NV(16)- Rid Tinto/Carson Co.
3          ~~~~4.  PA(17)- Red &White Clay Creeks
            5.  VA(23)- Blackwater River
            6.  KY(41.)- Mammoth Cave  It 3/
3          ~~~7.  MD(42)- Deer Creek Watershed
            B.  IIA(45)- Fear! Harbor  It
            9.  10(46)- Cascade Lake*
            1.0. NJC(47)- DE & Ra-ritan Canal Trib*
I        ~ ~~1.1. PB(48)- Northern Guam Watershed
            12. MO(49)- Woods Fork*
            u.. ks(50)- Equus Beds
I        ~ ~~~14. WIA(z51)- Kamm Creek*
            1.5. AK(52)- Granite Mt/Clearwater

          1/ NOTE: Does not appear in the States "319" assessment report
          2/, NOTE: Does not anticipate request for Special ACP Water Quality Project
          3/ NOTE: Not recommended for approval by the NTC
             NOTE: Those with an-asterick (:*) art included in the top 40 priority list
                   from the Watershed Projects Division.

I      ~~9739L

                                                 F-23









                        HYDROLOGIC UNIT NARRATIVE


            GREAT BAY - ROCKINGHAM AND STRAFFORD COUNTIES





              Hydrologic Units - Piscataqua - 1060003


                            100 - Lamprey
                            110 - Exeter
                            120 - Great Bay (Oyster River Only)







Characteristics


    Entire Great Bay Drainage Area


    The entire drainage area of -Great Bay Estuary covers a total of
    563,200 acres. Of this, 58,240 acres (11 percent) is in urban use,
    59,520 acres (11 percent) is in agriculture and 428,160 acres (76
    percent is forest.  17,280 acres (2 percent) is classified as other
    land. 84 percent of the watershed lies in New Hampshire's Strafford
    and Rockingham counties; 16 percent of the watershed lies in Maine.


    Proposed Treatment Area


    The area proposed for treatment covers a combined area of 244,030
    acres in three hydrologic units.  The area includes 23 units of
    government (towns), each with zoning and ordinance power.  Land use
    within the treatment area includes 31,246 acres of agricultural land
     (cropland, hayland, and pastureland).  Agriculture is a mix of dairy,
    beef feed lot, sheep and vegetable operations. 2,400 animal units
    produce approximately 33,600 tons of manure each year. Highly
    erodible soils cover about 65 percent of the area.


                                  F-24







Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve


    NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, is in the final stages of approval
     of Great Bay as one of 18 National Estuarine Research Reserves in the
     United States. Public support for the designation is wide-spread.
     Federal, state -and local agencies and organizations have also given
     enthusiastic support to this initiative. The University of New
    Hampshire has committed significant resources to the Great Bay for
     research and monitoring. Estuarine tidal waters in the Gteat Bay
     system total 17 square miles, including 9,000 acres of shellfish beds.
     71 species of birds and 52 species of fish occupy the Great Bay
     estuary. Rare and endangered species present in the Great Bay include
     18 plants and 3 birds.




Type of Problem


     Pollution of Shellfish Beds


     Great Bay has the third highest percentage of shellfish beds closed to
     harvesting in New England (80 percent harvest - limited), third to
     Boston Harbor (100 percent harvest - limited) and Merrimack River
     Estuary (100 percent harvest - limited). 7,200 acres of shellfish
     beds are unusable.  Contamination is by pathogenic bacteria.
     Agriculture is named as one of the sources for these bacteria.


     Nutrient Concentration/Eutrophication


     Great Bay is rated by EPA/NOAA as having a "high susceptibility for
     concentrating dissolved substances." Dr. Clayton Penniman, Jackson
     Estuarine Laboratory, states that, "While currently not of major
     concern, the potential for eutrophication in the estuary through the
     addition of excessive nutrients may be a (near) future problem.  These
     nutrients enter the bay in sewage through treatment plant outfalls
     (point sources) or they may drain into the bay from agriculture or
     lawn fertilizers and septic system seepage."  Penniman goes on to
     say, "It would be prudent to try to limit these inputs whenever
     possible." 

                                    F-25







Agricultural Implications


     Nutrient and Pathogen Pollution


    - Manure application exceeds agronomic rates.


    - Landusers spread manure on frozen and sloping ground.


    - Liquid from stored manure drains into surface waters.


    - Spreading equipment is not well calibrated, allowing the application
      of unknown amounts of manure.


    - Agriculture contributes 26 percent (166/640 tons) of the total
      nitrogen contributed from all sources in the entire watershed.
      Agriculture is identified by EPA/NOAA as the second largest source
      of NPS nitrogen (166 tons per year), (42 percent cl NPS N) and
      phosphorus (7 tons per year), (16 percent of NPSN) in the entire
      watershed. Agriculture represents 9 percent of the land use in the
      entire watershed, and 13 percent of the land use in the proposed
      treatment area. Urban NPS sources are listed as the largest source
       (N-227 tons per year; P-36 tons per year).  Total NPS nutrient
      discharges to Great Bay Estuary are 397 tons of nitrogen and 43 tons
      of phosphorus.


    - Fertilizer applications within the treatment area amount to 250 tons
      of nitrogen and 80 tons of phosphorus. (EPA/NOAA).


    - According to EPA/NOAA, Great Bay receives 42 tons of nitrogen per
      year for each square mile of surface area (the fourth highest of
      estuarine surface water in New England).













                                   F-26







Erosion and Sediment


     - Highly erodible soils cover about 65 percent of the area.
      I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      - Existing cropping systems combine conventional tillage and
       cultivation techniques with low residue crops (vegetables; silage
       corn).


     - Fields used for crop production are often very close to
       water courses, causing rapid delivery of sediment and associated
       pollutants



Potential Offsite Effects


     Reduction of Shellfish Bed Contamination


     Oysters (crassostrea virginica) are the predominant shellfish in the
     Great Bay Estuary. Estimated yearly yield of oysters is 400 bushels
     per acre. At $60 per bushel (June, 1989) the worth of the oysters is
     about $24,000 per acre. Reducing bacterial contamination from
     agricultural sources, when combined with reductions from other point
     and nonpoint sources, will yield considerable offsite benefits.


     Improvement of Unique Wildlife Habitat


     NOAA will soon approve Great Bay as a National Estuarine Reserve.
     Great Bay is representative of the Acadian Province biogeographical
     area according to the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program
     regulations. SCS efforts in this area will combine with efforts of
     many public and private organizations to improve the estuarine habitat
     for the long term benefit of the many species of plants and animals
     living there. Dr. Clayton Penniman, resident scientist at Jackson
     Estuarine laboratory on Great Bay states, "Unlike industrialized
     estuaries, such as Boston Harbor that will remain polluted for
     generations no matter what amount of money is expended, Great Bay
     still holds great potential to become a clean and pristine environment.
     This will require focused efforts and substantial investment by local,
     state, and federal governments and private groups."


            :U  : 0;     0 ~~F-27                                        0







12. State Staff Ability


    Appointment of a Water Quality Coordinator to the New Hampshire State
    Office Staff (January, 1989) demonstrates New Hampshire SCS commitment
    to water quality issues and dedicates staff time to applying water
    quality and soil conserving practices. State and field office staff
    technical skiils are being improved through-the New Hampshire water
    quality action plan and this project action will become a high
    priority of next year's plan of operation when funded.


13. Distribution


    Great Bay is soon to be designated a National Estuarine Research
    Reserve, to represent the Acadian Province (Northeast Atlantic Coast
    south to Cape Cod) of the biogeographical classification system
    contained in the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program Regulations.


    Work with research scientists, private foundations, shoreline
    landowners, and shellfish consumers, as well as, traditional and
    non-traditional ag. cooperators, will present new challenges to SCS
    planners and technical specialists in the Great Bay watershed.





























                                   F-28







8. Secondary Effects


     In addition to shellfish bed improvements, the reductions in
     bacterial, nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loading will reduce their
     negative impacts on plant and animal resources within the -tributaries
     and Great Bay including several of the rare or endangered species
     (18 plants and 3 birds), that are dependent on those areas.  Adequate
     treatment of Ag. NPS contribution areas will protect them for future
     agricultural use.


9. Ground Water


     Although ground water problems are not so well documented as those for
     surface water, the contamination of ground water is a major public
     concern.  This project action will improve ground water quality
     by reducing nutrient leaching through improved nutrient
     management, reducing pesticide leaching through improved pesticide
     management and reducing nutrient leaching through improved
     agricultural waste storage and management.


10. Program Compatibility


     The use of concentrated staff time pays significant benefits in
     accelerating programs existing in the two county watershed areas.  The
     recent successful acceleration of ASCS-SCS-District assistance in New
     Hampshire (Clark Brook, Connecticut River Watershed) is a proven
     example.


11. Outside Financial Support


     The State of New Hampshire will fund water quality monitoring and two
     NPS management demonstration projects and a University of New
     Hampshire study of the effects of different rates of manure on nitrate
     migration will be partially funded by agribusiness industries.  The
     project action will involve accelerated technical assistance by SCS,
     special or redirected ASCS funds and in-kind services support from two
     Conservation Districts.



                                    F-29






5. Measurable Results


     The State of New Hampshire, WSPCD (State WQMA) in a WQA Section 205
     (J)(1) Plan of Work commits monitoring activities to Great Bay Estuary
    within two to three years. State monitoring combined with joint
     SCS-Extension Initiatives in the Great Bay Drainage Area, will produce
    measurable NPS nutrient reduction, measurable NPS bacteria
     reduction, and measurable shellfish bed reclamation within three to
     five years.


6. Offsite Benefits


    Reducing bacterial contamination, as well as nitrogen and phosphorus
     loading from agricultural sources, will yield considerable offsite
    benefits to the people of New Hampshire. The opening of shellfish
    beds that have been closed due to contamination from pollutants is one
     example of the positive impacts that will result from improved water
    quality.


7. Problem Uniqueness


    The cooperation of a broad coalition of agencies, public and private
    organizations and individuals to conserve resources in 1 of only 18
    National Estuarine Research Reserves is truely unique. Measuring
    effects of conservation practices on water quality, improving nutrient
    and pesticide management, and elevating water quality concerns among
    the workers and their clients in the area will give us a state of the
    art approach to planning and implementing a water quality improvement
    strategy for watersheds in northern New England.















                                   F-30







             3. Publicly Important


                   Conservation of the resource base in Great Bay drainage area with a
                  particular emphasis.on water quality, has a wide and diverse support
                   constituency. The following agencies and organizations manage active
                   programs within the Great Bay watershed with goals that are compatible
                  with those of this project action: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                  Administration, National Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy,  New
                   Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control, New Hampshire Office
                   of State Planning, New Hampshire Fish and Game, Great Bay Estuaries
                   System Conservation Trust, University of New Hampshire Jackson
                   Laboratory, Trust for New Hampshire Lands, Strafford Rivers
                   Conservancy, Lamprey River Watershed Association and the towns
                   adjacent to the bay.


              4. Public Support


                   Public meetings held during the 319 Nonpoint Source Assessment process
                   show a significant public concern about agricultural impacts on Great
                   Bay from local Conservation Districts, County ASCS representatives,
                   regional planners, and Cooperative Extension agents.


                   Strong public and governmental support of accelerated protection of
                   Great Bay Estuary is documented in the Environmental Impact Statement
                   for the Great Bay National Research Reserve, U.S. EPA, UoS.DI,
                   U.S.DOT-Coast Guard, U.S.DOD-Air Force, U.S. Department of Human
                   Services, University of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Association of
                   Conservation Commissions, New Hampshire Department of Resource and
                   Economic Development, Strafford County Conservation District, New
                   Hampshire Fish and Game Department, New Hampshire Department of
                   Environmental Services, WSPCD (State WQMA), Town of Durham Planning
                   Board, Town of Durham Conservation Commission, Great Bay Estuarine
                    System Conservation Trust, Trust for New Hampshire Lands, and Lamprey
                   River Watershed Association.


I




                                                 F-31

                                                                             0










                   CRITERIA FOR SELECTION - GREAT BAY





1. Priority_


    The New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Division's
    *(WSPCD) 319 Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Plan shows Great
    Bay Estuary is high priority for action and will receive two of seven
    proposed demonstration projects in the 319 NP? Management Plan.


     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S.
    Department of Commerce, is in the final stage of approving Great Bay
     as one of 18 National Estuarine Research Reserves in the United
     States, acting, in part, on documented support by U.F.EPA and WSPCD
     (State WQMA).


2. Agricultural Source


    Agriculture contributes 42 percent (166 tons per year) of NPS nitrogen
    and 16 percent (7 tons per year) of NPS phosphorus to Great Bay,
    second only in both categories to urban runoff nonpoint pollution
    sources. Causes for this discharge listed in the New Hampshire
    Agriculture 208 study (1979) include:  1) manure application rates
     exceed that from which the planned crop can utilize the N and P, 2)
    manure spreading occurs on frozen and sloping ground, 3) liquid from
    stored manure drains into surface waters, 4) poor spreading procedures
    are used, and 5) cropland continues to erode at unacceptable rates.














                                        F-32






              Possible Program Treatment Alternatives


                   Improved Nutrient and Pesticide Management


                   Recent and near future releases of SCS standards, and supplements to
                   standards which incorporate water quality planning considerations,
                   will be applied in the designated area more efficiently.


                   Improved Waste Storage and Utilization


                   Increased SCS assistance will result in application of state of the
                   art technology and most current methods to fine-tune manure storage
                   and utilization.


                   Reduced Erosion and Resulting Downstream Sedimentation


                   Improved assistance will accelerate the application of best management
                   practices on agricultural land.


                   Removal of Shellfish Ban


                   Removal of the shellfish ban is "of special state concern" in New
                   Hampshire. In the 1988 Draft 319 Nonpoint Source Assessment, New
                   Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Division Assessment, New
                   Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Division, (NHWSPCD)
                   states that "An extensive effort is planned over the next two years to
                   investigate the sources of bacterial contamination and develop a plan
                   to alleviate them where economically feasible." Two of the seven
                   demonstration projects described in the Draft 319 NPS Management Plan
                   pertain directly to Great Bay. Accelerated SCS assistance in these
               3  hydrologic units will be helpful in achieving this state goal.











                                                 F-33

I.          .                                                                    0



I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                            APPENDIX G
U                                         EXISTING BMPs AND CONTROL BENEFITS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I














                         CONSTRUCTION 814Ps AND CONTROL BENEFITS (*)











             -~ ~~~~~~~~~~U CZiticlIreCtablizaGMn 



         FitemSrps                           S                           s--jW - i 




      PhrtalsAea CoStabiiztion                 SS
      Clse  eversopnt                         SS                                           S
3~~Tm  Proerm Plating                           S    SS                                     S

*      Propedien BastDinspoa                    S    SS




         St~~u-SourceeoluansImar-et

         .D~~~estMaaement Practine  So  Sh   e nln  Stae
         Phased1988onEPAuReion SI





    *~~~~~~~ G- -1            














                  URBAN RUNOFF - BMPs AND CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS (*)



                                                                                ;z    zI

                                        E      2   -as_> ï¿½    O
                                  (34 ~  ~     I &~                                     -   C






Suffer Veg Filter Areas S                 S. S S                                          SIG   S  S S    S    $
Infiltration Basins/Trenches S S             S    S       S    S         S       S   S   $;
                                Z~~I-          L Z       C dI                   C.. .A      0       





       De-z) tentio  I.n Pods L S    S                          S                S
                   B"Ps      =          ci   et=  -F           -<<   Cn U 1   ~i =:                    I
        -P                  -                 -      -   -       -  -      -J - - - - - - >0    0    L
                                   X~~~~c   0r   OLA    X                   o  )-Ow 0    LE: . 



Buffer Veg Filter Areas       S           S.    S    S   S/G   S    S             S    S    S 
Infiltration Basins/Trenches    S        S    S    S    S    S    S              S    S    S
Detention Ponds               S           S    S                S                 S
Retention Ponds               S           S    S5 S                S   S                     S
Porous Pawvement              S  S S                                  S    S           S    S 
Wetland Treatment             S           S    S        S    S S    S             S    S    S




* Source: Ready Reference Guide to Non Point Source Pollution
             Sources, Pol 1 utants, Impairments
             Best Management Practices for the New England States
             1988, EPA Region I












                       AGRICULTURAL BMPs AND CONTROL BENEFITS (;)




                                                         cn-  CC o . O:
                                                        f       - .  .  j,    Ln ..-   iU    -
                                            cl    ~~~~~P4    P  <C4      I-  : --  =--
                              8H~> CD                            X  - - -I W  3 ne             V)
                                 ZI-         .o  I-.0  I-Z    D    ( .- i - 


 Cover Cropping                S/G          S
 Conservation Tillage                       S
 Contour Fanning                            S
 Crop Rotation                 S/G          S
 Crop Residue Use                           S
 Critical Area Planting .
 Oivers ion/Terrace                         S
 Field Stacking Area            S                 S    S
 Field Windbreak                            S
 Fencing/Livestock Exclusion    S  S    S    S
 Filter Strips        .        S/G          S    S    S                                          S
 Grassed Waterway                           S
.  -   -- --  ~ - -- --  ~ - -- -- -- -- -   -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --  .- -- - - - - - -, -- - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - -  -
 Irrigation Tailwater Recov.    S                                                                S
 - -.2[ -s re-,;~T ... - -.. - - - - -- - - -...-..--..--..--..--..--......... --  --  -- 
 Heavy Use Area Protection      S           S    S    S

- ;;.-;ri;e  -~T. - - -s;              ----------------               
 Mlulching                                  S
 Proper Fertilizer Appli.      S/G
 Proper Pesticide Application                                 .S/G
 Roof Runoff Control            S           S    S    S
 Structure for Water Control                S
       ~~~~~~ ...1'--'2-- -------.....---.................------

 SedimentBasin                  S    S ..S    5
       -~~~~~~ .... - - - -'- - -....     ---------         ---------         
 Waste Utilization             S/G                S    S
- -;t -t..to  ...-sF -.... - - - -..--....-..---..---..--....-....-..---  ---  --   --  
 Waste Storage Facility        S/G                S    S
- -,t -trg  -~~~    ....-    -.... - -; -...-....-..---..---..--....-....-. ---  ---  --   -- 

         To the extent that methods reduce sedimentation by reducing runoff, they also
           protect surface water quality from pesticides and, in some cases, pathogens.
                             S a surface water            G = groundwater
 * Source: Ready Reference Guide to Non Point Source Pollution
               Sources, Pollutants, Impairments
               Best Management Practices for the New England States
               1l88, EPA Region I
                                             G--3...













                   SILVICULTURAL BMPs AND CONTROL BENEFITS (*)






                                                M  Li CD W~~            La _jco
                                     y,   z   v,                                      kd~~~~z 
                         I-                Li WZ      0)c~

                                        < 1-4      - <   -      VI mc  t-




Access Road                              S
Filter Strips                            S    s
Structures for
Stream Crossing                         S                                       S

Critical Area Stabilization              SI
Proper Road Location                     S
Diversions / Water   Bars                S
Proper Cutting Practices                 S                                       S    S
Structures for
Water Control                           S 
Proper S   iting of


Proper Timing of Harvest                 S 




* Source: Ready Reference Guide to Non Point Source Pollution
            Sources, Pollutants,  Impairments
            Best Management Practices for the New England States
            1988, EPA Region I













                                         G-4



I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                               APPENDIX H
H                                                         ABBREVIATIONS
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I







                                 Abbreviations


ARS               USDA Agricultural Research Station
ASCS              USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
BIA               NH Business and Industry Association
CD                Conservation District
COE               US Army Corps of Engineers
CORD              Council on Resources and Development
CWA               Clean Water Act
DES               NH Department of Environmental Services
DES-WSPCD         DES-Water Supply and Pollution Control Division
DES-WMD           DES-Waste Management Division
DES-WRO           DES-Water Resources Division
DH&HS             NH Department of Health and Human Services
DOT               NH Department of Transportation
BRED              NH Department of Resources and Economic Development
DRED-DFL          DRED-Division of Forests and Lands
EPA               US Environmental Protection Agency
FERC              Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
NCRC&D            North Country Resource Conservation and Development
NHACD             NH Association of Conservation Districts
NHASH             NH Association of Septage Haulers
NHDA              NH Department of Agriculture
NHF&G             NH Fish and Game
NHSDIA            NH Septic Designers and Installers Association
NHWPCA            NH Water Pollution Control Association
NHSPE             NH Society of Professional Engineers
NSF               National Science Foundation
IOSP              NH Office of State Planning
RPA               Regional Planning Agency
SCS               USDA Soil Conservation Service
UNH               University of New Hampshire
UNH-Coop. Ext.   UNH-Cooperative Extension
UNH-WRRD          UNH-Water Resources Research Center
USDA              US Department of Agriculture
USFS              USDA Forest Service
USF&W             US Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS              US Geological Survey