[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 '� r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I �~~~~il ~ . ,'ii I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :I: : : I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:i:: I I � 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 � 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 � ~~~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 ordinance�. 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 3� 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 waters� 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). -' � 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 5�_ 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 �water 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 :. -.--:�----: 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 schedules� 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---�-:---------'--- ---_---: ----:'--� ------ 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 �404, River and Harbor Act of 1899 �9 and �10 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~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~� : 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 �ERC (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. �commerce *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 �Sames as COE .Same as COE �F.st. ruidelines �Can Deny Permits �Enforcement tISFWS 404 CWA �Same as COR :�Must be consul.ted regarding �No 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 �Food Security �Same as MOE �Determines farmer compliance �Wetland 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 �influence 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). � -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 �* 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 �* Construction of Brick Walkway � * 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. � Land suitability study indicating best use of each tract to be acquired. � Long-range plan for acquisition and protection of identified parcels. � 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 reiga4hdgpestic�de 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. 13� 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_> � 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