[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Attachment 95.6.2 pt. #2 Exeter/Squamscott Watershed Nonpoint Pollution Control Project Office of State Planning New Hampshire Coastal Program Written in Cooperation with the Rockingham Planning Commission December 1995 TD 224 N4 E92 1995 The preparation of this report was funded in part by the Coastal Zone Managment Act of 1972, as arnmended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Managment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Award No. NA470ZO237. SUMMARY ..................................................... .............. I INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 3 What are Nonpoint Sources of Pollution? ............ ............................ 3 What is the NH Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program? .................... 3 How does the Exeter/Squamscott Watershed fit into the Coastal NPCP? ............. 3 Local Involvement ....................................................... 4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 4 PROJECT ACTIVITIES ........................................................ 4 LAND USE AND LOCAL LAND USE REGULATIONS ............................. 6 Land Use in the Watershed ................................................. 6 Local Land Use Regulations ............................................... 7 Soil Type Lot Size Regulations ....................................... 8 Impervious Limits ......................................... ........ 8 Excavation Regulations ............................................. 8 Septic Systems .................................................... 8 Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations ........................... 9 Critical Water Resource Areas: wetlands, shoreland, floodplains, aquifers, wellhead areas ................................................... 10 Maintenance and Inspection ......................................... 10 WATER QUALITY INFORMATION ............................................ I I Point Sources .......................................................... 11. RPC ................................................................. 12 Great Bay Watch ................................... : .................... 12 NHDES .............................................................. 12 JEL ................................................. Site Specific Sampling ................................................... 15 Sample Collection and Analyses ........................................... 15 Water Quality Parameters Measured and State Standards ........................ 16 SAMPLING RESULTS ........................................................ 18 Reading the Graphs ..................................................... 19 Sample Sites ........................................................... 19 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 36 REFERENCES ............................................................... 38 FIGURES 1. Watershed boundaries and sample sites ......................................................................... 5 2. Net change of dwelling units in Rockingham County, 1980-1993 ................................. 6 3. Sites identified by JELwith potential to negatively impact the Squamscott River ......... 14 4. Geometric means for bacterial indicators at sample sites ............................................. 35 APPENDICES A. Checklist for evaluation of municipal ordinances and regulations. B. Septic system maintenance information. C. OSP Technical Bulletin #11. D. Data from Jones and Langan, 1995. E. Exeter/Squamscott Watershed CNPCP sampling results: F. Sampling budget. G. DES Fact sheet-Iron bacteria in surface water. ABBREVIATIONS CNPCP-Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program DES-Department of Environmental Services JEL-Jackson Estuarine Laboratory NHCP-New Hampshire Coastal Program NPDES-National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPS-Nonpoint Sources OSP-Office of State Planning RCCD-Rockingham County Conservation District RPC-Rockingham Planning Commission WWTP-Waste Water Treatment Plant ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A valuable part of this project was working with a steering committee of representatives from watershed towns and local interest groups. The NHCP would like to thank the following for their participation and assistance with the project; Steven Bird, Rockingham Planning Commission Barbara Byrne, Newfields Mary Currier, Rockingham County Conservation District Peter Dow, Rockingham land Trust Richard Flanders, N.H. Department of Environmental Services Camilla Lockwood, Sandown Cornelius O'Brien, Fremont Jody Pellerin, Exeter Alan Sherwood, Danville Lawrence Smith, East Kingston Anthony Whitcomb, Kingston Jennifer Fox, Project Coordinator SUMMARY Nonpoint sources of pollution are a major cause of water quality problems in New Hampshire coastal waters. Local land use decisions have an important role in controlling these sources of pollution. The objective of this project was to focus on local efforts that address nonpoint pollution in the Exeter/Squamscott Watershed. Involvement of representatives from communitlies in the watershed was a key component of the project. The New Hampshire Coastal Program worked with the Rockingham Planning Commission to form a steering committee with members from municipal boards, the county conservation district, NHDES, and other interest groups. Project activities included a review of local land uses and regulations in the watershed, a summary of existing water quality data augmented with additional site specific monitoring, and steering committee meetings to guide project development and develop recommendations. The following conclusion were made: The watershed is rural in character, but land development activities and land use practices have the potential to impact water quality in the area. Many towns in the watershed have regulations in place that can control potential nonpoint sources of pollution. As well, there are number of regulations that towns may want to adopt or update to strengthen the effort to prevent nonpoint sources of pollution. Maintenance and inspection programs required by land use regulations should be evaluated and strengthened where necessary. Nonpoint sources of pollution are a concern in the watershed but point sources of pollution also contribute to documented problems. Stormwater runoff in the more urbanized part of the watershed is a major concern. Levels of contaminants that exceeded state standards were observed for both dry weather and storm events. Elevated bacteria was the most frequent water quality problem observed. Although generally at lower levels and with less frequency, bacteria levels that exceeded state standards were observed in the upper part of the watershed. Sites were not as pristine as originally thought. Bacteria levels in the lower part of the watershed relate to stormwater runoff, and possibly septic systems and agricultural runoff. Water quality data indicated there are nonpoint pollution problems in the watershed. Sources in the upper part of the watershed may not be greatly impacting coastal waters at this time, but could be a local concern and should be addressed so larger cumulative impacts do not develop in the future. In the lower part of the watershed a number of samples exceeded state water quality standards and may be contributing to nonpoint concerns in coastal waters. A number of local land use regulations are in place to address these potential sources of nonpoint pollution. Still, coverage is incomplete in the watershed, required maintenance and inspection programs are not carried out on a regular basis, and some pollution sources may not be covered by the regulations due to granffathered sites or size limitg.' These gaps need to be addressed in order to provide maximum protection from nonpoint pollution in the watershed. Results were discussed with the Steering Committee and a number of recommendations were suggested for education activities, ways to improve local regulations and implementation, and fidure monitoring programs. 3 INTRODUCTION New Hampshire has solved many water pollution problems in the past twenty years. However, pollution sources still threaten the water quality of our lakes, rivers, and coastal waters. This is evident in New Hampshire's seacoast region where 66% of the shellfish beds in Great Bay are closed due to bacterial pollution (DES, 1994). Previous attempts to control pollution focused on point sources and recent water quality studies suggest that nonppint sources (NPS) of pollution are the major cause of current water quality problems. In attempt to address nonpoint pollution concerns in coastal NH, this project was conducted in the Exeter/Squamscott Watershed. What are Nonpoint Sources of Pollution? Point sources of pollution are relatively easy to identify because they come from a particular point such as a pipe. Industrial discharges and the outfall from a wastewater treatment plant.are point sources. Nonpoint pollution, also referred to as polluted runoff, is generated from many scattered sources rather than a single point. It develops when water washes over lawns, parking lots, city streets, farm fields, construction sites, and picks up pollutants such as bacteria, oil, or fertilizers. Polluted runoff may travel to waterways by natural drainage or through a storm drain system. What is the NH Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program? The New Hampshire Coastal Program (NHCP) is developing the state Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP). The purpose of the CNPCP is to enhance state and local efforts to control nonpoint pollution that may degrade coastal water quality. For complete details of the State program see the NH Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (OSP and DES, 1995). Part of the CNPCP includes watershed projects that focus on local efforts to address NPS. A watershed is basically a drainage basin. It is the geographic area in which water, sediments, and dissolved materials drain to a common outlet. Sincenionpoint sources of pollution are difficult to locate, problems in a drainage basin may go unnoticed until the cumulative impacts are seen at the downstream outlet. The whole drainage area affects the water quality of the outlet, therefore it is important to evaluate nonpoint pollution on a watershed scale. How does.the Exeter/Squamscott Watershedfit into the Coastal NPCP? To manage effectively for water quality concerns in the coastal zone, we need to look at the tributaries that flow into the zone. In New Hampshire a large portion of the coastal zone is the Great Bay Estuary; 18 miles of the coastal zone are along the Atlantic Ocean and 132 miles are along the shoreline of the Great Bay Estuary. Great Bay and the Atlantic Ocean are the downstream drainage outlets for many tributaries. To control nonpoint pollution, the NHCP needs to evaluate how the basins that drain into the zone may affect these outlets. The Exeter/Squarnscott River is one of seven major tributaries to Great Bay. Previous studies indicate there are water quality concerns in the river that are the result of nonpoint sources of 4 pollution (see the Water Quality section for more details). Therefore an evaluation of potential pollution sources in the watershed, and current management strategies to control these sources, was initiated to aid the CNPCP. Local Involvement Involvement of representatives from communities in the watershed was a key component of the project. To maximize local involvement, the NHCP worked with the Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) to form a steering committee with members from municipal boards, the Rockingham County Conservation District, and other interest groups. The Steering Committee provided community members an opportunity to learn about the CNPCP, contribute to the development of the program, and direct specific project activities such as site selection for water quality monitoring. The NHCP benefitted by having a forum to review and refine project development and recommendations. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The following were the overall objectives of the project: 1.) Help the NHCP define a pro'.. 3s to involve local governments and interest groups in the development and implementation of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Project. 2.) Demonstrate the water quality impacts of existing nonpoint sources of pollution. 3.) Work with a local steering committee to evaluate pollution sources, identify sites for water quality monitoring, and review ability of local land use controls to address nonpoint pollution. 4.) Develop recommendations, for local implementation, to manage sources of nonpoint pollution. PROJECT ACTIVITIES Project activities were divided into three major categories: Review of land uses and local land use regulations in the watershed. A review of existing water quality data augmented with additional site specific monitoring. Steering Committee meetings to identify sampling sites, discuss results, and develop recommendations. The following summarizes methods and results for each major category. EXETER AND SQUAMSCOTT RIVER WATERSHEDS c4dia 'IftPing Ray V 14 13 Brentwo hnter 10 q 2 E. a or f!emont ------z --- ------- --7- T ---- ----- -------- ------------ -------------- - -- Do le Sondown Ki K"ingt n MPS 3ources: "Base data (town boundaries hydrogr%hy, roads) from USGS Diii,lal Liie Grorhs, 1:24,060, as orc ived in the GRANIT a c d base, Comp ex Systems esearch Center. Univer3ity of New Hampshire," Scole 1:30000 These dicilal layers orE registered to NAD 83 cnd N.H. State Pidne oordinales. Ra:ki@qhoP 6 LAND USE AND LOCAL LAND USE REGULATIONS Land Use in the Watershed Most of the Exeter/Squamscott watershed is rural. in nature. Located in southeastern New Hampshire, the watershed is approximately 127 square miles in size (1993, RPC). The drainage basin covers major portions of 12 towns in the region and minor portions of six additional towns (fig. I -map). A major portion of the Exeter River is designated as a rural river for the N.H. Rivers Management and Protection Program. Over sixty percent of the watershed is forested and the major land uses are forestry, agriculture, and single family residences (OSP 1993). Some commercial and industrial uses are located in the upper reaches of the watershed but the main urban center is located in the lower part of the watershed in Exeter and Stratham. Although it has a rural character, the watershed is located in one of the faster growing areas in New Hampshire. Rockingham County experienced a dramatic increase in the number of housing units built between 1980 and 1985. Numbers declined after 1985 but remained higher than the early 1980's (OSP, 1993, fig. 2). Figure 2: Net change of dwelling units in Rockingham County, 1980-1993. Rockingham County Net Change of Dwelling Units 200 1500- ce 1000 500 0 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 Year Source: Current Estimates and Trends in NH Housing supply, Update 1993, NHOSP. 7 Land use activities in the watershed are potential sources of nonpoint pollution. Fertilizers and pesticides used on agricultural lands and residential areas can wash off into surface waters if applied in excessive amounts or close to water bodies. As'the intensity of development in an area increases, so does the potential to generate nonpoint pollution. Stormwater runoff from urban areas often contains high concentrations of toxic metals, bacteria, and sediments (U.S. EPA, 1983). If stormwater is transported directly to surface waters, and bypasses the natural filtering capacity of soils and vegetation, it can seriously degrade water quality. Parking lots, roads, and other impervious surfaces are normal results of development. Preventing the direct transport of runoff from impervious surfaces to waterways is critical to protect water quality. Local Land Use Regulations In New Hampshire, municipalities have the authority to enact local land use regulations that can help reduce NPS. Requiring erosion and sediment controls during construction activities can help retain soil particles on site and lessen the chance they wash away in a rain storm and enter a local stream. Grass swales, vegetated buffer strips, and detention basins are examples of techniques that can be required to slow runoff from impervious areas and allow pollutants to filter out before water enters an important water body. NHCP staff reviewed a list of local ordinances and regulations for their ability to address sources of nonpoint pollution. The list of municipal regulations was based on federal recommendations that define several nonpoint management measures that the state CNPCP should address. The review included the 12 towns that cover the major part of the watershed. A summary matrix of the review is located in appendix A. For categories where state regulations may apply, the matrix will be blank unless a town has referenced these state regulations or adopted a local regulation. The review was completed from January to April 1995. Additional information was added through Steering Committee meetings, review by RPC circuit. riders, along with phone conversations and mailings to local planning boards for towns without representatives on the Steering Committee. This review was an attempt to summarize key nonpoint regulations for towns in the watershed. Local regulations are continuously changing and developing and any summary has the potential to be quickly outdated. A component of the matrix may have been overlooked for a town because it is not located in a conventional section of the regulations. Still, this summary matrix provides the towns in the watershed an opportunity to examine what regulations are important for reducing nonpoint sources of pollution, how many towns in the watershed incorporate these measures in their regulations, and gaps that towns may want to focus on in the future when updating regulations. The following summary highlights some important regulatory gaps in the watershed that towns should focus on in the future. 8 Soil Type Lot Size Regulations Five towns in the watershed require soil-based lot sizes. In the 1970's the Rockingham County Conservation District developed a system for determining'building lot sizes based on the land's capacity to handle the effluent from septic systems. This model has been adopted by many communities in Rockingham County and throughout the state. In early 1990's, a group called the Ad Hoc Committee for Soil-based Lot Size Regulations conducted an extensive review of the soil type lot size regulations and made revisions to make the regulations even more scientifically defensible. The result was the "Model Subdivision regulations for Soil-Based Lot Size", published in June, 1991. All communities with soil type lot size regulations should bring their local regulations into conformance with the standards set forth in the model. Adoption of this model will reduce the likelihood of nonpoint pollution from septic systems placed on inadequate soils types. Impervious Limits Impervious surfaces are areas that do not allow rainwater to percolate into the ground, such as rooftops, driveways, parking lots, and highways. Constructed impervious surfaces can reduce the potential for infiltration of precipitation and result in increased runoff, erosion, and greater pollutant loads to surface waters. A twenty percent impervious limit generally allows for house coverage, necessary walkways and driveways, and maintains the natural capability of a site to control NPS (pers. convs. F. Latawiec, OSP). - Some advocate impervious limits of 10- 15 percent to maintain the quality of sensitive or unique stream areas such as cold-water trout habitat (Schueler, 1991). Vegetated areas control nonpoint pollution by preserving the natural storage capacity and filtering ability of soils and vegetation. Nine towns in the watershed have limits on the portion of a lot that can be impervious, ranging from ten to sixty-five percent. Excavation Regulations All towns in the watershed have some form of excavation regulations. RSA 155-E is the state law that regulates excavations in New Hampshire. The law covers permitting procedures, buffer provisions, limits of excavation, operational standards and reclamation standards. The law applies in all communities, regardless of whether they have adopted it's provisions. Communities may adopt versions of the law with increased standards due to local situation. s. Model excavation regulations are available from the Rockingham Planning Commission and other regional planning agencies. Proper operation and reclamation of excavation sites will reduce the potential for erosion and other nonpoint pollution sources. Septic Systems Septic systems are believed to be a major source of bacteria and nutrients in surface waters. Soil- based lot size, discussed previously, reduces some NPS concerns related to septic systems. NHDES regulates the design and installation of new systems. All towns in the watershed reinforce these regulations by inspecting new systems prior to backfilling. Many towns in the watershed have stricter requirements than the state's, such as greater setback requirements from surface waters. 9 Septic systems require regular inspection and maintenance. No town in the watershed requires owners to inspect tanks annually. All septic tanks need periodic inspections to determine if they are functioning properly or need to be pumped. If homeowners wait until a 'stem shows SY complete signs of failure, such as surface breakout of wastewater, expensive repairs are required and nonpoint sources of pollution may result. Towns should consider establishing a program focusing on education for septic system owners and creating a septic tank inspection program. Informational brochures about septic system maintenance are available from DES and Cooperative Extension Services (see appendix B). The Steering Committee debated whether septic system concerns would best be addressed at the local or state level. One suggestion was to focus on substandard systems on a watershed basis, first targeting areas near critical water resources. Major issues that need to be addressed are identifying/locating substandard septic systems and finding ways to help homeowners finance replacement of the system. The NH Coastal Program has plans to form a working group to develop a strategy to remedy failed septic systems statewide, beginning in the coastal area with areas close to surface waters and wellhead -protection areas. This group will also study options for financi the repair and replacement of failed systems. Ing Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations Subdivision regulations apply to the subdivision of land, while site plan review regulations apply to nonresidential and multi-family development. Both types of regulations are important in the effort to provide for the proper treatment of stormwater ruhoff and the control of nonpoint pollution that may result as land is developed. Various versions of model subdivisions and site plan review regulations have been prepared by a variety of groups. Locally, the Rockingham Planning Commissionhas recently prepared model regulations for subdivision and site plan review. These models cover everything from application procedures to surety agreements. The provisions that specifically address nonpoint pollution include erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, and control of hazardous materials. All towns in the watershed have some type of subdivision and site plan review regulations. Nine towns under site plan review and seven towns under subdivision regulations reference a publication from the Rockingham County Conservation District (RCCD) entitled, "Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Urban and Developing Areas of New Hampshire". The handbook is an excellent source of information and contains model erosion and sediment control regulations. It is recommended that towns require applicants to meet the established standards in this guide. (The handbook is available from RCCD-679-2790.) Ideally these requirements should apply to disturbances of 20,000 square feet or more, construction of roads, subdivisions of three or more building lots, and disturbance of critical areas. Five towns clearly require this under site plan review and subdivision regulations., To ensure these standards are met and implemented may require independent review by a qualified consultant, on-site inspections, and performance bonding. A number of towns in the watershed already carry out some of these activities. Those needing assistance in establishing these 10 regulations should consult the regional planning commission. Critical Water Resource Areas: wetlands, shoreland, floodplains, aquifers, wellhead areas The Office of State Planning supports an integrated approach to planning and zoning for management and protection of critical water resources including shorelands, floodplains, aquifers, wetlands and wellhead areas. A technical bulletin prepared by OSP (see appendix C) lists a number of provisions to prevent nonpoint pollution that could be included in a water resources protection district such as a wetlands conservation district. Every town in the watershed has either a wetland, shoreland, or aquifer district. Six towns include regulations for all three resource areas and come close to addressing all the nonpoint provisions outlined. Other towns should consider augmenting their existing regulations in place, or adopting a model ordinance to protect critical water resource areas. Maintenance and Inspection An informal set of questions was discussed with municipal officials, planning commission circuit riders, and steering committee members, regarding maintenance and inspection programs. The objective was to determine how towns 'ensure standards and maintenance practices required in regulations are carried out. Do they have inspections during construction to ensure erosion and sediment controls are in place and functioning? Are stormwater structures such as catch basins inspected and cleaned on a regular basis? The conclusion was that many towns are limited by a lack of people and dollar resources and maintenance and inspection are not happening on a regular basis. The town of Raymond promotes cross training of town employees to develop a greater pool of people to cover inspections. Towns may also want to review a bonding system to assure that maintenance and inpsections are carried out. For towns that want to pursue any gaps in their regulations in regard to NPS control, the following references are helpful for additional information on NPS and techniques to prevent it: A Guide to Controlling Nonpoint Pollution through Municipal Programs. Technical bulletin #11, N.H. Office of State Planning, 1995. This technical bulletin focuses on nonpoint sources of special concern to coastal waters. It provides guidance on improving the effectiveness of local ordinances and regulations and other municipal programs. This guide is included in appendix C. Best Management Practices to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Guide for Citizens and Town Officials. NHDES-WSPCD-94-2. This guide describes what causes NPS and best management practices (Bws) to prevent it. Local Land Use Management Techniques for Water Resource Protection and Geographic Inventory Procedures. NHOSP, 1992. Explains municipal regulatory and non-regulatory, measures that can be. use to protect water resources. CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE LAND USE AND REGULATORY REVIEW b t d' Ibiew..a Ts an e ti.. t n 9 th p ij! th iiViiil_ wnsjw elwa,ters e velegulanopsimp amli, 'novppm @v @.Ure ere'4r .sourc emumm ero @M- :'j OPP ...... .......... WATER QUALITY INFORMATION The following sources of water quality data were reviewed to assess existing sources of nonpoint pollution in the watershed and aid in developing a site-specific monitoring program, Point Sources Information available for wastewater treatment plants (WWT?) and other point discharges in the watershed were reviewed to assess their impact as possible pollution sources. Most studies suggest recent reductions in point sources of pollution in NH leave nonpoint sources as the leading cause of water quality problems. Point sources were evaluated to assess whether this theory holds in the study area. There are five NPDES permit holders in the watershed. The National Pollution and Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a permit process established to track large-scale discharges to surface waters. The system covers discharges from municipal W101TP and industrial operations. Dischargers are classified as major or minor. Four of the dischargers are minor and one is major. All of the permits were reviewed with the NHDES environmental inspector in charge of the records. Two of the minor permits are for non-contact cooling water. These permits require testing discharges for temperature, pH , and flow and these sites have not displayed any water quality concerns. The other minor permit holders are for wastewater treatment systems for the town of Newfields and the County Complex in Brentwood. Newfields WWT? consistently met 12 its required bacteria discharge level, but had an infrequent, seasonal, total suspended solids violation due to algal blooms in the lagoon system. The County Complex in Brentwood had no recent water quality violations. The major discharge permit in the watershed is for the WWIT for the town of Exeter. They have a permit limit for bacteria of 70 total coliform/ I 00ml . In 1994, ten bacterial violations were recorded. Adjustments were made at the plant and bacterial violations ceased. The plant also was cited for occasional total suspended solids violations. NHDES feels this is due to a seasonal buildup of algae in the lagoon system at the plant. Previously Exeter held a permit for the storm water holding pond located near the Exeter Mill Apartment Complex. The town completed a storm and sewer separation project in 1992 and requested that the State eliminate the requirement for a NPDES permit for the holding pond. The Town has not been testing the water quality at the holding pond since that time. The pond occasionally receives combined sewer overflow during heavy storm events. In April 1995, the town of Exeter researched upgrading a pump station to reduce the chance of sanitary sewer overflow into the stormwater holding pond. The town was recently issued a new NPDES permit that requires water quality testing at the holding pond again, starting in October 1995. (personal communications with Mike Mzi;@,a, Exeter Water and Sewer Superintendent). Rockingham Planning Commission A pollution source identification report produced by the Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC, 1992, 1993), was reviewed. For this project, RPC identified and mapped a number of pollution threats in Rockingham County. A variety of threats were identified, but two sources in particular were recommended for further review: temporary salt piles and stormwater runoff. A list of potential threats in the watershed was consulted when sites for further monitoring were selected. Great Bay Watch Great Bay Watch is a volunteer water quality monitoring group sponsored by Sea Grant Extension at the University of New, Hampshire. In 1994, volunteers began sampling the Squarnscott River at the Exeter town dock. The site was sampled twice a month from April to November at both high and low tide. Fecal coliform bacteria counts were consistently high for both high (mean-- 122.4) and low tide (mean-- 184.5). NH Department of Environmental Services The most recent studies conducted by New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHI)ES) indicate there are water quality concerns in the Exeter/Squamscott Watershed: In 1991 a sanitary survey of the Squarnscott River was completed (NHDES- WSPCD-92-1 0). Samples were collected and tested for bacteria at sites between the Franklin Street crossing on the Exeter River and the mouth of the Squamscott River. High bacteria levels were found and evidence indicated they were not due 13 to the wastewater treatment plants on the river but seemed to originate upstream of the tidal dam. The study recommended ftirther investigations be targeted at the Exeter and Little rivers. A 1992 report (NHDES-WSPCD-92-14) listed one mile of the Exeter River as not supporting its designated use due to bacterial violations. According to the 1994 water quality Report to Congress prepared by NHDES, 1.2 miles of the Squarnscott River did not meet class B standards due to bacterial violations. (See page 16 for class B definition). DES conducts monthly (as long as surface waters are not frozen), testing for E. coli levels at a number of sites throughout the seacoast area. One sample site is at Great Brook, a tributary to the Exeter River. Results were recently obtained for five samples collected between July, 1994 and May 1995. -Bacteria levels were variable but relatively high and the geometric mean of these sample exceeds the state limits (geomean-- 228, n--5, whereas the state standard is not greater than 126 E. coli/100 ml). a DES also concludes that most point sources are meeting water quality standards and the remaining water quality problems are primarily due to nonpoint sources. DES listed the Piscataqua, River watershed as top priority for future water quality protection efforts. The Exeter/Squamscott watershed is a sub-basin of the Piscataqua, River: Jackson Estuarine Laboratory Jackson Estuarine Laboratory (JEL) at the University of New Hampshire recently published two reports that include water quality data for part of the Exeter/Squamscott watershed. One report is the result of a two year coordinated sampling effort in the Great Bay and associated tributaries as part of the N.H. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP). Tbree sample sites are located in the Exeter/Squamscott River: 1.) the mouth of the Squamscott River at the railroad crossing between Newfields and Stratham; 2.) the Route 108 bridge crossing of the Exeter River in downtown Exeter; and 3.) the Pickpocket Dam on the Exeter/Brentwood town line. The following conclusions were reached; Bacterial contaminants from terrestrial and freshwater sources appear to be major contributions to tidal water contamination. For the Exeter/Squarnscott tributary, high nutrient levels at the mouth of the Squamscott are due to point and nonpoint sources in the tidal portion of the river and not from sources in the Exeter River. (This conclusion was not known at the time preliminary results were presented to the Steering Committee) For bacterial contaminants, the freshwater sources are a significant contribution. Bacteria levels were significantly higher after rain events. Nutrient levels were 14 not significantly higher following rain events. (Higher nitrate levels were observed following rain events but not statistically significant possibly due to the small data base and variability.) Levels at Pickpocket Dam were much lower than downtown Exeter and did not violate state standards for swimming (for State standards see page 16). This suggests stormwater runoff in the more urbanized section of the watershed is a major source of bacterial contamination. The second study conducted by JEL (Jones and Langan, 1995) focused on the Squarnscott River with the objective of developing strategies for assessing nonpoint pollution impacts. This included sampling in the Exeter river and preliminary data was presented to the Steering Committee in March to help focus additional monitoring efforts. The final report concluded the Exeter River and tributaries near Exeter are a source of bacteria to the tidal river. Loading estimates for bacteria and nutrients were calculated for most of the tributaries to the Squamscott River. The following sites were listed as having the largest potential to negatively impact river water quality: Sg25-bacteria & nutrients-Norris Brook, mouth-downtown Exeter SR24-bacteria and ammonium-Cobby Brook, Newfields; SR22-phosphate-Parting Brook, Rte. 85 crossing, Newfields SRI -nitrate and phosphate-(stream in Newfields near Go'If course) SRI 9-ammonium-Rocky Hill Brook, Rte 85 crossing, Exeter SRI 0 -bacteria- stream crossing, Middle Road, Stratham. Figure 3: Sites identified by JEL with potential to negativley impact the Squarnscott River. ia @% (ds SRI SR24 SR22 "A-4 SRIO "I ..Str i thc SR19 SR25 I e I e-r ee Bacteria levels at these sites frequently exceeded state standards. (See appendix D for a data table of values and page 16 for state standards.) 15 WHAT DOES THE BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION TELL US? A- Nource" U 011=11 W) OEM-- E 3- - A, U=4 !gene yg I V-1fir jam, mg gre,4@g 0 ne Site Specific Sampling Available water quality data for the watershed was summarized and presented to the Steering Committee to help focus further monitoring. The Committee discussed what parameters to focus on and the number of samples thet could be collected within the budget available. Due to the lack of data above Pickpocket Dalrn in Exeter, it was decided sites in the upper watershed would be valuable to include for baseline data. The Committee chose fifteen sample sites, five in the upper part of the watershed and ten in the more urban part of the lower watershed. Sample sites included outlets from storm drains, drainage swales, detention basins, along with stream sites in the main branch and tributaries of the Exeter River that flowed through agricultural and residential sections of the watershed. Since stormwater runoff was documented to negatively impact the water quality in the watershed, sampling focused on storm events. Due to time constraints and sampling logistics, a combination of storm events and dry weather samples were collected. Sample Collection and Analyses Samples were grab samples collected in polyethylene bottles that are acid-washed and prepared at NHDES and Jackson Lab at UNH. Bottles used for nutrient and metal analyses contained an acid preservative. For smaller streams and accessible storm drains, a sample was collected directly into the sample bottle. A clean bucket, rinsed twice with local water before collecting a sample, was used to collect from sites difficult to access, such as the outlet for the Exeter stormwater holding pond. All samples were held on ice and transported to the appropriate lab for analysis. Nutrients, metals and bacteria tests were conducted at DES, Total suspended solids and percent organic matter at JEL. Field instruments were used to measure pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature. Results were recorded on field data sheets. 15 WHAT DOES THE BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION TELL US? Nonpoint sources of pollution are a concern in the watershed but point sources of polution also contribute to documented problems. Bacteria and nutrients are water quality concerns in the watershed. Data above Oickpocket Dam is limited, but historic data indicate wate flowing over the dam generally does violate state water quality standards. Stormwater runoff in the more urbanized part of the watershed is a major concern. Site Specific Sampling Available water quality data for the watershed was summarized and presented to the Steering Committee to help focus further monitoring. The Committee discussed what parameters to focus on and the number of samples that could be collected within the budget available. Due to the lack of data above Pickpocket Dam in Exeter, it was decided sites in the upper watershed would be valuable to include for baseline data. The Committee chose fifteen sample sites, five in the upper part of the watershed and ten in the more urban part of the lower watershed. Sample sites included outlets from storm drains, drainage swales, detention basins, along with stream sites in the main branch and tributaries of the Exeter River that flowed through agricultural and residential sections of the watershed. Since stormwater runoff was documented to negatively impact the water quality in the watershed, sampling focused on storm events. Due to time constraints and sampling logistics, a combination of storm events and dry weather samples were collected. Sample Collection and Analyses Samples were grab samples collected in polyethylene bottles that are acid-washed and prepared at NHDES and Jackson Lab at UNH. Bottles used for nutrient and metal analyses contained an acid preservative. For smaller streams and accessible storm drains, a sample was collected directly into the sample bottle. A clean bucket, rinsed twice with local water before collecting a sample, was used to collect from sites difficult to access, such as the outlet for the Exeter stormwater holding pond. All samples were held on ice and transported to the appropriate lab for analysis. Nutrients, metals and bacteria tests were conducted at DES, Total suspended solids and percent organic matter at JEL. Field instruments were used to measure pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature. Results were recorded on field data sheets. 17 note: Technically, E. coli results should be less than fecal coliform since it is a subset of this group. DES uses different techniques to analyze for the two indicators (i.e.-incubation times, culture media) and at times E. coli counts are higher than,fecal coliform for the same sample. DES feels the E. coli technique is more accurate and when this indicates higher numbers than the fecal coliform test, the higher number is probably more accurate. Temperature, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen and pH These are the parameters that are measured in the field. Extreme values can be quick indicators of pollution problems. Temperature-Runoff from paved areas can increase stream temperatures. Temperature can affect other water quality characteristics such as dissolved oxygen. The state standard is "no increase that would appreciably interfere with the designated uses". Specific Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to conduct an electric current and is an indicator of the dissolved ionic matter present in water. High conductivity measurements may indicate pollution sources such as salt or nutrients from runoff. The unit of measure is micromhos ( @Lmhos). There is no state standard for conductivity but most clean surface waters of New England have very low conductivity levels (Spang, 1988). Dissolved Oxygen-Dissolved oxygen (DO) in water is required to support aquatic life. Stormwater runoff with high levels of organic matter can consume oxygen as it decays. The state standard is not less than 75% saturation or generally not less than 6.0 mg/L. Low DO is stressful to aquatic life. pH- This is a measure of the acidity of water. The pH scale ranges from I to 14, seven being neutral with values below this indicating increasingly acidic conditions and values above indicating more basic conditions. Extreme values or changes may indicate biological activity or pollution sources. The state standard for class B waters is 6.5 to 8.0 or as naturally occurs. Total Suspended Solids (TSS)- This is a measure of fine materials suspended in the water column. High levels of suspended sediments can reduce light penetration and may have attached nutrients and other adsorbed pollutants that affect stream life. High levels may. indicate erosion or runoff problems. An average value for unpolluted surface waters in the Northeast is 10 mg/L. Percent Organic Matter (% Org)-is the percentage of the TSS that is organic matter. In general, percent organic matter may be high but the overall amount of TSS is low. High TSS levels that are mostly organic matter (therefore the % organic matter is high), may indicate excess nutrient sources are stimulating algal growth. Nutrients Phosphorus and nitrogen are important plant and animal nutrients and generally found at very low concentrations in streams. Nutrients may enter streams from leaking septic systems, runoff from agricultural areas or fertilized lawns, or via sediments from eroding areas. Increased nutrient levels can stimulate algal production and are toxic to aquatic life at.very high levels. 18 The state standard for phosphorus is "no phosphorus in such concentrations that would impair any usage assigned to the specific class involved, unless naturally occurring". Naturally occurring levels of phosphorous in NH rivers are generally less than .03 5mg/L (NHDES, 1993). The state standard for nitrate is not to exceed 10 mg/L, based on protection of human health. In general unpolluted, well oxygenated surface water concentrations are less than I mg/L (Goldman and Home, 1983). USEPA also sets the drinking water standard at l0mg/L. The state standard for ammonia in freshwater is 29 mg/L, based on acute toxicity for aquatic life. Levels for unpolluted surface waters are generally less than 0.1 mg/L (Goldman and Home, 1983) Metals Metals are a concern because they are commonly contained in urban runoff, The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (EPA 1983) found elevated levels of Cu, Pb, Zn in at least 91% of the sample collected. Metals may be toxic'to aquatic life and have the potential to bioaccumulate in the food chain. The state uses the following USEPA acute toxicity sta ndards designed to protect aquatic organisms. (DES and EPA are reviewing metals standards.) Aluminum (Al) 0.75 mg/L Copper (Cu) 0.0048 mg/L Zinc (Zn) 0.036 mg/L Cadmium (Cd) 0.0082 mg/L SAWLING RESULTS Samples were collected on five separate dates. The first two sample dates were during or shortly after a rain storm. On 5/11/95 a rainstorm began in the evening. Three samples were collected within the first hour of the storm at sites 2,7, and 9. The remaining samples were collected the next day. A total of .44 inches of rain was recorded at the Durham observation station and .93 inches in Greenland. (This demonstrates the variability in the amount of iainfall in the watershed and.observation locations only give a relative indication of rainfall for the sample sites.) For the second storm sample (6/7/95),.30 inches of rain were recorded at Durham and .38 inches in Greenland. Sampling began within the first hour of the beginning of the storm. By the time samples were collected in the upper part of the watershed (sites 11- 15), the rain was very light or had ended. A dry event was sample on 6/21/95. No rain was recorded for four days prior to this date. Another dry event was sampled on 6/27/95. Scattered thunderstorms occurred two days before on 6/25/95. A total of .60 inches of rain was recorded in Durham but no measurable rainfall was recorded in Greenland. Possible effects of this storm on the sample date are discussed with site descriptions that follow. A significant storm event was sampled at 10 sites on 9/17/95. 1.15 inches of rain were recorded in Durham and Greenland. 19 Reading the Graphs A few things should be kept in mind when reviewing the following graphs. Results for bacteria, nutrients, metals, and total suspended solids were graphed'for each sample site. A complete database for all parameters measured is in appendix E. Graph scales were kept consistent to allow for relative comparison between sites. Therefore data bars that reached the top of the graph may indicates values higher than shown and appendix D should be referenced for exact values. Only parameters that were detected were graphed. This accounts for some of the . variablity between graph legends. If a parameter is listed in the legend but not visible on the graph, it may be due to a low value that is not visible with the scale utilized. Sample Sites Site 1-Cobby Brook, Route 85, Newfields-sampled downstream side of road. This site was selected for concerns about development in the area. Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen all follow normal trends at this site. Percent saturation levels for dissolved oxygen were low for the 6/27/95 sample date and just under the 6.0 mgAL state standard. Many sample sites had a decline in DO levels for this date and may relate to low stream flow at this time of the y.@ar and did not seem to be related to storm events. Conductivity ranged from 280-365 umhos. Nutrient levels were within the range of clean running waters, except total phosphorus for the last storm date (. 102 mgAL).' The only metal detected for four of the five sample dates was aluminum. After the one inch rainfall, Al, Cu, and Zn were all detected. Al and Cu exceeded state limits for this date. TSS level were normal for most samples, but slightly elevated after the heaviest rain event (9/17/95, 24 mgfL). Bacteria levels were variable but well over 5 00/1 00ml for E. coli and Fecal coliform for three sample dates. The geomean for all five sample dates also exceeds the state limit (E. coli, 255cts/100ml). Site 2-Wheelwright Creek, Exeter-access from Jady Hill, sampled south side of road. Wheelwright Creek receives stormwater runoff from a number of businesses located on Portsmouth Avenue in Exeter. Bacteria levels were consistently over the state standard. Bacteria levels were higher on storm dates than dry dates. Total phosphorous levels were elevated on storm sample days whereas nitrate levels were elevated for two dry days. This combination of high bacteria and nutrients, during both storm and dry events, could be the result of stormwater runoff and septic systems influences. One side of the creek is bordered by single family residences. This area is within the sewer district but all homes may not be hooked up to the system. TSS levels were elevated for storm.sample dates, especially on 5/11/95 and 9/17/95. Aluminum, zinc, and copper levels exceeded state limits for storm samples. Conductivity levels ranged from 89-700 umhos. All other parameters followed normal trends. 20 1000 1 800 0.8- C@ 600 0.6- C_R 400 E 0.4- i@ 200 0.2- A- 0 5/11 W 6/21 6/27 9/17 5/11 617 6/21 U27 9117 date date 0.75 100 80- 0.5 - =A[ 060- Ma Cu 40- E 0.25 - MZn 20- E 0 0 5/11 W U21 6/27 9/17 5/11 6/07 U21 W7 9/17 date date Site 1 Raymond [=lot @twood Chootor DUV KINIS"I 1, Elm landswo 'J@ bgswo Koloblin Site 2 1000 1 800- 0.8- E 600- FC 0.6- F/0" 400- MEC E 0.4- 200- F�R 0.2 0 0 5/11 617 6121 6127 9117 5/11 W 6t22 6/27 9/17 date date 0.75 100 80- _j 0.5 - 60- "6 _j E '& 40- 0.25- E20- am 0 0 5111- 6/7 6121 6127 9117 5/11 Sa 6/21 6/27 9/17 LtA TX:N NH3-N date date data bars that reach top of graph indicate values higher than shown-see data table for exact values 21 Site 3-Exeter Mill Apartment Complex, Exeter-sampled storm drain that discharges into the Squamscott River. Samples were collected at the storm drain outlet and therefore only collected on storm dates. Bacteria levels exceeded state standards on 6/7 and 9/17. Copper levels were also exceeded on three dates. Nutrient levels were generally within acceptable ranges, except Total Phosphorus levels on 6/7/95 (.089 mg/L) and 9/17/95 (.241 mg/L) were more indicative of an urban impacted area. Site 4-Exeter Stormwater Holding Pond, Exeter-sampled at outflow into Squarnscott River. This site was sampled due to concerns about combined sewer overflows influencing the holding pond discharge. This site was more characteristic of a pond than running water. DO levels were some of the lowest sampled, ranging from 4 to 8.6 mg/L. Total phosphorous levels were high (.094-.39 mg/L) and probably contribute to the high algal growth in the pond. But the pond discharges to tidal waters where phosphorous is not a limiting factor and therefore is not as great a concern as in freshwater sites. " :@acteria and other nutrient levels were low for most sample dates, perhaps an indicator the wetland/holding pond was removing most of these constituents from the water column. Bacteria levels were elevated for the last sample date (rainfall recorded at Durham = 1. 15 inches). E. coli levels were below state standards (120 cts/ I 00mls), but for fecal coliform, levels exceeded state standards (120 cts/100mis). 22 1000 1 800- 0.8- E 6W. 0.6- =Tot P 8 - - 400- E0.4 = N03-N =NH-%.N 200 0.2- 01 0 A ft - 5/11 W 60 6127 9/17 5t1 1 617 6/21 6127 9/17 dat date - Le 0.75 100 _j 0.5 - aR So- a) MAI 60- E0.25- ENCU 40- =Zn E20 0 o 5/11 W 6M M7 9/17 5/11 W7 W1 6/27 9/17 date date site 3 tkm Brentwood Enter Fromost Center 'I Due K I [all nle@ endows Site 4 1000 800- 0.8- E 6DO - 0.6- E 0.4- 4DO - 200 0.2- L - 0 0 5111 W 6121 6/27 9/17 5/11 W 6121 6/27 9/17 date date 0.12 100 0.1 - aR so- 0.08- nA -60- _j 1 0 0.06 - ::Z u 40 C E 0.04- n E20- 0.02- MFC MEC 0_1 0 5/11 6t7 6121 6r27 9/17 5/11 W 6/21 6/27 9/17 date date data bars that reach top of graph indicate values higher than shown-see the data table for exact values 23 Site 5-Little River, Garrison Lane crossing, Exeter-sampled upstream side of bridge. This site was chosen to determine if the watershed above this point was impacted by nonpoint sources of pollution. Bacteria levels were variable but exceeded state standards at times. E. coli levels exceeded the state limit for a one-time sample on 5/11/95 (770cts/100mls) and were high on 6/27/95 (280ets/100m]). The geometric mean for all five sample dates was -within state limits (107cts/100m]). Total phosphorous levels ranged from .052-.096; more characteristic of agriculturally impacted waters than clean surface waters. All other parameters followed normal trends. Site 6-Epping Road, Exeter, Trucking station detention pond outflow-access from Allard St. This site was selected due to concerns about visible water quality changes in the stream receiving the discharge from the trucking station detention pond. The rust color precipitate in the water is characteristic of iron bacteria found naturally in many soils and waters. For further explanation of iron bacteria in surface waters see the DES Fact Sheet in appendix G. Iron bacteria are not a human health threat, but do present aesthetic problems. Other concerns at this site were high bacteria levels and TSS. These did not consistently relate to storm events. Bacteria violations occurred on two storm dates (6/7/95, E. coli 141 Octs/1 00 ml, 9/17/95 E. coli >2000 cts/1 00mls). Levels were also high on 6/27/95 (E. coli 1400 cts/ 100 ml). This date was dry but levels may be the result of rain that occurred on 6/25/95 (.6 inches of rain- measured in Durham). The detention pond is tied into the channelization of the stream that took place when the site upstream was developed. This would explain why flow is observed during dry weather. TSS levels were high, ranging from 27-72 mg/L Flow rates at this site are relatively low, so overall impacts of the discharge may not be significant. 24 1000 1 BOO - 0.8- E600. [;;F _j 0.6 - C -a 400 - E]C E 0.4 - 2DO 0.2- 0 0 5/11 W 6/21 6/27 9117 '5/11 67 W1 M7 9/17 Date Date 0.25 100 0.2- 80- 0.15 60- _j 0.1 -a) 40- 0.05 E 20 0 0 5111 617 6r2I 6Q7 9/17 5/11 69 6/21 6r27 9117 Date Date Site 5 Brestwood $$or ell Eam Und Site 6 1000 800- 0.8- E 600- 0.6 - 400- E 0.4 - 200 0.2- 0 0. 5/11 W 6/21 6/27 9/17 5/11 6r7 6r2i 6/27 9/17 Date Date 0.75- 100 _j 0.5 - nA 80- 'a :Z 0 60- MTSS E CU 40- M %org 0.25- n E 20 L L 0 5/11 6(7 6/21 6/27 9/17 5/11 617 6/21 6/27 9/17 Date Date data bars that reach top of graph indicate values higher than shown-see data table for exact values 25 Site 7- Storm drain outflow to the Exeter River, Long Block, Exeter. This site drains a number of catch basins from a down town section of Exeter. A storm sample within the first hour of the beginning of the storm was collected on 5/11/95. This sample had elevated levels of sediments, total phosphorous, and metals. A visible plume of sediments was evident on this date. Aluminum and zinc were above state standards for acute toxicity. For other sample dates, parameters concentrations were variable. Pollutants may be quickly delivered and flushed at this site. That would explain elevated levels when this "first flush" was captured on Subsequent samples were collected as at different storm stages. Bacteria levels were higher for storm events, especially after the last storm sample on 9/17/95. Site 8- Exeter River-sampled at end of Lary Lane, Exeter. This site is on the main branch of the Exeter River. Temperature, pH, DO, and conductivity followed normal trends at this site. DO levels were at 40 percent saturation for the 6/27/95 sample date. Again this may be a normal seasonal depression for the river under low flow conditions. The river is very slow moving at Lary Lane and water levels were low by the end of July. Total phosphorous levels were acceptable but on the high end of the range (.026-.04 mg/L). Bacteria levels were elevated on three sample dates but the'geometric mean fell below the limit at 114 cts/100mls. 26 1000 1 800- 0.8- E 600- MFC 0.6- 400- MM EC E 0.4- 200- 0.2 OLEM WA 0 5/11 6(7 6/21 6/27 9/17 5/11 6(7 6/21 6/Z7 9/17 Date Date 0.75 100 0.5 - =A[ 80- EEMCU 60 0 E 0.25- =Cd 40. =Zn E 20 0 0 5/11 W 6/21 6/27 9/17 5111 6(7 6QI 6127 9/17 Date Date Site Fremest Chem gall Kenallsts Site 8 1000 1 800- 0.8- E 600- 0.6- 400- E 0.4- MTOtp 200- CO N03-N 0.2 NH3-N 0 0 5/11 6/7 6121 6/27 9/17 5/11 W 6/21 6127 9/17 date date 0.15 100 so- 60- 0 E 40- 0.05- E 20- 0 0 5/11 6/7 6/21 6/27 9/17 5/11 6r7 6/21 6/27 9/17 date date data bars that reach top of graph indicate values higher than shown-see data table for exact values 27 Site 9-Storm drain outflow to the Exeter River from Linden St.-sampled at pipe, north side of river, bridge crossing near Sherwood Forest mobile home park. This sample was collected at a drain outlet discharging into the Exeter River. The drain collects runoff from Linden Street. Temperatures at this -site were lower than most other sites (10- 1 5.7C). Discharge was also collected on a dry date. This indicates the drain may be more than just stormwater runoff from the street. Nitrate levels were high, especially on 6/27/95 (2.14 mg/L). Total phosphorus was higher on the dates with greater rainfall (5/11/95 and 9/17/95). Bacteria levels were higher for storm samples. Site 10-Exeter River, bridge crossing at Route I I I and Powder Mill Road intersection-sarnpled downstream of bridge. This site was sampled due to concerns about erosion resulting from DOT road maintenance near the Exeter River. Sediment bars are present in the stream due to destabilization of the vegetation in the area. Parameters tested did not consistently show elevated levels as a result of the erosion, although bacteria levels were high after the larger rainfall event sampled on 9/17/95. Sediment bars in the stream degrade the stream habitat, can smother nesting areas for fish and other aquatic life, and if not stabilized may generate additional nonpoint sources of pollution. This site is clearly marked as a drinking water source. Road maintenance pr@@tices at the local and state level need to be improved in order to prevent strearnside erosion problems and subsequent introduction of nonpoint pollutants. Bacteria levels exceeded the state standard for a single sample after the rain event sampled on 9/17/95 (E. coli, 440 cts/ 100 m1s). 28 1000 1 &)o 0.8- E Tat P 0 600 0.6- N03-N CD tM =NH3-N 4W E 0.4- 200 0.2 - 0 01 5/11 617 6121 6t27 9/17 5111 6(7 6/21 6/27 9117 Date Date 1.2 100 I - aR 80- 0.8 - 60- 0)0.6- E 0.4 - 40- 0.2- E 20 0 0 5111 W 6/21 6/27 9/17 5M I W 6/21 6/27 9117 Date Date Site 9 Weir Fremont Brentwood Chostor I-- - II- --- i I-r@ Kboalts Ko 011or Site 10 1000 1 800- 0.8- E 600- FC 0.6- Tat P 8 i C ZN03-N zz 400- E E 0.4- =NH3-N ft 200- 0.2- 0 moso norm ML- 00 01 - R - - M 5/11 W 6/21 6127 9/17 5111 W 6al 6/27 9/17 Date Date 0.2 100 0.15- 80- Al 0 60- MMCU 0. 1 flE 40- 0.05- M E 2o- 0 0 5/11 617 6/21 6127 9117 5111 W 6/21 6127 9/17 lot fL Date Date 0 data bars that reach top of graph indicate values higher than shown-see the data table for exact values 29 Site 11-Great Brook, Kensington-sampled at Route 108 culvert, sampled upstream side of road. Bacteria and nutrient levels were elevated at this site. Bacteria levels were the highest of all the sites tested and exceeded state limits (E. coli , 400-9800 cW100ml). Total phosphorous and ammonia were in the range for urban or agriculturally impacted surface waters. Aluminum and copper were detected but at levels below the limit for acute toxicity. Site 12- Exeter River Impoundment at Brentwood/Fremont town line, Route 107-sampled upstream side of bridge. No evidence of NPS impacts were observed at this site. Temperatures were slightly elevated compared to other locations, but would be expected due to the impoundment. The impoundment may also reduce bacteria levels from upstream sources. Impoundments in other areas have reduced bacteria levels by slowing the water and allowing sediments and bacteria to settle out. 30 1000 1 800- 0.8- 600- MFC 0.6- 400 MEC E 0.4 200 0.2- Or J 5111 W 6/21 6127 9/17 6(7 6/21 6/27 9/17 Date Date 0.75 100 0.5 - OR SO- MTSS MA[ 060- %org E 0.25- GMCU 40- 0 E20 A Em EN J Offi 5111 W &21 W7 9/17 5/11 W7 6/21 6W 9/17 Date Date Site 11 Manor Enter Fremont Brentwood 00V Em Site 12 1000 1 800- 0.8- E 600- _j 0.6- 400- E 0.4- 200 - 0.21- 01 womm INI&M - __M 0 5M 1 6(7 6/21 6/27 5/11 6f7 6/21 6127 Date Date 0.75 100 80- _j 0.5 - 60 -a) All 0 E Fm --j 40 0.25- 0) E20 0- IIIII.__j 0 5/11 W 6/21 6127 5/11 W 6121 6/27 Date Date INNITot P EM N03-N data bars that reach top of graph indicate values higher than shown-see data table for exact values 31 Site 13-Exeter River, junction of Redbrook Road and Route I I I a, Fremont-sampled just downstream from Exeter River Campground. Parameters at this site were mostly indicative of clean surface waters. Bacteria levels on the first storm date were moderately high (E. coli, 180 cts/I 00 ml) but the geomean for both sample dates was below state standards (94 cts/100ml). On dry dates bacteria levels were well below state limits (E. coli, 30-40 cts/100ml). More storm samples during heavy storms may be required before concluding there is no storm related bacteria inputs to the river at this site. Site 14-Exeter River, downtown Fremont-sampled where Route 107. meets the river, south of downtown Fremont. Bacteria levels were somewhat elevated at this site for both storm samples and dry samples. E. coli ranged from 130 to 250 cts/100ml, with a geometric mean of 180 cts/100ml. This is slightly over the state limit 126 cts/ I 00ml. All other parameters were within acceptable ranges. 32 1000 1 800- 0.8- C) 600- =FC -j 0.6- 400- =EC 200- E0.4- 01 0.2-- 5/11 61177 6121 6/27 0 Date 5/11 W 6/21 6/27 Date 0.75 100 80-. _j 0.5 - Al 60- miss 0 tM voorg E 0.25 mZn J40- E20- 0- 5/11 6f7 6/21 6/27 5/11 6/7 6/21 6/27 Date I Date Site 13 Esser ot Meet Fro Kingdom Kingdom .Ko B $too slodows .................. .... Site 14 1000 1 800- 0.8- 600- F]C 0.6- EC M 400- E0.4- 200 0.2 0 L 0 5/11 6f7 6/21 6/27 5/11 6/7 6/21 6/27 Date Date 0.75 100 80- 0.5- 60- =TSS = %org E 40- 0.25 E20- 0 01 5/11 6f7 6/21 6127 5/11 6/7 6/21 6/27 Date Date 33 33 Site 15-Drainage swale, Raymond/Fremont town line-drainage swale leading from subdivision to Exeter River. There was no flow at this site on dry dates. A sample was taken from the Exeter River on 6/27/95 near the drainage swale outlet. Bacteria levels were variable. E. coli levels on 6/7/95 were above the state limit (580 cts/100ml])but flow on this day was almost insignificant. Bacteria levels for the river sample collected on 6/27/9 were lower (200 cts/ I 00ml) and below the state standard for a one time sample. Total phosphorus ranged from .032 to . 196 mg/L; slightly elevated compared to other clean water sites. All other parameters were within acceptable ranges. 34 Elevated bacteria levels were the most common water quality problem observed during the site- specific water quality sampling. Geometric means for E. coli and fecal coliform were calculated and graphed (figure 4). The objective was to see how sample sites compared on a relative scale. It should be noted these geometric means are for samples from dry weather and storm events. Also flow rates were not measured so loading rates could not be calculated. Data for rainfall conditions measured above the dam in downtown Exeter (site Ext9) are from the study conducted by Jackson Estuarine Laboratory (UNH) and included for a downstream value. Under rainfall conditions bacteria levels exceeded state standards at the tidal dam' (E. coli geomean--160 cts./100 mls, n=18 fecal coliform geomean--193 cts./100 mls, n--18). A number of sites sample for this study were above the State limit set for E. coli in class B waters. Two sites, ExW2 and ExW I I with very high E. coli levels may also have high loading rates and should be investigated further. As stated before, fecal coliform is not the state standard for freshwater but is the indicator for classifying shellfish waters. Measuring fecal coliform in freshwater identifies potential upstream bacteria sources that influence tidal waters. State bacteria limits are muchlower for shellfish standards (shellfishing is prohibited when fecal coliform. >88 cts./100 mls, mean of 30 samples)., Sites 2. and I I may be significant contributors of fecal coliform to tidal waters. Site 6 greatly exceeded state standards but flow is very low at this site therefore the overall contribution may be insignificant. Site 3 may be a concern for shellfish standards. Fecal -coliform levels were high and this site drains directly into the tidal portion of the Squarnscott River. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FOR SITE-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY SAMPLING W ........... .. . . ................. ...... ....... ....... . . ... ... ..................... ...... .......... ..................... ............... .......... .............. .... ..... ........ .............. . .. ............ .......... ... ....... ..... . A. W W 6, , " W." .... ... ..... WIVVP i:: .......... . . . . . ...... ... ... .. ............... .. .......... ......... .... .......... ... ... .. .. ......... y ... . ... . ................... ... ................ . ............. ........... ............ ............ .. ...... . .......... .......... . ........... .......... ............ .. ......... ...... ........ ....... M i A .1 ..... ....... .. ........... ..... ... ........ . .. . ....... Mod .... ..... 35 Figure 4: Geometric means for bacterial indicators for each sample site. 1400- 1200-- M 1000 E 0 800-- 600-- 0 a LJ 400-- 200 EAS-wl EM4 I EIM FVM UMO EIM2 ERW14 EW" BM EWA EhW7 EWA EM11 EWM3 I Sample sites State limit for class B waters, 126CW1 00 mls is noted. less than 4 samples were collected site 15 not included due to location changes-see site description 1000- 800-- E 600-- a E a 6 400-- 200-- M 0 Ejd91111t Bem ExW4 EWV6 EMS ExW1O EWV12 ExW14 E)W1 EWV3 EWV5 EAW EA" EWV11 EW13 sample sites geomean for bacterial indicators measured during rainfall conditions for 1993-1995 by JEL (Jones and Langan, 1995). 36 DISCUSSION AND RECONUVIENDATIONS Water quality data, both current and historic, indicate there are nonpoint pollution problems in the Exeter/Squamscott watershed. Sources in the -upper part of the watershed may not be greatly impacting coastal waters at this time, but could be a local concern and should be addressed so larger cumulative impacts do not develop in the fifture. In the lower part of the watershed a number of samples exceeded state water quality standards and may be contributing to nonpoint concerns in coastal waters. Ile major suspected sources of nonpoint pollution for the State are stormwater runoff from urban areas and impervious surfaces, septic systems, shoreline development, and agricultural runoff (OSP and DES, 1995). The Steering Committee developed a list of concerns that included the above categories as well as gravel operations, poor road maintenance practices, landfills and land spreading operations. Site specific sampling conducted did not include gravel operations, landfills or land spreading operations. Site specific sampling did provide evidence that sources of nonpoint pollution in the watershed are the result of stormwater runoff and possibly runoff from agricultural areas and septic systems. A number of local land use regulations are in place to address these potential sources of nonpoint pollution. Still, coverage is incomplete in the watershed, required maintenance and inspection programs are not carried out on a regular basis, and some sources may not be covered by the regulations due to grandfathered sites or size limits. These gaps need to be addressed in order to provide maximum protection from nonpoint pollution in the watershed. All of these results were discussed with the Steering Committee and the following recommendations were suggested. Education People may be familiar with nonpoint issues but it is important to make sure they know it is a local concern and local actions can be important for its control. Activities to consider: The NHCP should distribute final reports to towns in the watershed and schedule an informatio 'nal session to discuss report findings and recommendations with local land use boards. Ideally this should happen during regularly scheduled board meetings. The NHCP should work with the NFIDES Nonpoint Program to fin-ther investigate sources and provide technical assistance to resolve problems. RCCD and RPC should develop a NPS lecture for the ongoing natural resource lecture series they sponsor. Towns should be made aware of the stormwater demonstration site at the RCCD in Brentwood, 37 and attend training workshops for local officials. Contact RCCD for information, 679-2790. Develop fact sheets about nonpoint pollution, or use existing materials, for distribution through mailings or as part of established newsletters. I=rove local regulations and i=lementation. Activities to consider: Local boards should plan a work session to assess local regulations and review implementation practices. Towns should budget and plan for regular maintenance activities, for example cleaning catch basins, street sweeping, and maintenance of vegetated buffer strips. Towns needing assistance with adopting model ordinances or updating regulations should contact the Rockingham Planning Commission. Future monitoring and manag-emgnt NHDES should review sampling results and determine if further sampling should be incorporated into state monitoring programs. Towns may consider establishing a water quality monitoring program to track water quality. NHDES can provide assistance to establish a program. (see appendix F for project budget). The final report should be presented to the committee nominated to work on the Exeter River Management Plan as part of the State Rivers Management and Protection Program. 38 REFERENCES Goldman, C. R. and A. J. Home. 1983. Limnology. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York. Homer, R., J. Skupien, E. Livingston and E. Shaver. 1994. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management. Terrene Institute, Washington, D. C. Jones, S. H. and R. Langan. 1995. Assessment of Nonpoint Source Pollution in Tributaries Entering Great Bay. A final report to NH Coastal Program, OSP. Jones, S. H. and R. Langan. 1995. Strategies for Assessing Nonpoint Source Pollution Impacts on Coastal Watersheds. A final report to NH Coastal Program, OSP. Lind, 0. T. 1985. Handbook of Common Methods in Limnology. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Dubuque, Iowa. NHDES, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division. 1994. 1993 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Report. NHDES-WSPCD-94-5. NHDES. 1994. Best Management Practices to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution. NHDES- WSPCD-94-2. NHDES. 1994. State of New Hampshire 1994 Section 305(b) Water Quality Report. NHDES- WSPCD-94-7. NHDES. 1992. Squarnscott River Sanitary Survey. NHDES-WSPCD-92-1 0. NHDES. 1994. Lamprey River Nonpoint Source Assessment. NHDES-WSPCD-94-8. NHDES. 1992. Clean Water Strategy for Rivers and Streams. NHDES-WSPCD-92-14. OSP- 1 993-Land use/Land cover Maps. OSP. 1992.. Local Land Use Management Techniques for Water Resource Protection and Geographic Inventory Procedures. OSP-N.H. Coastal Program and N.H. Department of Environmental Services. 1995. New Hampshire Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, Volumes I and 2. Rockingham Planning Commission. 1993. Pollution Source Identification, RPC Region, Phase Rockingham Planning Commission. 1992. Pollution Source Identification, RPC Region, Phase 1. 39 Rockingham Planning Commission. 1993. Regional Master Plan. Rockingham Planning Commission. 1991. Regional Facts. Rockingham County Conservation District. 1991. Model Subdivision Regulations for Soil- Based Lot Size, Ad Hoc Committee for Soil-based Lot Size Regulations. Schueler, T. R. 1991. Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Urbanization on Streams: A Comprehensive Strategy for Local Government. Metropolitan Washington Council for Governments. Short, F.T. 1992. (ed.) The Ecology of the Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire and Maine: An Estuarine Profile and Bibliography. NOAA-Coastal Ocean Program Publication. Spang, J. (editor). 1988. River Watch, A Handbook for Monitoring Water Quality. Lamprey River Watershed Association. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urb an Runoff Program. NTIS PB84-18552. Washington, D.C. Appendix A Exeter-Squamscott Watershed Project, Checklist for evaluation of municipal ordinances & regulations, as of 4195 Please note: A "Y" indicates a town has some type of regulation for the listed category. For categories where state regulations may apply, the summary matrix will be blank unless a town has referenced these state regulations or adopted a local regulation. Abbreviations used: Aq.PD-aquifer protection district SDR-subdivision regulations BMP-best managment practices SPA-shoreland protection act ESC- erosion and sediment control SPD-shoreland protection district HO-health officer SPR-slte plan review RCCD-Rockingham County Conservation District TSS4otal suspended solids Zoning Exeter Brentw. Kingston E.King. Fremont Newfields Kensingt. Raymond Sandow Stratha Danville Chester n m lot sizes 5,OWsq. fU- soil 80,000 2-3ac. 2ac. 2-3ac I ac. min 20,000- resident. SDR 2ac. .5-2ac. 2ac. based- scift less in & soil 87,120sq. .-min soil min. 3 ac. in sewer distr. W/ AqPD based ft. 40,000 based or septic SDR soil soil based based impervious limits 10-75% 20-40% 65% 30% 25%+ 60% 50% 20-40% 15% Industria Commerc open Commer I in zone industrial PRCD industria zones I zones building setbacks Y-SDR 50'+ 50775' wetlands 75' 50'from surface water, wetlands 50' type A/B SPA wetlands water, wetlands hydric soil Floodpl. very& Poorly SPD 150, drained 1001-150, conserv. Solis district agriculture regulated Y-SPA Y_ Y general erosion4seftoil consv., run-off cite wetian requir. contrWhigint, nutrients, RCCD d pesticides, grazing, State BMP Manual ta d? district Gravel Excavation erosion and sediment controls Y Y Y Y Y Y Y cfte155E aquifer restric. exposure limit/phasing excav. Y(4) Y Y Y Y(7) Y Y limit in excav.- requirements by aquif. spec. special zone except. exception I (lets155-12) reclamation requirements Y Y(5) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Chet. 55-E equipm. maintenance restricted Y Y permit time limit r. Y Septic Systems - Zoning and Health Ordinance/Regulation Exeter Bren-tw. VJngston E.I(Ing. Fremont Newfields Kensingt. Raymond Sandown Stratham Danville Chester setbacks > 75 ft. cite state 2W public stds. water from wetlands(l 2) 757 76/ 100, 76 1 W 757 75' Y(10) 76 @S 59 51Y W from surface water 15a/ 75' 1 W I W I W 75! 75-100' I W distance above seasonal high water Z table DR SDR 7 Z Z In Aq. Z W cite Z Z Z protec. state std. I S review of Design & co nstruction con.corn. Y Y HO Y HO Y-build. applications plan.board reviews reviews insp. inspection of new systems Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y-HO Y Y Y-HO Y annual inspection operating guidelines Y inspection, upgrade required for Y-for Y-for Y Y Y upgrade Y Y Y Y Y expansion, conversion expansion condo for convers exspans. Slope restrictions >/= 25% 20% SDR >20% 15% limit 15% 15% limit limit sent Isludoe reauaft'ons Y @, -Yr- Site Plan Review Regulations Exeter Brentw. lQngst. E.I<jn Fremont Newfields Kensing. Raymond- Sandown Stratharn Danville Chester minimize disturbance Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y avoid development of sensitive areas preserve riparian areas site roads etc. to preserve natural drainage features limitI,m limit IaTdi Mrsli rnc@, cut& fi/I erosion/sedeiment oontrol(ESC) I.ESC plans required pre- construction? 1.Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2 what size areas?(13) ioulside review agency? 2.OK OK @2unft OK all OK 4.performance sid. (8VI. TSS) 3. Y Y Y Y Y 5.design sids 4.Y(I) Y(I) Y(I) Y(1) Y(I) Y(I) 6.guidance manual(I 4) 5. Y Y 6.RCCD RCCD RCCD I RCCD RCCD RCCD RCCD RCCd RCCD permanent stormwater treatment cite cite shall 1 -performance stds (8001. TSS, pre-dev? I.Y(1) Y-no Y(I) RCCD Y(I) RCCD Y4ist Y(I) meet runoff rates) 2.design sids 2.Y specific stds.& requir. 3.guidance manual 3.Y(2) WS Y(2) cite DOT meet in SDR SDR additional studlesmay be requir. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y chemical control Y Subdivision Regulations minimize disturbance Y y-for Y y4n Ii Y rev. Y Y Y Y Y avoid devielopment of sensitive areas road wetland by preserve riparian areas site roads etc. to preserve natural desg. district consery. drainage features comm. limit impervious area, limit land disturbance@ cut & fill erosion & sediment control may requir. cite gen I ESC plans required pre- 1.Y Y require if SPIR Y Y Y Y Y-2 or ref consbruction? 2.OK OK review Plan. discr. OK more lots 2-what size areas?(13) Ioulside review agency? 3. Y 2+lots by board all all of PB Y(priv. 4-performance sid. (800A TSS) 4. Plan. board RCCD determ. eng.) Conser. 5.design sids, 5.Y comm. necs. Y Y flauidance manual 6.RCCD I RCCD I inosect I RCCD I DOT I RCCD I RCCD I RCCD @En Y Subdivison regulations(cont.) Exeter Brentw. Kingston E. KJng. Fremont Newfields Kensing. Raymond Sandown Stratham Danville Chester permanent stormwater treatment road perfbrmance s1ds (801. TSS, pre-dev? Y(1) cite YM Y(I) Y(1) Y(1) req. runoff rates) design sids Y street no guidance manual Y requir. guid. Y(8) DOT Y rnaW -runs with deed_ Y Y manual Y additional studies Y Y Y Y Y performance bonds Y Y Y Y Y I Y 1-Y I Y Y Y Riparian/Shoreland Areas shorelands protected: 3007 3007 3007 15U/ 159/ 75/50* 1W/ depth of shoreland 1 W 150' 159 100, 100* 100 (depends on body of water- maior tribs. vs perennial stream) salt storage, junk yards, solid Y Y Y Y y Y waste prohibited land alteration requires Erosion y Y Uediment control s septic setbacks > 76 15U 159 76/5(Y 100, 100, setback for primary structures 15(r ISO, 150' no FEMA I W 1 W 1 W primary requir. building allowed vegetated buffer- depth 75! 76 76 76 76 59 5(y 50% tree cutting limit 30% 30% 50% 50% 60% I /I OYM 1 /1 Oyrs 20yrs 1/20yrs 1/20yrs 25% an slope >15% impervious limits 20% 20% 20% non-sewered lot size 2acres $oil - v I . based agriculture exemption requires Y Y Y Y BMP's RCCD T Wetland Protection Exeter Brentw. Kingston E.KJng. Fremont Newfields Kensing. Raymond Sandown Stratharn Danville Chester septic setbacks(I 2) 75' 75' 109 plan. I W 76 75' 76 76 76 75! W. discr. board 517 (9) W poorty Hoff. may or very requir. poorly drained soils buffer protection/building I W I W plan. 76 5V SDR- 76 setback(I 2) 50' discrect. board 517 may of Plan. May reqW board requ. Roads, Parking it deicing chemicals Aquifer maint. of stamwater structures zone Lots lim Aquifer/Groundwater Protection rlay district Y Y Y Y Y Y Y impervious limits 10% 20%R 20% 10% 25% 50% 20% 35%1 35% 0 1)) land use restrictions Y Y Y Y Y Y Y larger lots Y Y Y Y Y(3) Y may 3ac 3ac 3ac 3ac 3ac require 2if soil- sewer disbict based lot Hazardous Materials Y restricted prohib. in Aquifer in aquifer Aquifer storage regulated Y Y Y general zone Y zone US'rs regulated Y Y household hazmat Y Y Miscellaneous pooper scooper law Y turf management - cluster development Y Y Y Y(6) Y Y Y Marinas Exeter Brentw. Kingst. E.Kjn-q. Fremont Newfields Kensingt. Raymond Sandown Stratharn Danville Chester siting restricted Y requires special except. permit- conserv. distr. design review authority broad or limited sewage pumpouts or sanitary Y facilities req'd hazardous material iegulated [-waste disposal (l)-pre-post development requirement does not include 80% TSS reduction-require measures to control sediments (2)-quidance manual for stormwater-USDA-SCS Guide for calculating drainage (3)-larger lots may be required, decided on a case by case basis (4)-in phased manner to minimize erosion-no specifies listed (5)-meet minimum requirements of 155-E (6)-requirements for setbacks from poorly drained and v. poorly drained soils of W/I W (7)4imits slope,debris removal required (8)-design standards- NH Dept. of Public Works (9)-buffer from soils type 5 or 6 (ID by HI map) (10)-2 sets of setbacks- SDRAW/59 type A/B hydric soils, Welland Conservation District 76/50' (I I)-exception if submit stormwater plan (1 2)-if two setbacks listed-relates to type A/B hydric soils (I 3)-OK for "what size area7' means they regulate for disturbances of >20,000 sq. ft. (I 4)-RCCD Indicates they reference the Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control handbook for Urban and Developing Areas in NH 6 UNIVERSITYOF NEW HAMPSHIRE COOPE RATIV E //EXTENSION Septic Systems How They Work & How To Keep Them Working Lake Sunapee Protective Association SECOND EDITION Distributed by: University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension THE NORTH COUNTRY Granite State Designers & Installers Lake Sunapee Protective Association Resource Conservation and New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program Development Area The North Country Resource Conservation and Development Area Printed on Recycled Paper 8/91/1M T 0 GET YOUR TANK PUMPED contents See the Yellow Pages under: Septic Tank and Ststems - Cleaning Page Introduction 1 INSPECTION Household Sewage 2 PUMPING SCHEDULE 3 The Septic System 3 AND RECORD The Septic Tank 4 The Leaching System 5 Finding Your Septic System 6 Date Installed Installer Septic Tank Mapping 7 Septic System Maintenance 8 Dates of lnspection/cleanout By Whom: Septic Tank Pumping 10 Preventing System Failure 10 Septic System Failure 13 If Repairs Are Needed 15 Glossary 16 Who to CAll 16 Inspection, Pumping Schedule & Record 17 A special thanks to Nancy Browne and Russ Lanoie for their expertise and help with this brochure. This booklet is a joint effort of UNH Cooperative Extension, "Helping You Put Knowledge and Research To Work," UNH Cooperative Extension is an equal opportunity educator and employer Pettee Hall Durham, N.H., 03824, and University of New Hampshire U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and Granite State Designers and Installers, Box 1567. Concord, NJ 03301 17 New Hampshire counties cooperating. Gioss'ary 19troduction A new residential septic system can cost anywhere from $3,000 to more than Effluent: Liquid which flows out of the septic tank and into the leaching system. $20,000* to install. If it is not taken care of itwill become clogged and will High Groundwater Table: A condition in which the natural soil water is at or overflow on the ground or cause wastewater to backup into the house. Rebuilding near the surface of the ground due to wet weather or the natural lay of the land. the systein to put it back into operation may cost several thousand dollars and create a tremendous nuisance. Percolate: To seep through the soil and disperse into the ground. System failure is cheaper and easier to prevent than it is to correct. By keMm@ Sewage: The liquid wastewater discharged through the soil pipe of a household harmful. materials out. of the system. and L)y having the set@tic tank pumMd out which contains "black watee, from the toilet and "grey watee, from sinks, showers, regglarl (at leasi every three years), homeowners can help protect their system against premature failure. The $75-4150* cost of having thelank pumped is wise baths, and washing machines. insurance to protect a substantial investment. Sludge: Solids that accumulate after bacterial action.has ceased. Accumulation is This booklet outlines the principles of septi c system operation and explains the normal and must be removed periodically maintenance procedures necessary to lengthen the life of a system. If properly operated and maintained, the septic system can provide many years of trouble-ftee Scumt Floating material that also accumulates normally, requiring periodic service. If neglected, however, the septic system is likely to fail, leaving the home- removal for proper maintenance of the system. owner with unsanitary back-ups, over-flows and expensive repairs. Many homeowners have been under the misconception that once a septic system is installed it will work forever without maintenance. This is not so. WHO TO CALL *1989 costs LOCAL: Your health officer, building inspector or selectman. COUNTY: UNH Cooperative Extension or USDA Soil Conservation Service STATE: Department of Environmental Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division, 6 Hazen Drive, Box 95, Concord, N.H. 03301 Phone: 271-3503 For the name of a septic system designer or installer who may be able to help you with a specific problem or question contact: GRANITE STATE DESIGNERS &INSTALLERS, Box 1567, Concord, N.H. 03301 Pho.ne:224-9929 Thispublication is based upon work supported by U.SD.A. Extension A 'complete copy of the rules governing septic systems in New Hampshire is Service under project #90-EWQI-1-9257. available for $5 from the Department of Environmental Services, Box 95, Concord, N.A. 03301. Ask for the "Blue Book". 16 Household Sewage ROOTS The roots of trees and bushes, as shown below Household sewage is a combination of wastewater from several sources, or near tanks can sometimes enter and block pipes. including sinks, toilets, showers, washing machines, and dishwashers. As shown below, the largest source of household sewage is the toilet. The actual quantity and composition of household sewage may vary depending upon the number of residents and water-using appliances within the home. Organic matter comes mostly from toilets, while sinks, showers and washing machines contribute large amounts of wastewater containing only small amounts of soap and dirt (including grease, detergents, lint and vegetable matter). If Reparis are Needed If, through neglect, overuse or misuse, or simply old age, the leaching area becomes clogged to the point a new leaching area must be installed: 1. Don't automatically dig up the existing leaching system unless there's no room to install a new system or expand the present one. A clogged leaching system will often recover, given sufficient time. 2. Check with the town health officer, building inspector or selectmen to deter- mine if local codes are more strict than the state's. New Hampshire allows failed systems for private residences to be repaired "in kind" without submision to the Water Supply and Pollution Control Division in certain instances. Since replace- ment requires destroying part of a system that may be able to recover, it may be wise to submit a plan to the state for the addition of new leaching area. This may be made by the homeowner, but with the complex nature of today's regulations it might be best to seek the help of a licensed designer familiar with the process. 3. If there's enough room and regulations permit, install a new leaching system with an alternating valve which allows you to switch back and forth between leaching areas. Let the old system. dry out at least a year, then alternate between systems yearly and have the septic tank cleaned regularly. 4. All work must be done either by the homeowner of by a state licensed installer. 2 15 HIGH WATER TABLE The Septic System During wet seasons, the ground water table rises. If the water table rises into the leaching system, sewage may be forced up toward the ground surface as shown by vertical arrows in the illustration below. This problem is the result of improper leaching system siting. -a U Although it may be possible to install drains to lower the ground water level, VeInt 0 ct> % J,,@ generally this problem can only be corrected by relocating the leaching system to a IV, W. as, "Pu site where at least four feet of soil exist between the bottom of the trench and the maximum high water table as is required by N.H. regulations. IMP me INN Wastr, water RckAte High Water Table' .,I Aop cleertoul:C@ve@ 7@. Le ach Fie)d 5cl[ 5torI12 Septic Ta!.@ waier Ta I:Ti i?, Norrne a' i W L e Ta I e e SOIL CLOGGING The septic system is a two-part sewage treatment and disposal system buried in the ground, composed of a septic tank and a leaching system. The sewage If sludge or scum from the septic tank overflows into the leachingcarea, the soil generally flows by gravity; first into the septic tank where the larger particles are removed and some decomposition takes place and, then, into the leaching system will, quickly become clogged with organic matter. This situation can often be where it soaks into the ground. corrected by allowing the system to rest for 6-12 months. This may mean a new leaching system must be installed. The chance of this problem occurring can be NOTE: Older homes and seasonal dwellings often had only a single stone, block, significantly reduced by inspecting the septic tank at least every three years and pumping out its contents ifneeded. or wood lined pit similar to the dry well shown on the bottom of page 5. AJU wastes entered this pit and untreated wastewater was absorbed into the soil through the If the soil in the leaching area is continuously flooded or wet, due either to a waUs and bottom of the pit. These early systems were called CESSPOOLS, and, although they are no longer installed, many remain in use today. high water table or excessive sewage flows, mineral deposits, which clog the soil, tend to form. Such soid clogging can often be corrected by allowing the leaching area to dry out and rest 6-12 months. Reducing the volume of sewage flowing from the home can help prevent this type of failure. Water use in the home can be greatly reduced by using the methods mentioned on page 12. 14 3 The Septic Tank PROTECTING LEACHING SYSTEM Untreated household sewage will quickly clog all but the most porous gravel The leaching system is a delicate structure. if applied directly to the soil. The function of the septic tank is to condition the sewage so that it can percolate into the ground without clogging the soil. Within DO DON'T the tank, illustrated below, three important processes take place: 1. The heavier, solid particles in the sewage settle to the bottom of the tank DO insist on proper location and DON'T install a poorly thought out forming a layer of sludge. Lighter materials, including fat and grease, float to the construction of a new leaching system (see "Who To Call"). surface forming a scum layer. system. DO keep deep rooted trees and DON'T allow vehicles to travel over bushes away from the leaching system. syst em. -Vehicles can compact the soil, crush pipes and break the septic tank and, thus, result in costly repairs. ly nlet Septic System Failure ean-out Manholes A, Out let c, U M from SYMPTOMS OF SYSTEM FAILURE to halAse leach Septic systems generally give little warning that they are about to fail. How- *-Baf f I e ever, the following symptoms often indicate that the leaching system is becoming .w. clogged: Wa3te watcr 1. Sewage odor near the septic tank or leaching area. 2. Slowly running drains and toilets. 3. Sewage on the ground over the leaching area. . . . . . . . . . . S I U68e C). If any of these symptoms develop, inspect the tank to see if it needs pumping. If for some reason the effluent from the leaching system cannot soak into the 0 soil, sewage may back up in the system and overflow onto the surface of the )I ground. There are three major causes of this problem. 2. Bacteria living in the septic tank break down some of the organic solids into liquid components, helping to reduce the build-up of sludge in the tank. 3. Sludge and scum are stored within the septic tank rather than being allowed to flow out into the leaching system where they would quickly clog the soil. 4 13 REDUCING WATER USE Leaching System Be conservative with your use of water. After being conditioned in the septic tank, the effluent flows into the leaching system where it runs out through perforations into * graded or crushed stone and DO DON'T into the surrounding soil. The leaching system usually consists of either a network of perforated pipes laid in graded, stone-filled trenches or leach beds, as in the first DO use water reducing fixtures on DON'T flush the toilet unnecessar- sinks, toilets, showers. ily. Perforated Pipe DO dump cleaning water outside DON'T overfill your bathtub. instead of in the toilet. DON'T empty roof drains, basement DO load your washing machine sumps or foundation curtain drains into the septic system. completely before use. DO fix leaky faucets and toilets promptly. soil I DO place plastic baffles in your toilet tank. St DO limit shower time. DO take larger, back-to-school or after-vacation laundry loads to the illustration, or of a loosely stacked concrete block, stone, brick, precastconcrete or laundromat. even a wooden dry well often surrounded with crushed stone similar to that shown below, or a configuration of chambers, either plastic or concrete. Their function remains to discharge wastewater back into the. soil. -VA M KEEPING THE SYSTEM'S BACTERIA WORKING ,Remember your septic tank and leaching system are full of living organisms that make the system work. DO use, caution in what goes dow n drain. ::,5ol DON'T put pesticides, disinfectants, acids, medicines, paint, paint thinner, or other materials which cantill bacteria in the septic system. Starle, 12 5 0 Finding Your Septic REDUCING SLUDGE System BUILD-UP In order to take proper care of a septic system, the homeowner must know I Keep all solid materials possible out of your sewage. where it is located If the access holes are at ground level, there is no problem. Un- fortunately, they am often buried somewhere under the lawn. To locate the tank, DO DON'T go into the basement and find where, and in what direction, the sewer pipe goes out through the basement wall. Check the lawn in that area for places where the grass looks different or for DO have your tank inspected every DON'T wait for signs of failure. three years. areas that are slightly depressed or mounded. In the winter, look for an area in the lawn where the snow melts or where there is a depression in the snow. In the DO keep a schedule and record of DON'T use a garbage grinder. spring, the snow may meh first over the septic tank and leaching system. Any past and future inspections and likely spot can be probed with a thin metal rod. pumping (see Inspection and Pumping Schedule and Record). DON'T put automotive oil, cooking If this doesn't work, ask someone who may have seen the tank installed or DO have your tank pumped as oil, or grease in the septic system. pumped - a neighbor, the builder, or the previous owner. When purchasing a home, needed. a sketch showing tank and leaching system location should be requested from the realtor or previous owner. DO compost garbage or put it in the DON'T empty large quantities of trash. water from items such as hot tubs or For recently installed or repaired systems (if your town has adopted local whirlpools, particulary if they are health regulations covering septic tank leaching system installation), the town DO keep a can for grease near the chlorinated. clerk, selectmen, or health officer should have a plan that shows the location of the stove. system and access holes. If you have purchased property with a septic system built after Aug. 30, 1977, the seller must transfer a copy of approved plans and specifications to the buyer. The buyer must transfer this at next sale. Waste from garbage grinders will not only fill your septic tank rapidly and If all else fails, turn the problem over to your local septic tank pumper. Once require more hequent pumping, but will also float and increase the scum blanket you find your septic system, be sure to make a map. You may also want to have the thickness. This can eventually spill into the effluent pipe and clog the leaching hole extended up to just below ground level, and marked permanently with a stake system. It is now recommended that the septic tank be 50 percent larger if a or other object. garbage disposal is used. Electronic devices are also available to help you find a lost system. 0 6 Septic Tank Septic Ta.nk Mapping Pumping SAMPLE Do not wait until your system shows signs of failure to have your septic tank pumped out. Waiting can mean complete clogging and an expensive repair bill. 1. Below, make a rough sketch of your house, the septic tank cover, leaching Call a pumper to inspect the system AT LEAST ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS system and other permanent reference points like trees or rocks. and pump if needed. For a fist of operators in your community, consult the yellow pages under "Septic Tanks and Systems - Cleaning". If the access holes are at , 2. Measure and record distances to the cover of your septic tank and to the comer ground level or are clearly marked or mapped, the job should be quick and simple. of your leaching system. As long as the distances are correct, do not be concerned about whether or not your drawing is to scale. While your tank is being pumped, ask the operator to exatnine the inlet and MAP YOUR OWN SEPTIC TANK ON TIUS PAGE. outlet baffles or tees. If either is broken, have repairs done immediately. The inlet should also be checked to see if wastewater is continuously flowing into the tank- from previously undetected plumbing leaks. It is not necessary to leave any of the sludge in the tank as "seed." Incoming sewage contains all the bacteria needed for -proper operation. Acids or bleaches should not be used to clean the tank. The use of enzymes or other "miracle" septic system additives has not been shown to be of anyvalue. While their use may not harm your system, they do not take the place of regular pumping. -Preventing System Failure To help protect a septic system against premature failure, the homeowner can follow a few simple procedures for (1) reducing sludge build-up, (2) reducing water usage, (3) keeping the system's bacteria working, and (4) protecting the leaching system. 0 10 0 7 0 Septic System Maintenance PERIODIC INSPECTION Most septic systems are poorly maintained as they are out of sight and, f Periodic inspection and cleaning of a septic tank will prevent unnecessary therefore, out of mind Solids separated from liquids in septic tanks, are reduced in expense and inconvenience. A septic tank should be inspected every 2 to 4 years volume approximately 50 percent. Remaining solids must periodically be removed, The need for cleaning varies according to use. Garbage disposals, as an example, (more often if there is a garbage grinder) but the frequency of cleaning depends increase accumulation of solids significantly. Failure of systems isdue to poor primarily on the size of the tank and the use it is given. Some tanks require design, installation and maintenance or combination of these. cleaning every 3 or 4 years; others will operate satisfactorily for a much longer period. SEPTIC SYSTEM TROUBLES . Clogging of the absorption field is the most common trouble with septic tank Neglecting to inspect and clean the septic tank is a frequent cause of failure of systems. This may be due to improper use or neglect of necessary servicing. A tank a disposal system. that is too small, overloaded or improperly proportioned, or that agitates or short- circuits the sewage flow is likely to allow excessive amounts of small sewage When the tank is not cleaned at appropriate intervals, solids will build up to particles to carry over to the absorption area where they clog the pores of the soil. such a high level that they will be carried from the tank to the leaching system. Neglect of cleaning produces the same effect. If the absorption area is in an unsuitable soil or is too small, overloaded, or poorly constructed, the small amount Eventually, the sewage solids will clog the soil openings or pores thus of sewage particles normally in the effluent may lead to early clogging of the soil blocking the flow of liquid into the soil. When this happens, the leaching system pores. will be ineffective and may have to be rebuilt. A septic tank has three distinct layers of material: a top layer of scum, a liquid layer in the middle and a bottom layer of sludge. A septic tank is supposed to be full of water, but not Full of scum and solids. A septic tank cleaning schedule is based on the thickness of these 3 layers. A tank should be cleaned when the bottom of.the scum is within 3 to 4 inches of the lower end of the inlet baffle or the outlet device or when the depth of the sludge is equal to or more than one-thiid of the existing liquid depth. Another way to determine when a tank needs to be cleaned is when the total depth of the scum and the sludge reaches one-third of the liquid depth of the tank. Either method may be used. The first is probably better in that the layers are treated individually. Septic tanks are ordinarily pumped out by contractors who are approved by a :1 health department for cleaning tanks and disposing of the contents. The material removed from the tank must be disposed of by a method approved by, local and state government 8 9 U1 11 1995 A GUIDE TO CONTROLLING NONPOINT POLLUTION THROUGH MUNICIPAL PROGRAMS INTRODUCTION increase following storm events - especially nutri- onpoint source pollution is water pollu- ents and suspended solids. Ammonia increased dra- matically during storms (as compared to dry tion that comes from diffuse sources and weather) sampled by the Department of Environ- Nis carried to surface water by rainfall, mental Services and the Coastal Program in 1994. snowmelt, or groundwater movement. The New Bacterial contamination, the chief cause of shellfish Hampshire Coastal Program is developing a Coastal bed closures, also dramatically increases following Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP) to precipitation events. Nonpoint sources are believed enhance state and local efforts to manage land use to be the principal origin of thos@ypollutants. activities that may contribute to nonpoint source In New Hampshire, municipalities have pollution. As part of the program, this technical the authority to enact local land use con- bulletin was developed for municipal officials and trols and therefore play a key role In pre- other citizens interested in preventing nonpoint venting nonpoint pollution. State and federal source pollution. agencies have a number of programs in place to This is a companion guide to a booklet published address various aspects of nonpoint pollution. How- by the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, ever, potential nonpoint sources are too numerous Best Management Practices to Control Nonpoint for these agencies to monitor statewide. Source Pollution: A Guide for Citizens and Town Officials (1994). While the DES Guide describes the Comprehensive planning Is the first step. causes of nonpoint pollution and what can be done An up-to-date Master Plan, including a Local Water to prevent it, this Technical Bulletin focuses on non- Resources Management and Protection Plan, should point sources of special concern to coastal waters. provide the basis for land use ordinances and regu- It further provides guidance on improving the effec- lations. If a review of ordinances and regulations tiveness of local ordinances and regulations and indicates the need for an update, the proposed other municipal programs. amendments should be supported by scientific and technical documentation clearly articulated in the Use of the information in this Technical Bulletin municipal Master Plan. need not be limited to coastal communities. Many of the recommendations apply equally to inland This Technical Bulletin covers five categories of freshwater lakes and streams. nonpoint pollution: stormwater runoff, subsurface Water quality monitoring studies show wastewater disposal systems, road maintenance that nonpoint sources are a significant and construction, agricultural activities, and mari- problem in N.H. coastal waters and tribu- n.as and boatyards. This Technical Bulletin is de- taries. Indicators of pollution in surface waters signed for use as a checklist to identify where gaps in local regulatory efforts can be improved. Prior to NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING (603) 271-2155 2-112 BEACON STREET, CONCORD NH 6301 2 local adoption of amendments to address nonpoint e Establishment of an overlay district which in- pollution, consult with your town planner, regional cludes lands within 250 feet of public waters planning commission, or the N.H. Office of State (be sure to clearly define where the high water Planning, and refer to the DES Guide for more line is to be drawn). information. Always have any proposal for local * Prohibition of certain uses, and restrictions on land use controls reviewed by Town Counsel prior other uses, in the protected shoreland (see to adoption. RSA 483-B or OSP's model ordinance). * Minimum standards for new septic systems: STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM DEVELOPED DES approval of new lots, lot size determined by soil type (see Model Subdivision Regula- AND DISTURBED AREAS tions), and increased setbacks for septic sys- T his is a major category of nonpoint pollu- tems in sensitive shoreland areas. tion in N.H. coastal waters. Storm runoff Temporary and permanent stormwater man- from disturbed areas carries sediment and agement controls for all development activi- associated nutrients. Runoff from paved areas often ties in the protected shoreland (refer to the carries bacteria, sediment, heavy metals, and other Stormwater Handbook cited in the next sec- pollutants. The Department of Environmental Serv- tion). ices' Alteration of Terrain (Site Specific) program Protection of a natural vegetated buffer within regulates site development where at least 100,000 150 feet of the high water line. square feet (50,000 square feet in the protected Minimum shoreland frontage of 150 feet for shoreland area) of land is disturbed. However, lots with on-site water and septic systems. many smaller sites can contribute to nonpoint pol- Building setbacks from surface waters of 50 lution as well. DES also regulates activities in the feet or more for primary structures. protected shoreland adjacent to public waters Limit of 20 percent impervious area for each (where municipalities have not adopted ordinances lot. that have been certified by OSP as being at least as Performance or design standards for water-de- stringent as the Comprehensive Shoreland Protec- pendent uses such as marinas. tion Act). However, only streams of the fourth order Performance or design standards for cluster or higher are covered by the program (See the DES developments in the protected shoreland. Fact Sheet on this program for more information). Performance or design standards for water- In both cases, cities and towns can help fill in the,. front parcels used for shared access to the gaps. Model ordinances and regulations are avail- water. able from the Office of State Planning and your Limits on impervious area, particularly over regional planning commission. If your municipality aquifer recharge areas and near surface wa- already has some controls in place, check to see if ters. they achieve the following: Water Resources Protection Zoning Subdivision Regulations and Site Plan Review Regulations The Office of State Planning supports an integrated Subdivision regulations apply to the subdivision of approach to planning and zoning for management land, while site plan review regulations apply to non- and protection of critical water resources, including residential and multi-family development. Both types shorelandsfloodplains, aquifers, wetlands, and well- of regulations should providefor proper treatment of head areas. The following provisions could be part of stormwater runoff. a water resources protection district, or they could be implemented as general provisions in a zoning ordi- * Require temporary and permanent erosion nance. Some of these provisions are included in the and sedimentation control (stormwater man- Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (RSA 483- agement) plans and ongoing maintenance B); others are additional water resource protection schedules to be included in the final plan. measures recommended by OSP. * Specify performance standards and/or a refer ence manual for stormwater management NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING (603) 271-2155 2-1/2 BEACON STREET, CONCORD NH 03301 3 measures. See the Stormwater Management SUBSURFACE WASTEWATER handbook. DISPOSAL SYSTEMS Apply stormwater management requirements to disturbances of 20,000 square feet or more, hese are believed to be a major source of construction of roads, subdivisions of three or bacteria and nutrients in coastal waters, more building lots, and disturbance of critical Tparticularly of concern near shellfish- areas. growing areas. The N.H. DES regulates the design Utilize the Planning Board's statutory author- and installation of septic systems. Municipalities ity (under RSA 676:4 L(g)) to require that the can adopt a local health ordinance to reinforce applicant provide special investigative studies. those rules by doing the following: Require bonding of stormwater management 9 Have the local Health Officer review and ap- measures, as well as inspection and mainte- prove plans for new and replacement systems nance. prior to construction, and inspect systems Require inspection and maintenance (with prior to backfilling. documentation) of stormwater structures. e Provide educational materials to homeowners Encourage retaining natural vegetation, mini- and renters regarding proper use and mainte- mizing disturbed area, and retaining sediment nance of septic systems, emphasizing the within the project area. avoidance of repair or replacement costs. Sources of educational materials include DES � Minimize cutting and filling, development of and Granite State Designers and Installers. sensitive areas such as riparian areas, and o Require owners to inspect septic tanks annu- impacts to natural drainage features. ally. (This is already required by state rules � Require proper storage and handling of haz- Env-Ws 1023.01 (a).) ardous materials. * Require owners to have tanks pumped out Local Excavation Regulations under RSA 155-E every few years or as needed according to state rules (Env-Ws 1023.01(b) - when sludge plus � Condition final approval on compliance with scum equals one-third of tank depth) to pre- state Alteration of Terrain rules (RSA 485- vent clogging of the leach field by sludge or A: 17 and Ws-Env 415). SCUM. � Requi re stormwater management plans - in- * Conduct periodic inspections in areas of con- cluding maintenance and revegetation plans. cern. � Before ground is broken, require bonds for 9 Prohibit disposal of greasy or bulky wastes, erosion and sedimentation control measures, excessive amounts of solids, and toxic or haz- implementation of reclamation plans, and in- ardous materials. spection. 9 Prohibit paving over or placing heavy objects � Include reclamation standards consistent with on leach fields to avoid damage. state statute. 9 Require inspection when indicators of failure � Include reclamation schedules in all permits. are observed, such as ponding, or when expan- � Require vegetated buffer strips between dis- sion or conversion of a building is proposed turbed areas and surface water courses. e Make it clear that the Health Officer is empow- � Require equipment maintenance to be done ered by statute to require repairs. off site. e Establish a clear procedure for notifying own- � Require methods to prevent tracking mud onto ers of violations and requiring repair or re- roadways. placement. � Periodic review and inspection of the opera- o Establish programs to help owners finance tion by the planning board or its consultant. repairs and replacements. � Periodic renewal of the permit. NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING (603) 271-2155 2-1/2 BEACON STREET, CONCORD NH 03301 4 Using the Health Officer's statutory authority management plans and become active coop- to remove nuisances, perform repairs and re- erators who utilize best management prac- cover costs from septic system owners. tices. Contact OSP for a copy of Model Ordinance to 9 Distribute information about proper grazing Regulate Subsutface Disposal Systems and Establish and manure management. Information is Local Enforcement Procedures (1992). available from OSP, County Conservation Dis- tricts, and UNH Cooperative Extension. ROAD MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION * Conservation Commissions can work with the County Conservation District to identify farms PRACTICES with highly erodible soils and to develop farm ubdivision and Site Plan Review Regula- management plans to prevent nonpoint pollu- tions cover road construction by private tion. S developers; this section refers to road con- Require compliance with requirements of the struction and maintenance by municipal highway N.H. Department of Agriculture (RSA 431:33- departments. These activities can be responsible for 35, the agricultural BMP manual, and Code of significant pollutant loads to surface waters. Sedi- Administrative Rules Pes 100-1000). ments from road runoff carry with them a wide array of pollutants, including nutrients, bacteria, MARINAS AND BOATYARDS oxygen-demanding substances, toxic metals, and hese can cause habitat destruction from hydrocarbons. Road maintenance and construction dredging and water pollution resulting practices should consider: Tfrom sewage discharge, hull washing, boat � Proper design and maintenance of stormwater maintenance, and leaching of metals from bottom handling structures is important for the con- paints. Local laws may cover the following: trol of pollutants from paved areas. * Site plan review regulations should apply to � Snow disposal should take place where salt marina and boatyard constructioriand expan- runoff will not contaminate drinking water sion. supplies and away from surface waters so that * Take into account the impact of marina design sand and debris will not enter surface water. on shellfish beds and other habitat, tidal flush- For recommended management practices, see ing, and water quality. the DES Guide and A Series of Quick Guidesfor New * Require collection and treatment of stormwa- Hampshire Towns, available from UNH Cooperative, ter runoff in parking lots and areas where boats Extension and the Rockingham County Conserva- are maintained, especially where hulls are tion District. scraped and painted. * Require sewage pumpouts, dump stations, AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES and/or restroom facilities. * Require fueling stations to be designed for gricultural activities can result in the addi- prevention and ease in cleanup of spills. tion of nutrients, bacteria, sediment and * Require proper operating practices at marinas Asometimes agricultural chemicals to sur- and boatyards. The N.H. DES is currently pre- face runoff. The Department of Agriculture's Pesti- paring a manual of voluntary Best Manage- cide program and Manure Management program ment Practices (BMP`s) for marinas. Such have made many positive efforts to address com- BMPs include waste disposal, prevention of mercial farms. However, the many small-scale fuel spills, and boat cleaning practices. The hobby farmers and keepers of livestock, such as a DES manual could also serve as guide for local ordinances and regulations or for local educa- horse or two, are believed to represent a significant tion efforts. Contact the DES Limnology Bureau source of nonpoint pollution. Several approaches for a copy. With encouragement from local are possible: officials, marina and boatyard operators may Encourage farmers and owners of horses and implement BMP`s voluntarily. other livestock to work with the County Con- servation District to develop approved farm NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING (603) 271-2155 2-112 BEACON STREET, CONCORD NH 03301 5 INFORMATION RESOURCES A Series of Quick Guidesfor New Hampshire Many more resources are listed Towns, N.H. Association of Conservation in DES's Districts, UNH Technology Transfer Center, U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Best Management Practices to Control Service, North Country Resource Conservation Nonpoint Source Pollution: and Development Area, and UNH Cooperative A Guide for Citizens and Town Officials Extension. Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, RSA (NHDES-WSPCD-94-2). 483-B, N.H. Department of Environmental Services Technical Bulletin NHDES-CO-1994-2. Formulating a Water Resources Management and Protection Plan, N.H. Office of State Planning Technical Bulletin 9, Winter 1992. Manual of Best Management Practices for Agriculture in New Hampshire, N.H. Department of Agriculture, June 1993. Model Shoreland Protection Ordinance, N.H. Office of State Planning, July 1994. Model Subdivision Regulationsfor Soil-Based Lot Size, Ad Hoc Committee for Soil-Based Lot Size Regulations, June 1991, available from Rockingham County Conservation District, Brentwood. Pollution Controlfor Horse Stables and Backyard Livestock, Fact Sheet, 1994, U.S. EPA Region VI and Terfene Institute. Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Handbookfor Urban and Developing Areas in New Hampshire, 1992, available from Rockingham County Conservation District. OFFICFOF WEPLMNING NHCOASTAi PROGRAM The preparation of this report was funded In part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant # NA4702237. Text by Paul Susca, NH OSP riju '@Alml NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING (603) 271-2155 2-1/2 BEACON STREET, CONCORD NH 03301 Source: Jones, S. H. and R. Langan. 1995. Strategies for assessing nonpoint source pollution impacts on coastal watersheds. A final report to NH Coastal Program, OSP. Table 6. Concentrations (per 100 ml) of bacterial indicators at sites in tributaries to the Squarnscott River. Fecal Colirorms Site 1 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 24 25 6B 7 7/19/94 98 38 114 233 1300 303 93 685 456 33 8/2)94 123 18 165 110 7100 110 91 2490 75 25 8/16/94 50 0 300 103 400 65 268 1100 18 16 9/12/94 0 93 53 2100 65 105 355 9 38 10/20/94 34 43 8 74 0 230 124 20 28 28 > 11/15/94 80 61 9 11 545 30 28 15 40 37 V 4/19/95 26 166 31 9 27 72 116 20 56 4/26)95 8 143 11 12 5 43 68 6 4 CL 5/25/95 19 1740 140 '69 49 83 26 83 6/1/95 5 1100 18 63 .1150 300 335 110 9 15 50 10 70 600 41 6n195 165. @40 280 235 6480 2100 220 140 283 1700 900 130 350 6100 9h Geo. Mean 37 51 140 49 53 265 794 108 98 40 120 212 36 157 1913 35 E. coil Site 1 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 24 25 GB7 7/19/94 85 27 105 161 4300 247 80 669 416 30 8/2/94 120 14 163 95 7100 105 86 2310 75 25 8/16/94 50 0 243 88 400 63 223 800 20 15 9/12/94 0 23 35 2100 18 53 145 23 4 10/20/94 32 43 2 32 0 190 108 20 27 26 11/15/94 80 57 8 11 540 28 28 15 40 37 4/19/95 16 159 30 6 27 45 75 20 4/26/95 3 118 10 6 5 40 50 3 4 5/25/95 19 1153 28 69 49 60 25 65 6/1/95 0 1100 18 63 1040 250 190 70 6 5 0 10 30 100 15 6n195 165 540 270 225 6220 1900 220 110 259 1565 610 130 350 5740 84_ Geo. Mean 24 46 28 36 44 294 689 80 75 34 97 16 39 102 759 22 Table 6. Concentrations (per 100 ml) of bacterial indicators at sites in tributaries to the Squamscott River. Enteroccocci Site 1 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 24 25 GB 7 7/19/94 109 231 148 660 1300 43 510 294 34 8/2/94 135 248 258 1100 6400 0 is 925 185 9 8/16/94 288 2015 610 7500 231 7400 485 9/12/94 0 1100 210 1900 0 0 0 0 3 10t2o/94 137 3 0 18 26 33 8 10 to 7 11/15/94 19 15 35 34 175 15 5 0 95 8 4/19/95 10 4 2 29 11 11 26 6 4/26/95 2 17 2 4 3 8 5. 3 10 5/25/95 75 90 288 81 149 408 690 40 88 250 250 54 49 1390 6/1/95 5 430 25 430 740 180 50 15 14 75 50 6 200 13 6n195 265 880 840 2350 3760 2540 88 140 612 1545 220 400 192 2960 59 Geo.. Mean 43 35 288 50 150 368 681 9 16 91 54 140 41 38 937 12 Table 7. Concentrations of nutrients at sites in tributaries to the Squamscott River. Ammonitim (jim) Site 1 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 24 25 GB 7 7/19/94 4.16 68.90 4.99 7.06 5.51 15.33 4.80 4.26 4.43 9.57 8/2/94 4.36 0.44 7.42 5.73 7.77 0.20 4.86 6.11 4.75 2.59 8/16/94 12.15 1.21 5.19 5.90 5.49 3.74 4.88 5.01 1.81 2.08 9/12/94 1.32 -4.89 1.49 1.28 1.60 0.86 0.76 1.51 1.71 2.72 10/20/94 1.01 29.64 0.19 0.75 0.22 13.87 0.91 19.82 0.06 6.89 11/15/94 0.80 5.66 0.97 1.97 1.91 5.07 -3.22 1.62 1.55 - 3.25 4/19/95 9.68 5.08 3.55 2.62 1.39 14.34 1.75 1.48 1.64 4/26/95 1.81 7.57 1.77 2.29 1.98 9.33 3.84 1.58 2.00 5/25/95 2.04 14.38 2.31 1.91 1.53 1.94 3.26 17.20 50.37 30.21 1.19 1.49 2.46 4.60 6/1/95 1.41 7.50 1.69 7.81 4.65 4.23 5.88 14.01 43.68 1.75 1.94 3.64 4.51 5.66 8.47 6fl/95 10.93 25.84 1.60 3.21 13.17 8.42 17.92 130.94 35.35 18.89 50.74 5.86 24.17 28.33 Average 4.52 15.55 2.31 2.80 3.65 4.15 5.30 8.65 17.02 43.13 8.39 17.96 2.63 10.38 12.86 5.08 Table 7. Concentrations of nutrients at sites in tributaries to the Squamscott River. Nitrate (pm) Site' 1 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 24 25 GB7 7/19/94 215.93 8.03 50.38 56.05 206.13 4.87 0.28 9.79 4.36 3.62 8/2/94 235.36 0.30 48.09 61.17 35.98 1.54 0.00 12.77 5.81 0.40 8/16)94 228.17 2.74 41.24 75.72 220.78 1.35 0.14 9.18 5.91 1.31 9/12/94 244.21 4.09 48.03 69.61 122.92 1.71 0.51 10.23 4.11 1.98 10/20/94 231.71 14.40 69.46. 25.78 146.14 22.08 8.91 8.29 6.02 20.03 11/15/94 259.11 10.74 75.45 35.09 162.34 20.34 4.59 7.23 8.17 4.76 ',4/19/95 179.01 12.43 37.84 25.72 95.29 7.65 3.66 16.30 5.32 4126195 201.67 14.04 29.95 19.67 90.95 7.62 4.88 9.60 4.80 5/25/95 222.26 19.91 6.38 14.79 10.13 59.89 4.37 5.58 2.50 5.31 1.14 2.48 4.05 14.20 6/1/95 248.48 6.61 27.33 23.20 135.31 13.36 7.96 6.75 3.93 15.16 5.91 4.95 12.55 33.54 6.32 6nlg5l 200.11 10.07 18.23 18.50 59.80 10.27 12.23 5.58 2.70 1.68 6.74 6.42 10.45 27.49 Average 224.18 9.40 6.38 41.88 38.15 121.41 9.34 8.73 3.72 3.04 9.59 4.60 5.30 9.02 25.08 5.49 Phosphate (pm)' Site 1 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 24 25 GB7 7/19/94 0.27 0.35 0.28 0.39 0.45 3.59 0.32 0.63 0.23 1.19 8/2/94 0.26 0.17 0.18 0.31 0.26 0.03 0.38 0.86 0.28 0.22 8/16/94 0.15 0.02 0.11 0.17 0.15 2.54 0.10 0.65 0.03 0.97 9/12/94 0.32 1.22 0.28 0.24 0.28 0.78 0.19 0.84 0.23 2.26 .10/20/94 0.37 0.72 0.17 0.15 0.14 3.98 0.35 0.48 0.25 2.61 11/15/94 0.30 1.46 0.17 0.17 0.07 1.63 0.38 0.59 0.39 1.23 4/19/95 0.16 0.17 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.33 1.16 0.08 0.09 0.08 4/26)95 0.24 0.48 0.10 0.10 0.38 0.87 0.15 0.19 0.14 - 5/25/95 0.47 0.73 0.95 0.26 0.22 0.56 0.78 038 0.41 0.50 0.47 0.47 0.24 0.46 6/1/95 0.37 0.71 0.37 0.33 0.70 0.69 1.55 0.50 0.45 0.53 0.64 0.68 0.42 0.60 1.48 6n1951 0.50 0.77 0.38 0.39 0.69 0.71 1.68 0.50 0.38 0.48 0.54 0.49 0.31 0.57 Average 0.31 0.62 0.95 0.21 0.23 0.34 0.72 1.70 0.40 0.41 0.53 0.55 0.30 0.32 0.54 1.26 txeter/�qu4ms'coft' Wab wshed CNPO sampling results blanks and 'ns" indicate! i no sample Nas collect J, 'nd" mear s no detection xxx-indicates no results due to !!Ls@ problems pH Date ExW1 ExVV2 ExW3 ExW4 ExW5 ExW6 ExW7 ExW8 ExW9 EM10 EMI 1. EM 12 ExW13 ExW14 51195 6.81 6.87 7.03 9.15 6.79 6.75 6 6.76 5.57 5.78 6.79 6.76 6.81 6@98- -6.7 60795 7.05 6.69 6.8 6.76 6.99 6.66, 6.75 6.82 7.18, 7.09 6.73 6.75, 6.82 -70-5 -6.87 62195 6.6 6.88 ns ns 6.49 6.2 6.38 6.39 ns 6.49 6.35 nd 6.46 6.25 ns; 62795 7.01 7.22 ns 6.84 6.9 6.37 6.43 6.44 6.82 6.75 6.52 6.54 6.62 iK-62 -6.61 91795 6.61 7.11 7.11 7.03 7.01 6.6 7.06 7.09 6.93 6.92 7.1 ns ns ns s MEDIAN 6.811 6.88 6.80 6.84 6.90 6.60 6.43 6.76 6.82 6.75 6.73 6.65 6.72 9.6-5 -6.66 TSS mg/L Date ti-wi ExW2 ExW3 ExW4 ExW5 ExW6 ExW7 ExW8 ExW9 fx-W1O ExW1 I ExW112 ExW13 ExW14 @15 51195 5.8 75.33 3.6 2 4.2 33 66.5 2.2 12.61 2 8.2 1.61 1.8 2 1.8 60795 13.4 22.4 7.2 2.6 3.8 27.2 3.6 2.4 2.2 2 13.75 1.8 -1.2 2 8 62195 2.9 9.4 ns ns 1.7 33 1.88 ns ns 0.4 12.6 0.6 0 0.5 ns 62795 2 1.89 ns 8.29 3 34.33 2.3 3.6 1 3.47 10.17 5.67 0.33 1T-O.9 91795 24 70 30.2 5.75 2.12 72.33 15.2 4.13 25.5 4.5 11.33 ns ns; ns ns; %org I I I Date ExW1 ExW2 ExW3 IExW4 ExW5 EMIS ExW7 ExW8 ExW9 ExW1O ExWil -ExW12 ExW13 EXW`14 ExW`15 51195 24.14 18.14 22.22 50 42.86 15.15 25.56 36.36 25.4 70 29.27 75. 66.67 70 66.67 60795 20.9 18.75 27.78 53.85 42.11 16.18 50 41.67 27.27 40 20 77.781 66.67 60 57.5 62195 31.03. 19.15 ns Ps 64.71 19.19 93.33 ns ns; 0 25.4 01 0 0 ns 62795 351 23.53 ns 94.83 50 20.39 56.52 47.22 60 39.39 29.51 47.06 100 63.gT 77.78 91795 20.831 14.29 27.81 67.39 5.99 35.53- 33.33 28.76 33.33. 17.65 ns ns ns ns Tot P mg/L I totp Date ExW1 ExW2 ExW3 E)eW4 EM5 ExW6 ExW7 ExW8 ExW9' ExW1O ExW11 ExW12 ExW13 ExW14 E)eW15 51195 0.027 0.206 0.031 0.094 0.052 0.111 0.215 0.026 0.074 0.013 0.044 0.011 0.015 0.019 -0-036 60795 0.036 0.086 0.089 0.146 0.089 0.061 0.045 0.034 0.016 0.022 0.127 0.022 0.02 0.021 -0.196 62195 0.023 0.018 ns ns 0.096 0.053 0.049 0.04 ns 0.023 0.183 0.025 0.017 0.022 iis- 62795 0.021 ' 0.014 ns 0.39 0.096 0.03- 0.039 0.037 0.003. 0.031 0.172 0.025 0.016 6-.-017 -0.032 91795 0.102 0.227 0.241 .0.123 0.033 0.12 0.131 0.029 0.1561 0.021-- 0.078 N03-NO2-N mg/L" N03-NO2 I Date ExW1 ExW2 ExW3 EM4 EM5 EM6 ExW7 ExW8 ExVV9 IExWfO- EiWii ExW12 ExW13 ExW14 EAN15 51195 nd 0.35 0.77 nd nd nd 0.2 nd 0.91 nd 0.13 nd nd nd nd 60795 nd nd 0.25 nd nd nd 0.1 nd 1.67 nd nd nd nd nd nd 62195 0.19 1.69 ns; ns nd nd nd nd ns. nd nd nd nd 0.3 ns 62795 0.3 4.05 ns nd nd nd 0.39 0.11 2.14 nd 0.15 Ind 0.23 0.23 91795 0.76 0.33 0.28 0.07 0.06 0.12 0.14 0.08 0.15 0.1 0.32 NH3-N mg/L NH3-N Date ExVVI ExW2 ExW3 ExW4 ExW5 ExW6 ExW7 ExW8 ExW9 ExVVIO ExW11 ExW12 ExW13 ExW14 ExW15 51195 nd 0.4 nd nd nd 0.2 0.1 nd 0.2 nd nd nd nd nd nd 60795 nd nd 0.2 nd nd 0.12 nd - nd nd 0.12 0.24 nd nd nd 0.24 62195 nd nd ns ns nd 0.8 nd nd ns nd 0.1 nd nd nd ns 62795 0.16 nd ns 0.1 nd 0.78 Ind nd nd nd 0.11 Wd- Fd- nd nd 91795 0.14 0.23 0.2 0.12 nd 0.131 0.17 0.11 0.15 0.1 nd Fecal cts/100ml - FES@ Date ExW1 ExW2 -ExW3 ExW4 ExW5 ExW6 ExW7 ExW8 IExW9 ExW1O ExW1 i ExW12 ExW13 ExW14 ExW15 51195 20 940 30 <10 510 120 120 1601 300 60 310 so ISO 370 270 60795 840 >2000 >2000 40 310 1550 170 160 620 80 >2000 80 80 110 620 62195 20 210 ns ns 10 120 60 40 ns 100 660 -30 -So- 80 ns 62795 790 680 ns 30 270 1700 60 130 20 110 620 30 40 90 150 91795 >2000 >2000 >2000 120 20 >2000 .>2000 40 840 360 730 E.Coli ctsiloomi , I Date ExW1 ExW2 ExW3 ExW4 ExW5 ExW6 IExWT- ExW8 EX-W9 -ffivvlo ExW11 ExW12 ExW13 ExW14 ExW15 51195 20 >2000 40 <10 1 770 80 120 230, 250 110 400 110 180 250 100 60795 930 1800 2500 101 40 1410 150 190 620 80, 9800 60 50 150 580 62195 50 360 ns ns 1 40 130 40 31 ns 1 201 1450 40 30 130 ns 62795 580 650 ns <10 1 280 1400 60 180 140-1 1801 780 110 40 220 200 1 917951>2000 )DOC xxx - xxx 4401 770 1 Cu Cu Date ExVV1 ExW2 ExW3 ExW4 ExW5 ExW6 ExW7 ExW8 ExW9 ExWlO ExWl 1 ExW12 ExVV1 3 ExWl4 ExWl 5 51195 ns 0.008 0.016 0.015 nd nd 0.02 nd nd 6.0-3-35 nd nd nd nd nd 60795 nd 0.0068 0.0068 nd 0.008 nd nd nd 0.0058 nd- nd nd nd nd- nd 62195 nd nd ns ns nd nd nd nd ns 0.0026 0.0044 nd nd nd ns 62795 nd nd ns nd nd 0.0029 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 91795 0.0085 0.0115 0.0105 nd 0.003 0.0095 0.0175 0.003 0.01251 0.003 0.004 1 Cd mg/L Cd Date ExWl ExW2 ExW3 ExW4 ExW5 EM6 ExVV7 E)eW8 ExW9 ExWlo ExWl 1 ExW12 ExW13 ExWl4 ExWl 5 51195 ns Ad nd nd nd nd 0.0005 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 60795 nd nd nd nd Ind nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 62195 nd nd ns ns nd nd nd nd ns nd nd nd nd nd ns 62795 nd nd Ins nd nd Ind nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd - nd 91795 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.0005 nd nd nd Zn mg/L Zn Date EAN1 ExW2 ExW3 ExW4 ExW5 ExW6 ExW7 ExW8 ExW9 ExWlO ExWl I ExW12 ExW13 ExW14 ExWl 5 51195 ns 0.105 0.034 nd nd nd 0.099 nd 0.026 nd nd nd nd nd nd 60795 nd 0.058 0.037 nd nd 0.044 nd nd 0.025 nd nd nd --0.025 nd nd 62195 nd 0.036 Ins ns nd Ind nd nd. ns nd nd nd nd nd ns 62795 nd 0.033 ns nd nd 0.03 nd nd Ad nd nd nd nd nd nd 91795 0.026 0.094 0.031 0.054 nd 0.051 0.048 nd nd nd nd Al mg/L Al Date ExWl -EAW ExW3 ExW4 ExW5 - ExW6 ExW7 ExW8 ExW9 ExWlO ExWl 1 ExW12 ExW13 ExW14 ExWl 5 51195 ns. 1.73 0.228 0.093 0.212 1.36 1.67 0.128 0.82 0.091 0.334 0.062 0.077 0.078 0.083 60795 0 1.04 0.376 0.048 0.1871 1.01 0.111 0.134 0.183 0.104 0.043 0.057 0.051 0.063 0.113 62195 0.146 0.142 ns ns 0.088 1.35 nd nd ns 0.058 0.542 nd nd nd ns - 62795 0.103 0.135 ns nd 0.07 1.51 nd 0.089 0.076 0.176 0.458 0.055 nd nd nd 91795 1.57 3.29 1.03 0.108 0.113 4.29 0.459 0.137 1.04 0.131 0.759 temp T Date ExWl ExW2 ExW3 EM4 ExW5 ExW6 jExW7 ExW8 ExW9 Exwlo ExWl 1 ExW12 ExW13 ExW14 ExWl 5 51195 13.2 10.6 9.4 12.1 10.8 9.5 9.9 12 10 12.5 11.1 12.4 13.1 12.5 12.7 60795 18.6 19.11 19.1 21.2 20 19.5 21 20.4 15.7 19.7 18.6 20.8 19.9 19.2 17.8 62195 19.5 15.5 ns ns 20.7 18.9 22 22.7 ns 20.8 19.5 24 22.91 22 ns 62795 17.6 14.8 ns 20.2 21.5 20.9 20.6 20.2 15.31 19.6 18.6 21.9 21.8 20.4 19.7 91795 14.5 18.8 17.8 18 15.6 16.8 17.6 16.9 16.8 14.7 15.8 cond. umhos I Date 51195 ExWl 280 ExW2 ISO ExW3 200 ExW4 410 ExW5 110 ExW .6 160 ExW7 110 ExW8 116 ExW9 30 ExWlO 100 ExWl 1 120 ExW112 90 ExW13 100 ExW14 80 ExW15 320 60795 290 891 79 700 120 259 130 140 190 125 170 120 120 125 P5 62195 330 700 135 430 150 150 140 175 130 135 145 62795 365 700 1200 130 430 .150 145 220 135 180 130 135 140 140 91795 300 90 85 5500 150 85 15 110 20 215 185 DO mg/L I Date EANI ExW2 ExW3 ExW4 ExW5 ExW6 ExW7 ExW8 ExW9 ExWlO ExWl I ExW12 ExW13 ExWl4 E)cWl 5 51195 8.4 9.8 10 8.6 9.4 10.2 TO--2 8.2 101- 10.2 9 8.1 9 8.8 8.9 %sat 80 88 87 80 85 89 90 76 93 93 81 80 85 83 84 60795 7.21 7.5 7.5 4 6.6 7.1 5.6 5.4 9.4 7.7 5.2 7 6.7 7.1 6.2 %sat 771 82 81 45 75 77 63 59 95 85 56 79 74 77 66 62195 5.9 - 8.6 ns ns 6 3.7 6.1 8.6 ns 7.4 3.8 6.5 5.5 5.9 ns %sat 64 87 67 40 70 101 84 41 77 65 68 ns 62795 5.9 ns 4.4 6.3 2 3.8 3.6 9.2 7.4 3.4 6.3 5.2 6.4 4.9 %sat 62 ns 48 72 22 43 40 92 81 37 72 60 71 54 [ ExW:13 nd nd nd nd 9i-795 7.7 8.4 8.9 6.9 8.5 8.4 8.8 C2]-9.0 1-7.8 1 6.71 %sat. 75 90 951 73 86 87 93 651 941 771 681 0 Appendix F EXETER/SOUAMSCOIT NPS PROJEC WQ MONI-ORING BU )GET (1996) This budget is included forreerence. TSS/%orga ic analyses were completed at UNH. All other ani ses were coml leted at NHDES. UNIT 15 SITES TEST COST 4STORMS FECAL 7 420 E COLI 7 420 COPPER 6 360 ZINC 6 360 ALUM. 6 360 CADMIUM 6 360 T PHOS. 8 480 NH3-N 9 540 N03-NO2-N 7 420 TSS/%ORG 10 600 TOTAL 3900 Appendix G NEW I 1ANIPS1 11RI: E N V I R 0 N MENTAL UPPARIN-IFN I OF* Environmental Services 0 6 Hazen Drive, Concord, NII 03301 1-11-IDES Technical Bulletin WSPCD-BB-1993-2 Iron Bacteria In Surface Water What are iron bacteria?' Iron bacteria are bacteria that 'feed' on iron. Unlike most bacteria. which feed on organic matter, iron fullfill their energy requirements by oxidizing ferrous iron into ferric iron. When ferrous iron is,converted to ferric iron, it becomes' insoluble and precipitates out of the water as a rust-colored deposit. This process can occur simply by exposing. 1ron-rich groundwater to the atmosphere. However, if the deposit is sfimey and clumpy, it is probably caused by iron bacteria. Are iron bacteria harmful? Iron bacteria are of no threat to human health. They are found naturally in so *ils and water. However, the. orange slime in the water or leaching from the shore is often considered to be an aesthetic problem. The oily sheens created by the decomposing bacteria cells are often mistaken for petroleum sheens. What causes iron bacteria? Iron is a common element in New Hampshire soils. Consequently, iron-fixing bacteria have existed in our natural waters for over a million years. Iron-rich fill material or bedrock can create an iron bacteria problem whenever it is located near water. In general, wherever there is oxygen, water and iron there is the potential for an iron bacteria problem. How can we identify iron bacteria? Orange or brown slime (precipitate) and oily sheens are often the first indication that these bacteria are present. Unlike petroleum sheensthe iron bacteria sheens break apart when they are disturbed. The orange or brown slime may be collected in a jar and analyzed microscopically at DES to identify the bacteria type. OOWIZ@ tE4 n 5vi r@c IV @,_7 -2- What can we do about iron bacteria? The best treatment for an iron bacteria problem is prevention. To thwart these obnoxious bacteria, have ill fill material analyzed for iron content before using or exposing iL Unfortunately, once established, iron bacteria problems are difficult. if not impossible to correct. Sometimes iron-rich fill can be replaced by fill with a lower iron content. However, this may be extremely costly and have other environmental impacts. Sinceiron bacteria. are not han-riful, sometimes the only feasible thing that people can do is simply to accept it for the natural occurrence that it is. For further information: For more information on iron bacteria, please contact DES' Biology Bureau 603-271-3503. 3 6668 14109 2835