1. 2/19/2018 5:05 AM
Town of Durham & UNH Integrated Watershed Plan For the Oyster River Watershed
January 24, 2013
David Cedarholm, PE, Town Engineer
Durham Dept. of Public Works
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

2. Primary Goals of the IWP
Consolidate WWTF and MS4 Permits into One Integrated Permit to Satisfy CWA Obligations using Sustainable and Green Technology
Reduce the Nitrogen Loading to the Oyster River and Great Bay Estuary through a Balanced, Cost-Effective and Sustainable Watershed Approach

3. Primary Goal: Reduce Nitrogen Inputs to the Great Bay & Oyster River Estuary
Two Options:
Rely entirely on WWTF upgrades.
Balanced approach that looks at WWTF upgrades and non-point source control measures through an Integrated Watershed Plan.

4. EPA Guidance on Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning and Permitting
Oct – Stoner-Giles Memo
June 2012 – EPA Memo on Draft IP Framework

5. Durham Wastewater Treatment
Current Average N Conc. < 8 mg/L
Current Ave Discharge of 1.0 MGD
Last Major Upgrade in 2004
Seasonal Changes with Student Population
Current NPDES Permit Expired in 2010

6. To Get to 3 mg/L or “Limit of Technology”
Estimated Capital Cost of $20 million
(Annualized Cost = approx. $1.6 million over 20 years)
Add’l Annual O&M Costs = $2.5 million
May require carbon source (e.g., ethanol) to stimulate biological activity to get to 3 mg/L.
Added Carbon Footprint with Chemical Deliveries and Poses an Onsite Storage Hazard

7. Integrated Approach
Upgrade Plant to Get to 5 mg/L & Achieve the Additional N Load Reductions via Green Non-Structural and Structural NPS Measures.
Reduces WWTF Capital Cost to ~ $12 million
Add’l Annual O&M Cost = $0.5 million
Potential Annual Savings ~ $1 to $2 million/ yr ?
Develop an IWP to Identify & Implement Appropriate NPS Load Reduction Measures

8. Integrated Watershed Plan - SUSTAINABILITY
Determine the “Sustainable Limit of Technology” for biological nutrient removal at the WWTF without supplemental chemicals
{SEE CHART ON NEXT SLIDE}

9. Total Nitrogen Concentration Dec 2009 to Sept 2012
Wastewater Treatment Plan Effluent – Durham, NH
Avg Total N = 8 mg/l
Avg Total N < 8 mg/l

10. Integrated Watershed Plan: Benefits
Collaboration: Encourages participation & involvement of ALL watershed stakeholders.
Sustainability: Eliminates carbon supplement at WWTF & involves non-structural NPS measures with less infrastructure & ongoing O&M.
Reduces other stormwater related pollutants
Cost Effectiveness: Results in more cost-effective solutions balancing capital & operational costs of point and non-points source controls.
Economic-Environmental-Social triple bottom line approach

11. Integrated Watershed Plan – COST EFFECTIVENESS
Combine Water Quality Monitoring Needs into One Comprehensive Plan to Satisfy Three NPDES permits
NPS Controls result in other Pollutant Load Reductions in addition to Nitrogen.

12. Watershed Modeling/ Load Assessment Approach
Basic Concepts
Bill Arcieri
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. /VHB
Senior Water Resource Scientist

13. Oyster River Watershed

14. Percentage of the Oyster River Watershed within Each Community
2/19/2018 5:05 AM
Percentage of the Oyster River Watershed within Each Community
Durham/UNH 38%
Barrington 14%
14%
Durham/UNH 5%
Lee 24%
Madbury 17% 2%
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

15. Protected Lands vs. Impervious Area
Apprx. 5,500 ac or 28 % is Protected, Town or UNH Owned land
Impervious Area
Apprx. 1,630 ac or 8.2 % consists of Impervious Area
Apprx. 63 % or 1,020 acres in Durham
Source: NH GRANIT Data Mapping

16. Developing Nitrogen Load Estimates: Four Major Inputs & Pathways for Nitrogen
Air Pollution impervious & vegetated surfaces
Chemical Fertilizer lawns & agriculture fields
Animal Feed manure & pet wastes
Human Food septic systems & wastewater
Based on NHDES Loading Model

17. Possible Nitrogen Reduction Measures
Non-Structural Measures
Impervious Surfaces
Stormwater Regs to Require LID Practices for Future Dev.
Protect Critical Open Space and Shoreland Buffer Areas
Enhance Street Sweeping
Chemical Fertilizer
Reformulate Fertilizer to Promote “Slow Release”
Education and Outreach Programs
Seacoast Stormwater Coalition; Turf Mgt
Landscaping “non-turf” Vegetative Buffers
NHDES “Soak up the Rain”

18. Potential Structural Measures
Impervious Cover
GREEN Infrastructure (e.g., Rain Gardens, Gravel Wetlands)
Disconnect Impervious Areas (e.g. infiltration, porous asphalt, vegetated areas, etc.)
Animal Feed
Manure Storage Sheds & Drainage Improvements
Human Food
Sewer Extensions or Septic System Upgrades
WWTF Upgrades

19. Major Initiatives for 2013 Public Education and Outreach
DRAFT Integrated Watershed Plan
Detailed Nitrogen Load Modeling to ID Source Loads
Evaluation of Load Reduction Alternatives
Cost Estimates and Expected Removal Efficiencies
Draft Implementation Plan
Public Education and Outreach
Public Stakeholder Mtgs in September & December
Project Web Site- oysterriverIWP.com
Project Informational Fact Sheet / Brochure

20. Major Initiative for 2013 (cont.)
Initiate Baseline Water Quality Monitoring
Pilot Study of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Perform Add’l Stormwater System Mapping & Update Impervious Cover Mapping
Establish an Initial Framework for Nitrogen Tracking and Accounting

21. Integrated & Adaptive Elements
2/19/2018 5:05 AM
Integrated & Adaptive Elements
Oyster River
Integrated Watershed Mgt Plan
Stakeholder Engagement
Enhance Baseline WQ Monitoring Data
Nitrogen Credit Tracking & Accounting Procedure
Implementation
of Solutions During Plan Development
Pilot WWTF Optimization
© 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.
The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.

22. Audience Survey
10 General Questions

23. Do you live or work in a watershed community?
Durham
Barrington
Lee
Madbury
Nottingham
Dover
Other

24. How long have you lived / worked in a watershed community?
0-1 years
1-5 years
5-10 years
10-15 years
15-20 years
20+ years
I do not live / work in the watershed community

25. Do you currently work or volunteer on a local conservation or watershed committee, regional organization or professional capacity that addresses or is concerned with water quality related issues in the Great Bay region?
Yes No

26. How important is having good water quality in the Great Bay to your quality of life?
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Marginally Important
Not Important
Not Sure

27. How would you rate the existing water quality conditions in the watershed?
Very Good
Good
Average
Poor
Not sure

28. Which of the following do you consider to be the bigger pollution threat in the watershed?
Stormwater runoff
Septic Systems
Fertilizer Usage
Agriculture
WWTP Discharges

29. Do you support updating local stormwater management regulations to require future development to include more onsite treatment and use of Low Impact Development techniques?
Yes No
Not sure

30. Are you interested in learning more about what you can do as a resident within the watershed to reduce your nitrogen contribution?
Yes No

31. What do you feel is the best way to increase public awareness and participation for this study?
Project web site
blasts
Flyers
Community leaders/stakeholder
Attending other Planned Events
Other

32. Questions for the Audience
Open Discussion – Q & A
Questions/Comments for the Project Team
Questions for the Audience

33. Rain Garden Demo Project
Oyster River High School
Completed in 2012

34. 2012 Oyster River High School Raingarden Project
Cost Effectiveness
Collaboration
Sustainability

35. 2012 Oyster River High School Raingarden Project

36. 2012 Oyster River High School Raingarden Project

37. 2012 Oyster River High School Raingarden Project