Full Text
City of Lewiston Contact: Janice E. Patterson, P.E. Project start date: January 4, 2007 Report submittal date: August 27, 2008 Funding for this project, in part, was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Section 319 grants are administered by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection in partnership with EPA. PROJECT #2004R-32 HART BROOK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL REPORT August 27, 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- I. PROJECT OVERVIEW: Hart Brook is a small Class B urban stream located in Lewiston ME. It is approximately 3.7 miles long with a watershed of 2200 acres. The watershed is comprised of residential, commercial, industrial and undeveloped land and is approximately 22% impervious. The watershed includes the area around the Maine Turnpike Authority (MTA) Exit 80, which is a prime new development area of the City of Lewiston. Hart Brook was first tested by Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MeDEP) in 1998, at which time modeling showed that the stream would not meet its water quality classification for aquatic life. As MeDEP tests in five year cycles, Hart Brook was again tested in 2003. Aquatic life remained impaired and dissolved oxygen levels exhibited drastic swings. Additional site investigation in 2005, showed continuing impairment issues related to aquatic life, stream bank and channel erosion and illicit discharges. Waters that do not meet their specified classification are considered impaired and are placed on the MeDEP’s 303d list. This list is produced every two years and Hart Brook has been on this list since 2002. Waters on the 303d list require additional measures be taken if any development is to occur in its watershed. As stated above, Hart Brook’s watershed encompasses a very viable industrial and commercial development area and the City of Lewiston became concerned that the additional requirements imposed would discourage potential developers. The purpose of this project was to develop a watershed management plan (WMP) which would allow for continued development in the Hart Brook watershed while concurrently working to improve the water quality of the brook. The plan was developed by the City of Lewiston and a stakeholder group with technical assistance provided by a consultant. A public meeting was held April 7, 2008, at which our consultant explained the purpose of preparing a watershed management plan, laid out proposed steps in development and encouraged active participation of those present. This meeting was well attended (26 attendees) with a good mix of residential, commercial and government entities. Approximately one-third of those attending continued on as the stakeholder group. Between April and August, two more stakeholder meetings were held at which the attendees were updated on progress by the consultant and the attendees were asked for input and suggestions with regard to the plan concept and development. At this time, we experience a shift in personnel as the consultant firm re- organized. This caused approximately a three month delay in plan development while a new consultant was hired and became familiarized with the project. In December a meeting was held with the new consultant and representatives from the city to discuss the project and generate a revised schedule. Our next step was reviewing, selecting and prioritizing the suggested BMPs. This was done cooperatively between the City of Lewiston, MeDEP and our consultant. The ---PAGE BREAK--- end result was a draft Action Plan which summarized the city’s intentions regarding bringing Hart Brook back to a Class B status while allowing continued development in the watershed. The draft action plan was presented to the stakeholder group at a meeting held on June 24, 2008. This meeting was not as well attended as the previous meetings had been. It was thought that perhaps some momentum had been lost as we had a delay in getting a new consultant involved in the project. Those in attendance did provide good input and we feel will be valuable participants as we execute the plan. At the meeting, we also had available for review the binder containing the complete management plan, including summary of the process and actions taken in developing the plan, all notes from field work, hydro cad calculations and maps. This binder received further review by the city and MeDEP but was not provided for public comment. It was felt that the Action Plan was the working document which the public needed to be aware of. The draft action plan was posted on the city’s webpage for Hart Brook on August 4, 2008 and was available for public comment through August 15, 2008. All comments received were reviewed and the action plan was finalized. The project binder was also completed and the finished Hart Brook Watershed Management Plan binder and Action Plan were submitted to the City of Lewiston. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. TASK SUMMARY: The project was broken into seven individual tasks. Each task had a description, cost, and timeline. The descriptions and costs remained consistent through out the project as there were no major changes to the scope of work. The timelines were adjusted, and approved by MeDEP, due to the issues involved with the consultant’s re- organization and hiring of a new consultant. Task 1. Data Assembly and Evaluation This task was estimated at $28,000 and included research of existing information on the brook and the watershed characteristics. Research was done of existing aerial photographs, topographic maps, sewer and storm drain maps, and flood zone maps. A build out analysis of the watershed was completed as well as a geomorphic assessment. This information was used to develop a watershed characterization, and to determine major sources and causes of impairment. Task 2. Public Outreach This task, estimated at $17,800, included all items developed to educate the public on the issues affecting Hart Brook and how they could become involved. Prior to the initial public meeting regarding this grant, letters were sent to all business owners and property owners in the Hart Brook watershed. This letter explained the process of writing a watershed management plan and why the plan was being written; and invited them to participate in the stakeholder group to help develop the plan. The city developed a webpage providing general Hart Brook information and a map of the watershed. The agendas and minutes of all stakeholder meetings were posted on the website, also. The website will continue to be updated as the Action Plan is executed. Three press releases were published: one to announce the project and inform of the first public meeting, the second to advertise a community event, catch basin (CB) stenciling that was done in the watershed, and the final to announce the public meeting at which the draft Action Plan was presented. The Lewiston Sun Journal published three articles and the Twin City Times published two articles regarding the Hart Brook Watershed Management Plan. The Sun Journal articles reported on the initial kick-off meeting, the CB stenciling project and the final meeting to review the draft plan. The Twin City Times printed articles on the CB stenciling and the final public meeting. A public access announcement was aired prior to the kick off meeting in April 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- Task 3. Hydrologic and Water Quality Monitoring Task 3 was estimated at $21,300 and consisted of hydrologic evaluation and modeling to provide a base line against which to measure progress of proposed BMPs. Simulation of the 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year and 100-year storm was completed to provide projected flow quantities. The National Stormwater Quality Database was used to characterize the water quality. The database is a result of a nationwide study and includes over 3500 samples. The sample results are stratified by the Land Use and provide an average concentration of pollutants: sediment, nutrient, and metals, for the various storm events. Integrating the water quantity and quality provided a base pollutant load. These results were presented at the May 07, 2007 stakeholder meeting. Task 4. Development of Watershed Mitigation Measures The cost estimated for Task 4 was $18,200. Task 4 covers the effort involved in developing proposed non-structural and structural BMPs to be implemented in the watershed. The non-structural items include review of existing ordinances regarding land use, zoning and storm water management. Other non-structural items include formation of a working group committed to execution of the final approved plan and a program for summer help to work on watershed and other stormwater issues. Structural projects range from roadside diversions and rain gardens to paving shoulders and planting shade trees. The alternatives were divided between structural and non-structural and then into groups according proposed funding source: state, town, private, regional. This listing was presented to the stakeholders for vote and the results used to assist in the final selection and prioritization of alternatives. Task 5. Cost Projections/Prioritizations Task 5 was estimated at $12,100. This task involved pricing all alternatives, then generating a matrix of rating criteria for prioritization. The criteria included cost, ratio of impervious area to treated area, sub-watershed, proposed funding source, long term maintenance requirements, utility and easements issues, and difficulty in permitting. Each was assigned a point value and the alternatives were rated on these elements. This process resulted in a top 65 projects, as a natural break in scores occurred after the first 65. The top sixty five was then reviewed again; some were combined as were like projects in similar locations. The final listing was included 17 structural and 7 non- structural items that were grouped by funding source. The priorities are flexible as it execution will be determined upon funding amount and source and will be subject to City Council approval of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Task 6. Watershed Management Plan Task 6 was estimated at $20,800 and involved all effort required to prepare the watershed management plan and action plan. The effort included review, organization, and analysis of all information gathered in the previous tasks. The testing protocol, the results of all modeling and sampling, the stakeholder input was used in producing a document which would be used by the City of Lewiston to bring Hart Brook back into compliance with its environmental classification. The Plan includes all back-up materials used in the development and describes the procedure followed to this end result. ---PAGE BREAK--- Task 7. Review and Finalize Watershed Management Plan The Watershed Management Plan and draft Action Plan were presented to the stakeholder group on June 24, 2008 and the Action Plan was posted on the city website for public comment. Upon receipt, review and incorporation of the relevant comments, the Action Plan was posted on the website and the Watershed Management Plan binder filed in the City of Lewiston Department of Public Services office. ---PAGE BREAK--- III. DELIVERABLES SUMMARY: Deliverable Signed Grant and Sub-grant Agreements - Submitted April 11, 2007 Relative value: NA, these are a requirement of the grant. Deliverable Summary of Watershed Characterization and of Identified Major Sources/Causes of Impairment – Submitted June 14, 2007 Relative value: The watershed characterization and identification of major sources and/or causes of impairment was a very important effort in developing the WMP. This information served as the basis of the research into what proposed alternatives would be most beneficial in the watershed. The characterization also provided a baseline of water quality against which to measure success of alternatives. Deliverable Public Outreach Items – Submitted April 11, 2007, May 22, 2007, Sept 26, 2007 and June 24, 2008 Relative value: The public outreach materials - press releases, newspaper articles, development of a Hart Brook Watershed webpage, posting of meeting agendas and minutes, and letters to watershed businesses and residents – was a very valuable effort in developing the WMP. The varied and numerous avenues used for outreach allowed the city to spread the word to a large and diverse audience. The attendance and participation of watershed residents and business owners proved the value of this effort. Deliverable Hydrologic and Water Quality Model Results – Submitted Sept 26, 2007 Relative value: Along with deliverable these results were key in determining the issues affecting the brook and deciding what alternatives would provide the best results. Deliverable Prioritized Listing of Potential Structural and Non-structural BMPs – Submitted Sept 26, 2007 and May 19, 2008. Relative value: This prioritization was very valuable as it became the basis of the draft and final Action Plan. Deliverable Draft and Final Watershed Management Plan – Submitted August 6, 2008 and August 29, 2008. Relative value: These documents, as the final outcome of the grant project, were very much worth the effort taken in development. They have provided a framework within which the City can begin to mitigate historic water quality impacts and work to reduce further adverse impacts. Deliverable Semi-annual Progress Reports and Final Project Report – Submitted May 15, 2007, Nov 15, 2007, May 15, 2008 and August 25, 2008. Relative value: NA, these are a requirement of the grant. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. PROJECT OUTCOMES: A. List Major Outcomes: The intent of this grant was development of a watershed management plan for the Hart Brook watershed and this intent was met. The City of Lewiston received a report including a thorough summary of the assessments done and the results, the various data collected and used in the decision making and the hydrologic and water quality sampling completed. The report further describes how these activities led to the development of alternative Best Management Practices (BMPs) that were thought would be effective in the Hart Brook Watershed. The report also includes an Action Plan, intended as a stand alone document for the city to use in implementing the WMP. The Action Plan lists BMPs, with associated costs and possible funding sources, proposed timeframes for execution and possible implementation partners. B. Environmental Results: NA, the project outcome was a written report. C. “Lessons Learned”: Petitioning for volunteer participation needs to be more personal than press releases. Press releases can reach a large audience but phone calls should be made to those whom it is felt could make a positive impact and be a valuable stakeholder. Personal contact should continue through-out the process. Momentum is important! Delays in the continuation of the project tend to decrease interest and attendance as the stakeholders move onto other issues. More personal involvement of the grantee through-out all phases of the grant, starting with the grant application through grant completion, would be very value added. Hiring consultants, while often needed for their specific knowledge and abilities, allows the grantee to step back some. I found that I did that at times and it was detrimental to my focus on the project. V. SUMMARY OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES: NPS Grant Non-Federal Match Grant Agreement Amount $73,400 $49,100 Funds Expensed $73,400 $54,163 Funds Balance $0 $0 VI. NON-FEDERAL MATCH DOCUMENTATION / CERTIFICATION: By the attached “Non-Federal Match Documentation / Certification” form and accompanying spreadsheet, I certify that all documented activities, both cash and in-kind, are appropriately chargeable to this NPS grant project, #2004R-32 - Hart Brook Watershed Management Plan Development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Non-Federal Match Documentation / Certification Grantees need to document matching funds or services contributed to the project. The amount of match required is listed under BUDGET INFORMATION in the project work plan. Grantees must submit this form, "Non-federal Match Documentation / Certification" as part of the Final Project Report. The Grantee must certify in writing that match has been documented before closeout of the Grant Agreement. The following information is needed to adequately document match. To efficiently meet documentation requirements, Grantees should accumulate match information as the project proceeds and record information in a table. See Attachment C for an example. 1. Source. Identify the source of the funds or services; 2. Activity Describe the activity and the amount of activity; and 3. Valuation Describe the basis for assigning the amount of dollar value to the activity. Important: This signed certification form must be accompanied by supporting information that documents (source, activity and valuation) the matching funds or services claimed by the Grantee. The Certification Statement alone is not sufficient to document the non-federal match. GRANTEE INFORMATION: Name: City of Lewiston Addres s: 103 Adams Avenue, PO Box 479 Lewiston, ME 04243-0479 Telephone: (207) 513-3003 Contact Person: Janice E. Patterson PROJECT INFORMATION: ProjectTitle: Hart Brook Watershed Management Plan Development Project ID# (Example…#2001-12): 2004R-32 Match Amount planned under the Grant Agreement $49,100 Match Amount Claimed $54,163 CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: I certify that the non-federal match detailed in the attached information were expended in the course of completing work described in the Grant Agreement for the Project referenced above, and that detailed documentation of the match information is on file and available for review at the Grantee address shown above. Date Signature of Grantee - Authorized Official