HART BROOK - Gulf of Maine Association · UProject steering committee: Kristin Feindel, Maine DEP . John Koris, Pike Industries ... Hart Brook in 1998, returning in 2003 and again

HART BROOK

URBAN STREAM WATERSHED INVENTORY

City of Lewiston ME

with assistance from:

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Final report: September 2009

i

UProject steering committee: Kristin Feindel, Maine DEP John Koris, Pike Industries Jon LaBonte, Androscoggin Land Trust Megan Wooster, Androscoggin Valley Soil & Water Conservation District Jan Patterson, City of Lewiston UInventory participants: Kristin Feindel, Maine DEP John Koris, Pike Industries, Lewiston ME Megan Wooster, Androscoggin Valley Soil & Water Conservation District Don Kale, Maine DEP Mary Ellen Dennis, Maine DEP Lee Ann Kropa, City of Lewiston Ed Fenton, City of Lewiston Heather Germadnik, Americorps, Oxford County SWCD Ann Speers, Americorps, Maine DEP Jan Patterson, City of Lewiston USpecial thanks to: Jeanne Strout, Multi-purpose Center, for providing space for rain barrel painting Linda Lafayette, ABLE, for coordinating painting of rain barrels and painting Wendy Garland, Maine DEP, for helping select rain garden locations Davis Landscaping Company, Inc. for installation of rain gardens 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 the EPA.

ii

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Background ..................................................................... 1 2. Urban Stream Inventory................................................... 3 3. Inventory Execution ......................................................... 4 4. Data Analysis................................................................... 5 5. Survey Results ................................................................. 6 6. Conclusions ..................................................................... 8 7. Recommendations ........................................................... 9 8. Actions Taken .................................................................. 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of the Hart Brook Watershed.......................... 1 Figure 2: Tabulation of streets & homes by sub-watershed... 4 Figure 3: Hart Brook Sub-watersheds and roads surveyed… 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Inspection Forms ............................................................. 11 2. Informational Handout..................................................... 14 3. Information Fact Sheet .................................................... 16 4. Neighborhood Source Assessment Data............................ 19 5. Streets and Stormdrains Data .......................................... 23

UBACKGROUND:

Hart Brook is a small Class B urban stream located in Lewiston, Maine. The brook originates in the area of Pond Road, meanders through the Valley Section neighborhoods, the Industrial Park, the Goff Brook neighborhoods, crosses under I-95, and then follows River Road to its discharge point in the Androscoggin River. The brook is approximately 3.7 miles long and its

Uwatershed Uencompasses approximately 2200 acres (Figure 1). The watershed is the area that discharges its stormwater runoff into the brook

Figure 1: Map of the Hart Brook Watershed

- 1-

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MeDEP) began evaluating Hart Brook in 1998, returning in 2003 and again in 2005. All evaluations showed significant degradation of aquatic life in the brook, along with bank erosion and other signs of urban impairment. These evaluations revealed that Hart Brook was not meeting the quality requirements of its stream classification, Class B; and since 2004 has been listed as an Uurban impaired

streamU.

An Urban Impaired Stream is one that fails to meet water quality standards because of the effects of stormwater runoff from developed land. The MeDEP identifies and lists these streams in Chapter 502, appendix B of the MeDEP rules.

The City of Lewiston recently completed a Watershed Management Plan outlining steps intended to bring Hart Brook back to Class B quality. Additionally, in a further effort to re-vitalize the stream, the City of Lewiston applied for and received a grant to perform an Urban Stream Watershed Inventory in the Hart Brook Watershed. The intent of the survey was to create an awareness that stormwater goes directly to waterbodies with no treatment and that what individuals do at their homes can make a difference, to identify current residential stormwater practices and to provide feedback to residents on alternative methods of dealing with stormwater from their property. The grant funds were used for developing and distributing brochures informing residents of and soliciting assistance with the survey. Two mailers were sent out to residents prior to the survey and two press releases were submitted to the media. Following the neighborhood survey, the results were reviewed and analyzed to determine if there was a common trend of behaviors among the neighborhoods. This common trend would become the focal point of the grant education program.

- 2-

UURBAN STREAM WATERSHED INVENTORY: The inventory, based on the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) protocol, consisted of a Neighborhood Source Assessment (NSA) and a Streets and Stormdrains (SS) inspection. The CWP has two additional surveys which were not included as part of this grant. UNeighborhood Source Assessment(NSA): The NSA has questions which define the neighborhood character and from that attempts can be made to define possible stormwater behaviors of the residents: type of housing, size of lots, are driveways paved or not, in what condition is the driveway, do the homes have garages, are there swimming pools, is the yard clean, are the lawns high or low maintenance?

- 3-

The size of the house, garage and driveway, if there is one, equates to the amount of Uimpervious surfaceU in the neighborhood. There is a direct correlation between the

amount of impervious surfaces and the quality of storm water. The CWP has done studies which show that a watershed with 10% impervious surface will begin to show degradation in the water body. The Hart Brook watershed has 22% impervious cover.

Impervious surfaces are areas into which water cannot be absorbed.

Paved driveways not only increase the impervious surface but the condition of the driveway can also factor into the amount of pollution being washed into the storm drain system. A cracked, dirty or breaking up driveway contributes sediment to the runoff. Sediment can clog catch basins and storm drain piping. Some sediment will be carried all the way to the brook and will build up in the brook disturbing the habitat of the stream life. This sediment also transports pollutants like oil, pesticides, and fertilizers to the stream. Clutter in the yard and yard care chemicals, i.e. fertilizers and herbicides, can be carried downstream by runoff and cause degradation of the brook. UStreets and Stormdrains Inspection(SS): The SS concentrated on the streets and sidewalks in the neighborhood rather than individual properties. Volunteers noted the condition of the streets, were they breaking up or cracking? were there large amounts of sediment, trash, or leaves? did the catch basins show evidence of oil dumping? were catch basins blocked by sediment, trash or leaves? The cleaner and better condition of the streets and sidewalks, the cleaner the runoff will be that ends up in Hart Brook.

UINVENTORY EXECUTION: On July 22, 2008, the survey was completed using volunteers from the City of Lewiston, the MeDEP, Androscoggin Valley Soil and Water Conservation District (AVSWCD) and local stakeholders. Volunteers met in the morning for training. That afternoon, using modified CWP forms for the NSA and SS (see Attachment 1), volunteers completed the inventories in the watershed neighborhoods. The survey encompassed twenty-five streets in four of the six Usub-watershedsU

of the Hart Brook Watershed and included

437 homes. (See Figure 2 and Figure 3)

- 4-

Figure 2: Tabulation of streets & homes by sub-watershed

The volunteers, in parties of two, walked each street and completed the inspection forms by visual inspection from the street. The volunteers had an informational handout (Attachment 2) to provide to residents, if requested, and also stopped to talk with residents during the survey.

USubwatershed URoad

U# of homes USubwatershed URoad

U# of homes

Goff Brook Acadia Ave 35 Lower Foch St 17Goff Brook Martin Dr 15 Lower Fortier Rd 9Goff Brook Parker St 16 Lower Irwin St 16

Goff Brook Rosewood Ave 14 Lower Jeffrey St (S. of Pleasant St) 10

Goff Brook

Scribner Blvd (S. of Pleasant St) 35 Lower Louise Ave 18

Goff Brook Second Ave 10 Lower Nash St 7Goff Brook Verdun St 3 total 77 total 128 Valley Section Cote St 13Industry Dill St 19 Valley Section Gagne St 20Industry Maplewood Rd 16 Valley Section Grovemount Ln 13Industry Sheffield Ave 26 Valley Section Heathwood Ln 21Industry Woodside Dr 36 Valley Section Jan's Blvd 21

total 97 Valley Section

Jeffrey St (between Pleasant & Fairmount) 11

Valley Section Pleasant St (392-334) 18

TOTAL # OF HOMES 437 Valley Section Swale Ln 18 total 135

A sub-watershed is a smaller drainage area within the larger watershed

Figure 3: Hart Brook Sub-watersheds and Roads Surveyed

UDATA ANALYSIS

The data retrieved during the survey was input into an excel database and then summarized by road and by sub-watershed. For the Neighborhood Source Assessment data, this was done by summing the numbers by road, turning them into percentages of homes, then averaging the percentages by sub-watershed. The sub-watershed percentages were then compared to the severity and restoration benchmarks available in the Center for Watershed Protection’s Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance manual. For the Streets and Stormdrains data, the data was analyzed similarly except percentages were gathered at on a sub-watershed level, rather than calculating the percentage for each road and then averaging the percentages. For both assessments, the neighborhood or street features that met the benchmarks for severity or restoration are noted, along with other results of interest, in the Results section below. The average lot sizes used in the Results section below were estimated from a GIS parcel layer. The survey data is available in Appendix 4 and 5.

- 5-

- 6-

URESULTS:

Representatives from the city, AVSWCD, and MeDEP reviewed and summarized the results by sub-watershed: Goff Brook, Industry, Lower and Valley section. A spreadsheet of the data is in Appendix 4 and 5. A summary of results is presented below. UNeighborhood Source Assessment: The UGoff BrookU sub-watershed has predominately single family detached homes, with garages, sitting on 1/8 to 1/4 acre lots. 80% of the homes have paved driveways that are in fairly good, clean condition though approximately 1/3 showed evidence of some sediment and about half were exhibiting some cracking or breaking up of the asphalt. 30% of the driveways had been recently seal-coated. UA majority of homes (68%) had down spouts and 74% of those with downspouts had them discharging down their drivewayU. The possibility of draining of pools and the presence of junk, trash and/or pet waste were not issues in the yards of houses in this sub-watershed and there were no permanent irrigation systems. Most lawns were maintained at a medium input level. The UIndustryU sub-watershed has single family detached homes, with garages, sitting on 1/2 to 1/4 acre lots. Most of the homes have paved driveways. 1/3 had some sediment and about half were exhibiting some cracking or breaking up of the asphalt. UA majority of homes (80%) had down spouts and 75% of those were discharged directly to the streetU. This sub-watershed did have over 60% of homes with some or all of their runoff directed to a pervious area around their home. With 19% of homes having swimming pools, this sub-watershed exceeded the severity benchmark of 10%, indicating the possible draining of pools to stormdrains may be a concern. Junk, trash and/or pet waste in yards was not an issue in this sub-watershed and there were no permanent irrigation systems. Most lawns were maintained at a medium input level. Approximately, 20% of the homes had flat areas favorable for rain gardens. The ULowerU sub-watershed has mostly single family detached homes and slightly over 10% multi-family units and a little over ½ have garages. The lots in this sub-watershed average (+/-) 1/4 acre. Almost all of the homes have paved driveways and over 50% are showing signs of sediment left by runoff and 70% were exhibiting some breaking or cracking in the asphalt. UA majority of homes (64%) had down spouts and 65% of those discharged directly to the street.U This sub-watershed did have over 60% of homes with some or all of their runoff directed to a pervious area around their home. With 16% of homes having swimming pools, this sub-watershed exceeded the severity benchmark of 10%, indicating the possible draining of pools to stormdrains may be a concern. Less than 16% of homes had junk or trash in their yards and pet waste was not an issue in this sub-watershed. There were no permanent irrigation systems and approximately 50% of the lawns were maintained at a

medium input level. However approximately 23% of the lawns were maintained at a high level, exceeding the severity benchmark of 20% and therefore indicating the use of fertilizers and herbicides in this sub-watershed may be a concern. The UValley SectionU sub-watershed has almost all single family detached homes and ¾ have garages. The lots in this sub-watershed are mostly 1/4 acre with about 35% of the lots at 1/8 acre. Over 90% of the homes have paved driveways, with 1/3 showing signs of sediment left by runoff and over ½ exhibiting some cracking in the asphalt. UA majority of homes (83%) had down spoutsU. This sub-watershed did have over 75% of homes with some or all of their runoff directed to a pervious area around their home and less than ½ of the homes had runoff that flowed down the driveway to the street and indirectly to the city’s storm drain system. With 15% of homes having swimming pools, this sub-watershed exceeded the severity benchmark of 10%, indicating the possible draining of pools to stormdrains may be a concern. Less than 11% of homes had junk or trash in their yards and pet waste was not an issue in this sub-watershed. There were no permanent irrigation systems and most lawns were maintained at a low to medium input level. UStreets and Storm drains Inspection: Seven streets were surveyed in the UGoff BrookU sub-watershed. Two have sidewalks and curbing and one has sidewalks for half its length but no

curbing. None of the streets showed signs of dog waste, two had litter and were stained with oil and grease, three were scattered with Uwaste from lawn care practicesU, and four had areas of built-up sediment. The sub-watershed’s high

percentage of streets with sediment (67%) or lawn care waste (50%) indicates a high feasibility for pollution prevention in these areas. The sub-watershed contains 23 catch basins along its 7 streets. 39% of these had visible sediment and 17% had waste from lawn care practices accumulated around the basin rims.

This includes grass clippings, leaves, pine needles, etc.

Four streets were surveyed in the UIndustryU sub-watershed. None have sidewalks, two have curbing for their full length and one has partial curbing. All had oil and grease stains. Two showed signs of sediment accumulation and one of those also had accumulations of waste from lawn care practices. The sub-watershed’s high percentage of streets with sediment (50%) indicates a high feasibility for pollution prevention in this area. Dog waste was not an issue in this sub-watershed. This sub-watershed has 45 catch basins. Approximately 25% had waste from lawn care practices and 18% had sediment accumulated inside and around the catch basin rim. Six streets were survey in the ULowerU sub-watershed. None have sidewalks and one has curbing. All 6 streets had sediment and waste from lawn care practices accumulating along their length. The sub-watershed’s high percentage of streets with sediment (100%) or lawn care waste (100%) indicates

- 7-

- 8-

a high feasibility for pollution prevention in these areas. 4 of the 6 had oil and grease stains and one had litter strewn along it. Dog waste did not appear to be an issue. The sub-watershed has 16 catch basins and 63% had sediment build up inside and around the rim. This high percentage of catch basins with sediment built up indicates a high feasibility for pollution prevention in this area. In addition, 6 of the 16 had accumulations of waste from lawn care practices and another 2 had litter surrounding the inlet. Eight streets were surveyed in the UValley SectionU sub-watershed. There are sidewalks and curbing along half of one street and one other street had curbing. Over half the streets were stained with oil and grease and had sediment accumulations. 4 of the 8 streets had waste from lawn care practices accumulating along their length. The sub-watershed’s high percentage of streets with sediment (75%) or lawn care waste (50%) indicates a high feasibility for pollution prevention in these areas. There are 21 catch basins in this sub-watershed. 43% had accumulated sediment and 33% had waste from lawn care practices accumulated inside and around the rim.

UCONCLUSIONS: The most noted factor common among all neighborhoods was the management of stormwater runoff from roofs. The majority of homes had roof gutters and downspouts and most of the downspouts were directed to an impervious surface, specifically the driveway. Though three of the four sub-watersheds had some homes discharging runoff to pervious areas, for the most part, this was not a conscious act, but simply a result of the lack of gutters and the layout of their lot. This percentage is out-weighed by the number of homes with downspouts and roof runoff directed to driveways. Runoff discharging out of roof downspouts acts like a big broom as it sweeps over driveways and streets. It collects pollutants, including oil, pet waste, grass clippings, leaves, and excess fertilizer and dumps it into the city storm drain system. The storm drain system discharges directly to the local waterbody – in this case, Hart Brook - with no treatment. The results of the Streets and Stormdrains Survey showed a majority of the streets and catch basins had accumulations of sediment and lawn care waste. The primary recommendation to address these findings is to increase the frequency of street sweeping and vacuuming by the City, particularly in the Lower sub-watershed neighborhoods. Another recommendation is to encourage residents to not push grass clippings or sediment from paths or driveways onto the streets and to redirect or absorb water from rooftops so the runoff does not sweep materials into the street. As downspout runoff to streets was exhibited in all watersheds and increased runoff can have a big impact on water quality, this was chosen as the outreach focus area the grant would address.

URECOMMENDATIONS: Based on a review of the results of the NSA and SSD, the following recommendations are provided for residents of the Hart Brook Watershed.

- 9-

Re-direct your roof downspouts onto a lawn area where water will flow at least 15 feet before reaching pavement; much of the water will be absorbed back into the ground before reaching the pavement, this is good for filtering out pollutants, cooling the water and recharging the ground water table.

Install a rain garden; much of the water will be absorbed back into the ground – where the plants and soil filter out pollutants and cool the water, and the water can recharge local groundwater. The water that isn’t immediately absorbed will be held back so the soil can slowly absorb it.

Collect roof runoff in a rain barrel and use it for watering your lawn or garden.

- 10-

UACTIONS TAKEN: Completion of the grant included development of an informational fact sheet to be mailed to watershed residents (Attachment 3), this final report document, which was posted on the City of Lewiston’s website, and installation of demonstration projects, rain barrels and rain gardens, showing alternative practices for treatment of stormwater runoff in residential settings. Letters were sent to all watershed residents seeking volunteers who’d be interested in having a rain barrel or rain garden. These sites would be demonstration sites so others in the watershed could see how they look and work. Rain barrels were purchased through the Androscoggin Valley Soil & Water Conservation District. Volunteers at the Multi-purpose Center painted the barrels and members of the grant project steering committee delivered them to the interested residents with literature on the use of the rain barrels. Three rain gardens were installed in residents’ yards by Davis Landscaping of Lisbon ME. The residents were provided information on garden maintenance and the positive effects of rain gardens.

- 11-

ATTACHMENT 1

Inspection Forms

Neighborhood Source Assessment (NSA) Form

Watershed: Sector: Date:

Surveyors: Photo #s:

- 12-

Road Name: Side of road: even odd both Total # of homes:

Single Family Detached

Single Family Attached (condo, row home)

Multifamily (apt, duplex)

Hou

sin

g T

ype

(che

ck o

ne p

er lo

t)

Commercial

Less than ⅛ acre

⅛ acre (~75 ft x 75 ft)

¼ acre (~105 ft x 105 ft)

½ acre (~150 ft x 150 ft)

Lot

Siz

e

(c

heck

one

per

lot)

1 acre + (~210 ft x 210 ft)

Unpaved

Paved

Clean

Stained (oil, grease)

Dirty (sediment)

Cracking

Breaking up

Dri

vew

ays

(che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

)

Recently seal-coated

Garage

Remodeling or Infill Development

Oth

er

(c

heck

all

that

ap

ply)

Swimming pool

Gutters & downspouts

Downspouts connected to stormdrains or sewer

Runoff to road / driveway (0-15 ft grass)

Runoff to pervious area

Roo

f R

un

off

(che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

) Flat area for raingarden (Note on sector map & record house number. Only count areas that appear good site and have evidence of landowner who landscapes.)

Junk in yard

Trash in yard

Permanent irrigation or “non target” watering

Yar

d a

nd

Law

n

(c

heck

all

that

app

ly)

Pet waste evident

High-input lawn

Medium-input lawn

Law

n C

are

(che

ck o

ne p

er

lot)

Low-input lawn

% Impervious Cover

% Grass Cover

% Natural Plants and Landscaping

Typ

ical

Lot

(s

houl

d to

tal 1

00%

)

% Bare Soil

% Tree Canopy

Streets and Storm Drains Form

Watershed: Sector: Date:

Surveyors: Photo #s:

Road Name ______________ ______________ ______________

Sidewalk

Curbs

Str

eet

Det

ails

(c

heck

all

that

ap

ply)

# cars parked on street

Stained (oil, grease)

Litter

Sediment

Grass clippings, leaves, pine needles, etc

Str

eets

(che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

)

Pet waste

# of catch basins

Evidence of oil, grease dumping

Litter

Sediment

Grass clippings, leaves, pine needles, etc

Pet waste

Cat

ch B

asin

s (c

heck

all

that

app

ly)

Wet

Litter

Sediment

Grass clippings, leaves, pine needles, etc

Sid

ewal

ks

(che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

)

Pet waste

- 13-

- 14-

ATTACHMENT 2

Informational Handout

- 15-

Informational Handout What are we doing? Conducting a Neighborhood Source Assessment Survey What is a NSA? This survey is being done to identify behaviors and infrastructure within the neighborhoods of the Hart Brook watershed that may be contributing to the further degradation of Hart Book. What is going to be done with the information gathered?

General suggestions and recommendations of easy, inexpensive ways to better deal with stormwater will be provided to homeowners.

An outreach program (using the results from the inventory as guidance) will provide Hart Brook watershed residents information on stormwater and suggest actions they can take to be more stormwater friendly.

There are also funds available to install at least two voluntary YardScaping projects (i.e. rain gardens, rain barrels, disconnection of down spouts, or other stormwater-friendly landscaping) as a way to demonstrate the ease with which the recommendations can be accomplished.

Who is conducting this survey? The City of Lewiston, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, and Androscoggin Valley Soil and Water Conservation District, along with Pike industries, Androscoggin Land Trust, members of the Hart Brook Watershed Management Stakeholders Committee, and other volunteers. The City of Lewiston has received a grant to perform an "Urban Stream Watershed Inventory". 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. The grant is an effort to continue work that was initiated with the Hart Brook watershed management plan development by focusing on residential neighborhoods within the watershed. Many of us don’t recognize that the activities we often do around our homes have an impact on water quality. Will the results of the survey be public? Yes, but specific residences will not be singled out. The final report will be available at the following websites: HUhttp://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/stormwater/hartbrook/index.htmUH or HUhttp://www.androscogginswcd.net/currentprojects.htmUH To lean more go to the following website: HUhttp://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/stormwater/hartbrook/index.htm or contact: Jan Patterson, Project Engineer, city of Lewiston at 513-3003 or mail to: [email protected]

- 16-

ATTACHMENT 3

Informational Fact Sheet

Informational Fact Sheet (outside of mailer)

HART BROOK WATERSHED HOMEOWNERS!!!

HELP RESTORE HART BROOK!!

A stormwater survey was completed in your neighborhood in July 2008. Volunteers documented current stormwater behaviors that could be negatively impacting Hart Brook. The results, which will be posted on the city’s website as a final report, showed that the biggest culprit was UrunoffU flowing over Uimpervious surfacesU.

URunoffU

snow melt and rain which is the water from

runs over land and is not absorbed

URunoffU is the water from snow melt and rain which runs over land and is not absorbed

An Uimpervious surfaceU is your driveway, roof and any other surface into which water cannot be absorbed

- 17-

WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM? WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Informational Fact Sheet (inside of mailer)

UWhy is that a problem? Runoff flowing over impervious surfaces Upicks up pollutantsU and

Udischarges them untreatedU to the storm drain system and ultimately to Hart Brook and the Androscoggin River.

Runoff flowing over impervious surfaces is alsoU heated up Umore than when it flows over a lawn area or through the forest. The increased temperature is Uharmful to fishU and other plant and animal life in the Brook.

Runoff Udecreases rechargeU to the groundwater supply.

Install a Urain barrelU - save your roof runoff

to water your lawn and garden

What can you do? URe-use your runoff!!

Install a Udownspout

diverterU to direct roof runoff away from pavement

Attachment 3

Plant a Urain garden

U – direct your downspout

to the garden

- 18-

- 19-

ATTACHMENT 4

Neighborhood Source Assessment Data

- 20-

- 21-

- 22-

- 23-

ATTACHMENT 5

Streets and Stormdrains Data

- 24-

- 25-