A Watershed Approach for Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey

LAKE HOPATCONG
Lake
Hopatcong,
New Jersey
Presentation to NEIWPCC
May 20, 2008 by
Ken Klipstein, Director
NJWSA Watershed Protection
Unit and
Pat Rector, NJDEP Div.
Watershed Management
LAKE HOPATCONG
NJ’s Largest Freshwater Lake
|
|
|
Located in Morris and Sussex Counties in New Jersey
2,686 acres
~40 miles of shoreline
9.5 miles long
Relatively complex shape
y Central basin’s average depth is 27 ft
y Max depth is 58 Ft
y Many coves, bays, and canals
y long hydraulic residence time of 1.7 years
4 Municipalities - Borough of Mount Arlington, Borough of Hopatcong,
Roxbury Township, and Jefferson Township
Picture Courtesy of: www.lakehopatcong.org/
LAKE HOPATCONG – 1800’S
Tourist Destination
Boating and Recreation
MAJOR
USES
| Boating
| Fishing
| Swimming
| Sight
seeing
| Water Supply
Intense recreational use – 35,000 boats
State Park - 107 acres – 500,000 annual visitors
Like many lakes in the nation, shoreline is no longer
predominately seasonal bungalows.
USE IMPAIRMENTS
Woodport Area
OUTLINE
History 314 studies and LHRPB
| TMDL
| Refined TMDL (as called for in TMDL)
| Components of TMDL (wastewater, s.w.)
| How we address each
| Additional measures to achieve
| Additional issues (land use)
| Where we are now
|
LAKE HOPATCONG REGIONAL
PLANNING BOARD
Began 1964
| Lack of Authority
| Lack of Funding
| Disbanded upon creation of Lake Hopatcong
Commission
| Some data available for 20 years, fairly
consistent, funded through EPA Clean Lakes
Studies and other sources.
|
LAKE HOPATCONG COMMISSION
Created by Legislature in 2000
| First Lake Hopatcong Meeting - May 2001
| Mandate: “To oversee and safeguard Lake Hopatcong as
a natural, scenic and recreational resource.”
| 11 Members – 5 State/6 Local
|
State - Chair, DEP & DCA Commissioners and 2 Public
Members
y Local - Morris & Sussex County, Borough of Hopatcong,
Jefferson Township, Roxbury Township; Borough of Mt.
Arlington
y
Target from Original TMDL
Original TMDL Loads and Reductions
Refined TMDL Loads by Source
Refined TMDL Loads by Municipality
Lake Hopatcong Municipalities
Implementation – Who? How?
Who? Partners
– Lake Hopatcong Commission
– Division of Watershed
Management
– Municipalities
– Counties
– Fish and Wildlife
– Parks and Forestry
– Land Use Regulation
Program
– Pesticide Control
– Division of Water Quality
– Compliance and
Enforcement
– Knee Deep
Club/Stakeholders
– USEPA
How? Potential Funding
– State Appropriations
– Federal Grants (i.e. Targeted
Watershed)
– 319(h) Non-Point Source
– 604(b) Water Quality
Planning
– Infrastructure Trust
Financing
– Municipal and County
Appropriations
– Other Grants/Special
Appropriations
– Public/Private Partnerships
– User Fees/Dedicated
Funding/Taxes
IMPLEMENTATION –WHO?
USEPA
| USEPA
Grant
| The
Wetlands
Lake Hopatcong
Commission received
a grant from EPA to
identify and map
critical wetlands
surrounding Lake
Hopatcong.
MAJOR SOURCES
|
Wastewater Management
y
|
Failing Septic Systems
Stormwater runoff
y
52%
High density land uses
31%
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
|
Plan to consolidate into Regional Treatment Plant
y Roxbury sewered 100%
y Mt. Arlington sewered 100%
y Hopatcong is in the process of sewering
| Phase I complete (1811 EDUs)
| Phase II underway
| Plan is to sewer 15,171 residents.
y Jefferson has no near term plans to sewer
HOPATCONG SEWER PROJECT
First 2 Phases nearing completion
| Total of 14 construction contracts
| 2850 customers to be served
| Collection system utilizes gravity sewers and low
pressure sewers
| 925 grinder pumps
| 4 neighborhood pump stations
| 564, 822 feet or 107 miles of pipe
|
Courtesy Hach Mott Macdonald
BOROUGH OF HOPATCONG – PHASE I & II SERVICE AREAS DETAIL
Courtesy Hach Mott Macdonald
HOPATCONG SEWER PROJECT
FINANCING
| Collection
system
| Phase I & II cost $59,440,000.
| Federal Grant $8,700,000.
| State Grant $5,500,000.
| NJ Infrastructure Trust $15,800,000.
| Local Financing $29,440,000.
| MSA Treatment $11,100,000.
| MSA grants $4,800,000.
| NJ Infrastructure Trust $6,300,000.
Courtesy Hach Mott Macdonald
JEFFERSON LAND USE
ZOOMING IN
SEPTIC IMPACT AREA - JEFFERSON
LAKE SHAWNEE AND LAKE HOPATCONG
LAKE SHAWNEE
SFY 2005 Section 604(b) Grant Funds
Water Quality Management Planning
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
319(h) funded implementation- 4 projects $844,500
| EPA Targeted Watershed Initiative Grant $745,000
| NJDEP adopted 2 Stormwater Rules in Feb. 2004 to
address existing stormwater issues (Phase II) and to
address future development (Stormwater management).
| Phase II rules include requirements for ordinances for not
feeding waterfowl, picking up pet waste, illicit connection
trackdown and education.
| Stormwater Management Rules include requirements for
Municipal Plans that must look at TMDLs; 300 ft buffers
for Category-1 waters; BMP technical manual and
performance standards for recharge, quantity and quality.
|
CRESCENT COVE 319(H) FUNDED
BMP SITE (1 OF 4 PROJECTS)
SHARED SERVICES AGREEMENTS
OUTFALL AND CATCH BASIN
SURVEY
OUTFALL MAPPING
MUNICIPAL WORKSHEET
TOWN OR COUNTY:
STAFF:
Date
Coun
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Location
(GPS Coord or
Street Address)
Size
(LxW or
Diameter)
Sediment
Depth
Manhours
Additional Notes
ADDITIONAL MEASURES
| Stormwater
and Wastewater are
identified as the two major contributors.
| Reduction of sources through additional
measures to reduce the phosphorus load,
whether external loading or internal will
also help to achieve the TMDL.
HARVESTING
BEFORE
AFTER
WEED CONTROL
Estimated TP removal
from harvesting
Total Phosphorus (lbs) removed through weed harvesting 2002-2007
900
800
700
TP (lbs)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
2006
2007
COLLECTED MACROPHYTE SAMPLES
FOR TP ANALYSIS
| First
set of samples collected on 17-Jul-06.
Three samples of EWM*, three of tapegrass, two
of Lyngbya, four “community” samples, and four
additional samples of other plant species.
| Second set collected on 28-Sep-06. Three
samples of EWM, two of tapegrass, three of
Lyngbya, four “community” samples, and three
additional samples of other plant species.
| *EWM=Eurasian Water Milfoil
Courtesy Dr. Fred Lubnow, Princeton Hydro, LLC
Results
July 2006
Sept. 2006
• EWM TP varied 1,650 and
2,400 mg/kg (mean of
2,137 mg/kg)
• Tapegrass TP varied
1,340 and 2,900 mg/kg
(mean 2,030 mg/kg)
• Lyngbya TP varied 1,220
and 2,340 mg/kg (mean
1,780 mg/kg)
• Community TP 1,680 and
3,930 mg/kg (mean of
2,693 mg/kg)
• EWM TP varied 1,200
and 1,710 mg/kg (mean
1,513 mg/kg)
• Tapegrass TP varied 550
and 1,210 mg/kg (mean
880 mg/kg)
• Lyngbya TP varied 1,430
and 2,400 mg/kg (mean
1,970 mg/kg)
• Community TP 1,140
and 3,240 mg/kg (mean
1,878 mg/kg)
Courtesy Dr. Fred Lubnow, Princeton Hydro, LLC
Results
•
•
•
•
2006
Using a mean 2006
community-based TP
concentration of 2,285
mg/kg and
the 2006 removed
harvested biomass of
1,290.6 tons,
it was estimated that 209
kg of TP was removed.
Approximately 6.3% of the
TP load targeted for
reduction under the TMDL.
Courtesy Dr. Fred Lubnow, Princeton Hydro, LLC
2007
• Using a mean 2006
community-based TP
concentration of 2,285
mg/kg and
• the 2007 removed
harvested biomass of
1,600 tons,
• it was estimated that
259 kg was removed.
• This accounts for
approximately 7.8% of
the TP load targeted for
reduction under the
TMDL.
P-FREE FERTILIZER
| Liquid
or granular lawn fertilizer
must have 0.5% of phosphorus
of less
| Must
be applied when ground is
not frozen
| Fertilizer
applications can not be
made within 10 feet of any
wetland, stream, or waterbody
| No
person shall deposit leaves or
other vegetative materials on
roads or within any lake, pond,
stream or stormwater drainage
system.
Picture Courtesy of: www.lakehopatcong.org
TMDL COORDINATION
MEETINGS
BUILD-OUT
APPROACHING BUILD-OUT
…AND IN THE WATERSHED
CHECKING WITH OPEN
SPACE IN JEFFERSON
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
LONG-TERM
CHL A CONCENTRATIONS LONG-TERM
Aquatic Weed Growth – Summer 2005
USE IMPAIRMENTS
SUMMER ALGAL BLOOMS- AUGUST 2005
N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(g)2 “Except as due to natural conditions,
nutrients shall not be allowed in concentrations that cause
objectionable algal densities, nuisance aquatic vegetation or
otherwise render the waters unsuitable for the designated
uses.”
IMPLEMENTING A TMDL AS A
WATERSHED EFFORT IS NOT:
FAST
| EASY
| WITHOUT PROBLEMS
| WITHOUT FRUSTRATION AND
AGGRAVATION
| ONE STRAIGHT SHOT
| A SOLO ENDEAVOR
| CHEAP
| A 30-SECOND SOUND BITE
| STATIC
|
IMPLEMENTING A TMDL AS A
WATERSHED EFFORT IS:
REWARDING
| ENGAGING
| ENRICHING
| CUMULATIVE
| AN EXPERIENCE OF THE WHOLE IS
GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS
| HUMBLING
| AN AMAZING LEARNING JOURNEY
| THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN
|
QUESTIONS?
Contact Information:
Pat Rector
NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management
[email protected]
Ken Klipstein, Director
New Jersey Water Supply Authority,
Watershed Protection Unit
[email protected]
Lake Hopatcong Commission
Donna McHalle-Holly
Lakehopatcong.org
Grateful acknowledgment to Donna McHalleHolly and Bill Clark for sharing images
Thanks to Dr. Fred Lubnow, Princeton Hydro,
LLC for always so graciously sharing slides and
data.
Thanks also to Hach-Mott MacDonald to sharing
slides and information regarding the Boro of
Hopatcong Sewer Project.