University of New Hampshire CARSEY RESEARCH Carsey School of Public Policy Regional Issue Brief #47 Spring 2016

Clean Water for Less Integrated Planning Reduces the Cost of Meeting Water Quality Goals in New Hampshire

Alison Watts, Robert Roseen, Paul E. Stacey, Renee Bourdeau, and Theresa Walker

Summary Rising populations and increased development in New Hampshire coastal communities have led to a decline in water quality in the Great Bay Estuary. Responding effectively and affordably to new federal permit requirements for treating and discharging stormwater and wastewater will require innovative solutions from communities in the area. In March 2015, the Water Integration for Squamscott–Exeter (WISE) project completed an integrated planning framework through which the coastal communities of Exeter, Stratham, and Newfields could more afford- ably manage permits for wastewater and stormwa- ter. However, meeting maximum goals for nitrogen reduction will require collaboration and commitment from all municipalities in the watershed, whether regulated under the Clean Water Act or not.

Introduction The New Hampshire Great Bay Estuary and portions surface water, require nitrogen controls as low as 3 mil- of the tidal rivers that flow into it have been negatively ligrams per liter (mg/l)—the lowest technically feasible impacted by human development. The Piscataqua level—on effluent from wastewater treatment plants.2 Region Estuaries Partnership has identified caution- Municipalities, EPA regulators, and community stake- ary or negative conditions or trends in fifteen of holders are now discussing strategies that would allow twenty-two indicators of ecosystem health.1 In 2009 communities flexibility to integrate permit requirements many parts of the estuary were listed as “impaired” by between wastewater and stormwater, and/or combine the New Hampshire Department of Environmental requirements among multiple permit holders in order to Services (NHDES) on measures such as nitrogen over- devise control options that might be more cost-effective. enrichment. Though nitrogen is naturally present in The enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in estuarine water, excess amounts support algae growth, 1972, with its ambitious goals to restore the chemi- decrease oxygen, and ultimately damage aquatic spe- cal, physical, and biological integrity of U.S. surface cies. Permits now issued by the U.S. Environmental waters and to eliminate pollutant discharges by 1985, Protection Agency (EPA), which regulates discharges to led to dramatic improvements in water quality, as 2 CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

wastewater and industrial dis- FIGURE 1. THE EXETER–SQUAMSCOTT WATERSHED charges were treated or eliminated. These “point sources” (discharges from a single location, such as a pipe) are now largely regulated through permits that restrict pollutants based on the condi- tion of the receiving water body. However, nonpoint sources, such as agricultural runoff, groundwa- ter, atmospheric deposition, and diffuse runoff from the land are not generally restricted under the Clean Water Act. The regulation of sources generated by multiple parties is difficult, and federal and state agencies are currently working to develop more effec- tive and pragmatic approaches. These include integration among permits, individual or regional watershed-based permitting, and the expansion of regulatory author- ity to control nonpoint sources. All of these methods are potentially applicable to the Great Bay region.

How Integrated Planning Works Existing wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) in the Great Bay region currently operate under discharge permits which set effluent limits on harmful Note: The communities of Exeter, Stratham, and Newfields border the Exeter–Squamscott River. pollutants. Many communities Municipal discharges to the river must comply with stringent nitrogen wastewater discharge permits. in the region must also address Source: From: The Lower Exeter and Squamscott Rivers, A Report to the General Court New Hamp- the discharge of urban stormwa- shire Rivers Management and Protection Program, Department of Environmental Services Office of the ter under a municipal separate Commissioner, Febrary 2011. storm sewer system (MS4) permit. Nonregulated discharges, such as Integrated planning and inte- narrows the options for more stormwater outside of urban areas, grated permitting allow munici- cost-efficient approaches to water are addressed only voluntarily, palities to meet multiple permit management.3 Consequently, if at all, and may be a significant requirements under an overarch- the EPA has become receptive to source of pollution. The MS4 ing structure that may encompass municipal proposals for integrated permits are not connected to the several municipalities or private plans that allow local officials to wastewater treatment permits, and parties (see Box 1). The EPA rec- prioritize actions across multiple historically little coordination has ognizes that meeting the goals of permits. Recently issued WWTF occurred between the programs. water-related permits individually permits to the towns of Exeter CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY 3 and Newmarket in southern New The Exeter–Squamscott Box 1: Definitions Hampshire include provisions that Watershed allow nitrogen reductions from Integrated Planning—Individual both regulated and nonregulated The Exeter River, in southeastern permits are issued, but permit stormwater and nonpoint sources New Hampshire, runs approximately requirements are combined under to be used to meet permit limits. 30 miles from the town of Chester to a local agreement, such as a memo- The communities are still required the Great Dam in downtown Exeter. randum of understanding. to upgrade their wastewater facili- Below the dam the river is renamed ties, but they may, for example, be the Squamscott, and forms part of the Integrated Permitting—A single able to avoid some costs associated Great Bay tidal estuary (Figure 1). permit combines obligations with reducing nitrogen levels in The watershed encompasses from multiple permits. The per- wastewater by reducing nitrogen 80,000 acres and includes portions mittees are mutually obligated to levels in stormwater. Additional of thirteen municipalities. The lower meet requirements. For instance, cost savings could derive from Exeter–Squamscott River subwater- stormwater and wastewater obli- a regional approach that meets shed, which includes the communities gations for one or more commu- targeted reductions by prioritizing of Exeter, Stratham, and Newfields, nities could be combined. lower-cost treatments across encompasses 19,000 acres—24 per- Watershed-Based Permitting—A a larger landscape. cent of the total—but generates nearly single permit is issued to all of the 50 percent of the nitrogen released to entities within a watershed region. the river (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2. SOURCES OF NITROGEN IN THE SUBWATERSHED

Note: Exeter, Stratham, and Newfields generate approximately 50% of the nitrogen load to the Exeter–Squamscott River. The remaining inputs come from developed and natural land in the upper watershed. Loads are in tons per year. 4 CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

Only two of these munici- What Is the Advantage of Fifty-year lifecycle costs, which palities, Exeter and Newfields, Integrated Planning? include facility operations and currently generate wastewater dis- maintenance, are estimated at charges that require EPA permits. If communities work together, they $100 million–$220 million for Stratham is unregulated now, but can prioritize nitrogen reduction the three communities (Figure 4). it has been notified of a pending strategies across the watershed, Integrated subwatershed planning MS4 permit requirement. starting with the most cost-effec- presents a potential cost benefit In 2013, the Water Integration for tive actions. Figure 3 shows the of over $100 million. Much of the Squamscott–Exeter (WISE) project4 capital cost associated with three savings is achieved by applying was initiated to develop a frame- scenarios: integrated subwatershed the most cost effective treatments work for an integrated nitrogen con- planning, where the three com- first, regardless of municipal or trol plan for these communities. The munities work to meet all permit permit boundaries. project brought together municipal requirements together; individual decision makers, the Rockingham community permitting, where each What Are the Drawbacks Planning Commission, the Great community addresses each of its to Integrated Planning? Bay Estuarine Reserve, univer- permits separately; and integrated sity researchers, and engineering permitting, where one community Integrated planning allows flex- consultants to work with state and (Exeter) combines requirements for ibility in both the timing and federal regulators to identify permit two permits, without coordinating methods used to meet the required elements amenable for integration with other communities. The WISE pollutant load reductions, but it and to develop scenarios combin- cost analysis found that the greatest can be enforced only to entities ing alternative levels of treatment degree of cooperation—integrated that are already subject to permits. that would be acceptable to the subwatershed planning—leads to In order to meet recommended regulatory agencies. The project the greatest cost savings. team developed nitrogen control strategies for a range of potential FIGURE 3. COST DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATED WITH THREE PERMITTING scenarios based on permit require- APPROACHES ments, cost, effectiveness, and input from municipalities and agencies. Scenarios included a wastewater treatment facility upgrade that would reduce the total nitrogen concentration in effluent from 20mg/l to 8mg/l, and an option that would remove all effluent from the river through a regional treatment plant in another location. Each scenario also included optimized reduction strategies to address loads from stormwater (both MS4 and unregulated stormwater), septic systems, agriculture, and other nonpoint sources. All scenarios were reviewed by the participat- ing municipalities and agencies to ensure that the alternatives were Note: Subwatershed integrated planning has a lower total capital cost and reaches maximum plausible and could potentially be reduction more efficiently. implemented. CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY 5 nitrogen pollutant load targets in FIGURE 4. FIFTY-YEAR LIFECYCLE COSTS FOR WASTEWATER AND STORM- Great Bay, load reductions in the WATER CONTROL IN THE SUBWATERSHED range of 42 to 88 tons per year are needed in the Exeter–Squamscott River. If the three communities in this study extensively upgrade their wastewater plants and reduce stormwater and nonpoint source inputs from all imper- vious cover through intensive stormwater controls, they still will not be able to achieve the more stringent target. Attainment of the full 88-ton reduction in the Exeter–Squamscott watershed will require substantial cooperation and investment from upstream communities, none of which are currently subject to regulation Note: Long-term cost savings will exceed $100 million across the three towns. (Figure 5).

Policy Implications FIGURE 5. SCOPE OF PARTICIPATION REQUIRED TO MEET MAXIMUM The long-term cost savings from NITROGEN-LOAD-REDUCTION GOALS integrated watershed approaches and the underlying flexibilities offered by the EPA support the adoption of integrated approaches for meeting water quality goals. However, this option requires col- laboration and commitment from all municipalities in the watershed whether regulated under the Clean Water Act or not. Voluntary par- ticipation by nonregulated towns will require substantial financial investment that towns may be reluctant to support. Incentive programs that reward nonregu- lated communities could provide a mechanism for equitable sharing of management actions, but these incentives require substantial Note: Upgrading wastewater treatment plants and addressing sources of nonpoint pollution funding or innovative financing. in the three communities (blue) can attain a load reduction of approximately 55 tons/year. Reaching the more ambitious target of 88 tons (green) will require cooperation from unregu- lated upstream communities. 6 CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

If cooperative planning and man- Methods and Data performance data for nonpoint agement ventures are not effective treatment were derived from a range at meeting existing Clean Water Act This analysis is based on data gathered of existing sources, and include requirements, federal or state regu- under a collaborative research pro- information from national and local latory authorities may be required gram in which scientists and munici- studies).7,8,9,10,11 Pollutant load val- to invoke additional elements of palities worked closely together to ues were obtained from literature the Clean Water Act that could define the problem, develop the meth- screened to select values appropri- force the participation of nonregu- ods, and interpret the results. A coor- ate for the region of interest,12, 13, 14, 15 lated communities. These include dinating team composed of staff from then averaged to yield a single value residual designation authority, Geosyntec Consulting, the University for each land use. All data input was which puts unregulated nonpoint of New Hampshire, the Great Bay reviewed by the full project team and sources under a permit similar to National Estuarine Research Reserve, additional stakeholders (for example, a stormwater permit; application and the Rockingham Planning representatives from local agricultural of state antidegradation policies, Commission led the project and operations) to ensure that the selected which can prohibit the discharge developed technical information and values were reasonable and appro- of any new sources of a pollutant products. The coordinating team met priate for specific application in this to an impaired water, including frequently with the full project team, study. Watershed pollutant loads were sources related to development; and which included decision makers from modeled using the EPA’s SWMM development of a total maximum the municipalities, representatives model16 and NHDES’s Great Bay daily load, which is the maximum from the Environmental Protection Nitrogen Non-Point Source Study.9 amount of a pollutant that a water- Agency, the New Hampshire body can receive and still safely Department of Environmental meet water quality standards. Services, and other parties (such as The permitting alternatives representatives from agriculture and discussed in the WISE plan are local watershed groups) as appropri- limited to meeting current and ate. The collaborative process was anticipated regulatory require- facilitated by The Consensus Building ments for Exeter, Stratham, and Institute to ensure that project Newfields, but these three regu- outcomes and outputs incorporated lated communities alone can- input from the full team. The authors not achieve the highest nitrogen of this brief were members of the reductions currently proposed. coordinating team and have expertise Alternatives such as residual in engineering, hydrology, and water designation, which has been resource management, represent- applied only in New England (and ing consulting (Robert Roseen and in only a few locations including Renee Bourdeau), the University of Portland, Maine, and the Charles New Hampshire (Alison Watts), and River in Boston) and antidegra- the Great Bay National Estuarine dation would impose significant Research Reserve (Paul Stacey). management and enforcement The data presented in this brief burdens. Preemptive action are discussed in detail in Appendix B – Pollutant Load Modeling Report through municipal collaboration 4 and engagement of unregulated of the WISE Plan. Cost data for communities may be necessary the WWTF upgrades are based on reports commissioned by the towns to forestall the escalation of EPA 5,6 enforcement mechanisms. of Exeter and Stratham. Cost and CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY 7

Endnotes 10. University of New Hampshire About the Authors 1. Piscataqua Region Estuaries Project, Stormwater Center (UNHSC), “2012 Dr. Alison W. Watts (Watershed State of Our Estuaries report (Durham, Biennial Report” (Durham, NH: Science Lead) is a research assis- NH: Piscataqua Region Estuaries UNHSC, 2012). tant professor at the University of Project, 2013). 11. VHB, “Oyster River Integrated New Hampshire in the Department 2. Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Watershed Plan” (Bedford, NH: VHB, of Civil and Environmental Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). Engineering. Dr. Robert Roseen “Authorization to Discharge Under 12. J. Steuer et al., “Sources of (Principal Investigator) is the princi- the National Pollutant Discharge Contamination in an Urban Basin in pal of Waterstone Engineering (for- Elimination System, The Town of Marquette, Michigan and an Analysis Exeter, New Hampshire, Squamscott merly with Geosyntec Consultants). of Concentrations, Loads, and Data Paul E. Stacey (Applied Science River,” Section 5, “Reasonable Potential Quality” U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Investigator) is the research coor- Analysis and Effluent Limit Derivation” Water-Resources Investigations Report (Boston, MA, 2012), p. 143. 97-4242 (Denver, CO: USGS, 1996). dinator for the Great Bay National Estuarine Reserve. Renee Bourdeau 3. N. Stoner and C. Giles, “Integrated 13. R. Pitt, National Stormwater Quality (Project Manager) is a water Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Database v1.1, Summary Table (http:// Planning Approach Framework” www.bmpdatabase.org/nsqd.html). resources engineer with Wright- (Washington, DC: Environmental Pierce (formerly with Geosyntec Protection Agency, 2012). 14. R. Claytor and T. Shueler, “Design Consultants). Theresa Walker is of Stormwater Filtering Systems” a planner with the Rockingham 4. Geosyntec Consultants, “Water (Ellicott City, MD: Center for Integration for Squamscott Exeter Watershed Protection, 1996). Planning Commission. (WISE) Preliminary Integrated Plan (Portsmouth, NH: Geosyntec, 2015), 15. NHDES, New Hampshire Acknowledgements www.wisenh.net. Stormwater Manual, Appendix D (http:// This work was supported by the des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/ NERRS Science Collaborative, and 5. Wright-Pierce, “Wastewater stormwater/manual.htm). Facilities Plan for the Town of Exeter, relied on the expertise and par- New Hampshire,” Preliminary Draft 16. U.S. Environmental Protection ticipation of our project partners: Agency, “StormWater Management (Portland, ME: Wright-Pierce, 2014). Jennifer Perry, Town of Exeter; Model (SWMM),” http://www2.epa. 6. Wright-Pierce, “Exeter—Wastewater gov/water-research/storm-water- Paul Deschaine, Town of Stratham; Facilities Planning Cost Estimates for management-model-swmm. Bill Meserve, Town of Newfields; WWTF Upgrades for Total Nitrogen for Doug Thompson, Consensus Use by WISE,” Memorandum (Portland, Building Institute; and Cliff Sinnott, ME: Wright-Pierce, 2014). Rockingham Planning Commission. 7. U.S. Environmental Protection We would like to thank Ted Diers, Agency, “Urban Storm Water Best NHDES, and Michael Ettlinger, Management Practices Study, Part D” Curt Grimm, Michele Dillon, Amy (Washington, DC: EPA, 1999). Sterndale, Bianca Nicolosi, and 8. Geosyntec Consultants, “Least Cost Laurel Lloyd at the Carsey School Mix of BMPs Analysis, Evaluation of of Public Policy at the University of Stormwater Standards,” prepared for New Hampshire for their thoughtful Jesse W. Pritts, U.S. Environmental suggestions, and Patrick Watson for Protection Agency, Contract No. EP- his editorial assistance. C-08-002, Task Order 2010-12 (Acton, MA: Geosyntec, 2014). 9. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), “Great Bay Nitrogen Non-Point Source Study” (Concord: NHDES, 2014). 8 CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

University of New Hampshire Carsey School of Public Policy

The Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire is nationally recognized for its research, policy education, and engagement. The school takes on the pressing issues of the twenty-first century, striving for innovative, responsive, and equitable solutions. Huddleston Hall • 73 Main Street • Durham, NH 03824 (603) 862-2821 TTY Users: dial 7-1-1 or 1-800-735-2964 (Relay N.H.) carsey.unh.edu