July 30 meeting packet

SILVER LAKE COMMISSION Meeting will be held in person and via weblink. Meeting Link: https://cityofdover.webex.com/cityofdover/j.php?MTID=mee7c75d88c429addfea71ee82ddaf07d Dial: 1-650-479-3208 Access code: 2533 069 2943 Event password: DoverSLC AGENDA July 30, 2025 5:30 PM Large Conference Room 1. Call to Order / Welcome Members 2. Review of Minutes 3. Vacant Position 4. Dover Police Update 5. Earth Day 6. Riparian Buffers Discussion Follow Up 7. Update on Silver Lake Water Quality 8. Silver Lake Master Plan 9. Silver Lake Resolution 10. Silver Lake Draw Down 11. Watershed Map 12. Meeting Schedule (as needed/quarterly at most) 13. Adjournment THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(E)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

Silver Lake Commission March 20, 2024 5:30 PM In person & Via Weblink **DRAFT** Members Present Staff & Guests John DeMarie Tricia Arndt, 3rd District City Councilwoman Kathy Doyle Carolyn Courtney, Parks & Recreation Staff Marie Kozel, Chair Bryn Wambaugh, City of Dover Environmental Scientist Michael Lewis Officer Killen, City of Dover Police (web) William Satchell Anthony Morris (web) WELCOME & CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM MEMBER & STAFF INTRODUCTION Brief Introductions around the table. MEETING MINUTES (AN ERROR OCCURRED ON THE RECORDING – STILL LOOKING TO RECOVER THIS INFORMATION) NAMING/DEDICATION OF CITY PARKS Councilwoman Arndt is proposing a new naming policy for buildings and facilities in the municipality, as well as a general naming policy. The current process in Dover for naming parks and other spaces is informal and lacks a thorough vetting process. Councilwoman Arndt noted instead of creating an ad hoc committee or using the existing committee to review naming petitions, establish criteria, and ensure a fair and equitable process that honors the city's history and culture, I would appreciate your input. The discussion in the meeting was about whether or not to name things after people in the city. The preference was expressed for alternative ways of honoring individuals, such as memorial bricks, benches, and trees. There were concerns about the number of requests to name things and the limited number of parks available. The brick program at the former fireman’s moment site is an idea for offering memory in lieu of naming a park. Discussion & feedback was supportive. Comments are still welcome, please forward onto Ms. Courtney, Ms. Kozel or Mrs. Arndt. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATE Ms. Courtney reported that Mr. Lyon was unable to attend this meeting, however, the project is on target for completion in April 30. The parks staff will be following the project to ensure the parking area is cleaned up and left in good condition. In discussion, it was noted that this is not a restroom facility, and the gates will remain locked to the public. DOVER POLICE – PARK REPORT UPDATE Officer Killen reported that they would respond if there were issues with alcohol consumption or disturbances. There were very few calls since the last meeting report. A couple psychiatric calls, but no trend was established. We were made aware of large DSU party at Silver Lake Park. Proactive measures prevented this event from happening as a permit was not issued through the city. It was communicated to the organizers that the party would not be tolerated. Myself and another officer stayed late to secure the park and other parks in the area were secured as well. He welcomed questions. Ms. Kozel noted if we see a large gathering, how would we know if there is a permit. Mr. Killen responded if alcohol and/or DJ are seen, then it is not permitted as we don’t allow that. If there is question, we can ask to see their permit. If you have a concern, just give the department a call and we’ll check it out. Ms. Courtney added, that inflatable bounce house, or excessive loud music that is not allowed. Those with a permit are given this information. It was discussed putting up a notice of “reservation” or something to that affect. Ms. Courtney noted she would discuss this with Mr. Ridgeway, our grounds superintendent. There are camera at Silver Lake with access to limited to the police department, but there is a possibility of sharing access with the Parks and Recreation department in the event of researching a particular activity.

Mr. Morris compliments the Parks department on their permitting process. We go there, we don’t have a problem as we have the permit and it’s been helpful. A brief discussion on locking and opening gates at Silver Lake and our other parks as well. UPDATE ON SILVER LAKE PARK PROJECTS & MAINTENANCE UPDATES Ms. Courtney reported that Mr. Eaton has tendered his registration and will be leaving the city at the end of the month. Bally’s will be returning for another Earth Day projects at Silver Lake Park and also Schutte Park. Bally’s staff have been a great group of volunteers for park projects and we look forward to working with them again. Requests for park clean-ups are being sent to me and I’ll coordinate accordingly with Mr. Ridgeway. A brief discussion on the various groups that have volunteered for park clean-up events. MAYORS REGATTA 2024 Ms. Courtney reported a target date of early fall or end of September is begin discussed and we hope to partner with Good Neighbors (formerly NCALL). This could increase the event attendance, introduce the lake and offer a day of fellowship at the park. RIPARIAN BUFFER Mrs. Doyle asked for an update from Ms. Wambaugh regarding the causeway (State Street bridge). Ms. Wambaugh shared a brief history of the grounds department being in the Public Works Department but they are not park of the Parks & Recreation Department. The area was once maintained by the grounds staff but then public works was told to mow the area and why we do so today. We only have a budget for mowing, there is no budget for plantings, also there is no staff to maintain plantings. We do not have budget or staff to maintain any plantings along this area. We do not have the equipment to do so within the city. Mrs. Doyle feels it is a law that say there has to be a riparian buffer here. She could not site the actual law and would get that to us. Other members spoke up and said the area looks really good they way it is being maintained now. The grass offers a buffer for water prior to reaching the lake. Discussion took place on beneficial plantings verses mowing this area. Mrs. Doyle feels the problem is the grass just allows the water and junk from the road to get into the water. With deep roots of native plants that would help reduce the water getting into the lake. Mrs. Doyle is concerned with herbicides that are sprayed although she has been told by Sharon Duca that it is a water safe herbicide. Mrs. Doyle noted it sounds like Mirror Lake is being taken care of properly but I don’t feel like Silver Lake is being taken care of properly with area like the causeway not having native plants. Mrs. Arndt noted she had a constituent who was interested in working on riparian buffers. Mrs. Arndt noted she would send that information to Ms. Courtney. Grass is working as the buffer, we do not have staff or equipment to plant the native plants for an area that is show no signs of erosion. At this time, there is no plan for any plantings along the causeway. Other members noted a lot of healthy wildlife in the lake area. Eagles, hawks, etc. it appears to be a healthy habitat. Ms. Kozel noted that water quality has come back some from the previous projects such as the Mirror Lake plantings. A discussion on water quality tests performed by DRNEC. Ms. Courtney will send out a link to the members for the DRNEC water quality site. https://dnrec.delaware.gov/watershed- stewardship/ Mrs. Doyle was requested to send the actual law or information on the law that she feels the city is violating. ENDING COMMENTS Ms. Courtney noted she is most likely retiring in October of 2024. (Turns out it’s 2025 now)

Silver Lake Commission April 24, 2025 5:30 PM In person & Via Weblink **DRAFT** Members Present Staff & Guests Kathy Doyle Tricia Arndt, 3rd District City Councilwoman Michael Lewis Carolyn Courtney, Parks & Recreation Staff Anthony Morris Nichole Arnold, Parks & Recreation Staff Roger Ridgeway, Parks & Recreation Director Bryn Wambaugh, City of Dover Environmental Scientist Aireal Vickers, City of Dover Environmental Scientist Charles Salkin 3rd District Resident WELCOME & CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM MEMBER & STAFF INTRODUCTION Brief Introductions around the table. MEETING MINUTES WITHOUT A QUORUM, MINUTES COULD NOT BE APPROVED. STAFF WAS REQUESTED TO SEND OUT TO OUR MEMBERS SO THEY CAN REVIEW AND ADDRESS AT THE NEXT MEETING, ALONG WITH THESE MINUTES CALL TO ORDER/VACANT POSITIONS Mrs. Doyle stepped up as acting chair for tonight’s meeting. The commission has 7 active members, 4 current city members, there will be 2 seats available with 1 still being empty. Ms. Doyle asked about having quarterly meetings with consideration to staff workload? Staff noted meetings do not have to be quarterly, and that if there is an issue that needs input/review by the commission, a meeting would be called accordingly. Mrs. Doyle inquired about the members getting together offsite without the staff to only discuss ideas and concerns of the park and lake. Ms. Courtney noted as they are a subcommittee and as long as nothing is voted on or discussed that would have a financial or other liability to the city, they should be ok, but she will confirm with the clerk’s office. STORMWATER AND EARTH DAY UPDATES Ms. Wambaugh and Ms. Vickers presented to the group info on Earth Day. The city has a system called The National Polluting Discharge Elimination System also known as MPDS. The event that was held served purpose of public involvement. There was also a Storm water day that was hosted the next day with informative information about storm water day, how to join the next years Earth Day event, and a thank you to the presenters. The events that were hosted throughout the week were a nature walk, which was a guided walk, the screening of the Lorax film at the Dover library, litter pick up day with very little help from the community but hoping next year more will attend. They collected a shopping cart and ½ of a 90-gallon trash bag. Bryn and Ariel were excited about the community coming together for Earth Day and look forward to doing it again next year, they would like to continue to do this during school’s spring breaks to have more children and families to attend. DOVER POLICE – PARK REPORT UPDATE Dover Police attempted to join the meeting via Webex but we were having issues, so they were unable to join. Dover Police has shared to Ms. Courtney that they are aware of large gatherings/parties happening on Silver Lake and they are actively looking for graduations, and DSU having their pop-up parties. They are also working with the County to stay on the same page. UPDATE ON SILVER LAKE PARK PROJECTS & MAINTENANCE UPDATES Ms. Courtney reported that city staff have placed signs out at Silver Lake Park at pavilions 1 and 2 that state the upcoming events. She is hoping that those signs will help the community know when events take place and that a permit is recommended for using the pavilions. Mr. Ridgeway reported Bally’s returned for another Earth Day project at Mallard Pond. Bally’s staff has been a great group of volunteers for park projects, they helped plant 2 trees, 5 shrubs and helped mulch 1 playground. We look forward to working

with them again. Requests for park clean-ups are being sent to Ms. Courtney, and she will coordinate accordingly with Mr. Ridgeway. SILVER LAKE AND ST. JOHNS RIVER UPDATES Mrs. Doyle presented information on the latest water levels at Silver Lake and St. Johns River, she stated that while our rivers are the most polluted in the Country other states are not testing their waters for drinking water. Mrs. Doyle stated that although the water test results from the state continues to be concerning, the fish count has gone from 1 to possibly 12 to consume. Mrs. Doyle would love to have our beach at Silver Lake open again for swimming one day, however she felt the City’s budgetary reasons we would not be able to staff lifeguards at this time. Mrs. Doyle brought up that Garrison Lake does have swimming and she would like to have something like that here in the City of Dover. Ms. Courtney stated that as much as the city would love to have swimming access the city was paying more to have our lifeguards keep park users out of the water than in the water due to water quality each day. KAYAK AND BOATING CONCERNS ON SILVER LAKE Ms. Courtney stated that she had a complaint called in about seeing kayaks and boat trailers in the boat ramp area that had no stickers on the trailers. The gentleman stated that he pays every year to have a boat permit to be on Silver Lake and none of these boats did. Mrs. Arnold, who used to work in the Planning and Inspections department and issued boating permits on a daily basis stated that kayaks are never given stickers, only motorized boats. Any approved vessel that is placed into Silver Lake is required to have a boating permit/sticker. Mrs. Arnold and Ms. Courtney discussed maybe some changes for kayaks receiving stickers for their boats to keep better track of who and who do not have a boat permit. MEETING DATE The attending members have set the next meeting date as July 30. Staff will confirm availability and post the notice once confirmed. ENDING COMMENTS Ms. Courtney noted she is retiring in October of 2025 and possibly Mrs. Arnold will be taking her spot.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA June 13, 2011 - 12:00 Noon - City Hall Conference Room - City Hall - City of Dover Public comments are welcomed on any item and will be permitted at appropriate times. When possible, please notify the City Clerk (736-7008 or e-mail at CityClerk@dover.de.us) should you wish to be recognized. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 1. Silver Lake Revitalization - Phase III /tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Committee-Agendas\2011\06-13-2011 PR&CE Revised.wpd THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

Park Drive Resident Opinions of Proposed Plantings St. Jones Watershed Coordinators, Brittany Benson and Jennifer Bowman, visited the homes of several residents along Park Drive to inquire about their opinions of the proposed plantings. The following is a summary of their feedback: General consensus among all surveyed residents was that the planting is very welcomed. o The constant presence of goose refuse in Memorial Park was and continues to be a major concern. Thus, majority of residents have completely stopped using the park. All residents had a positive response to planting the buffer along the lake, especially if it helped deter the geese from using the area. Increasing the amount of vegetation was desired by all; with particular interest in year-round color because of the visual interest that the buffer will offer. Strong responses concerning a [mulched] pathway: o Some residents were very apprehensive to create a walkway. There were particular concerns about redistribution of mulch in times of flooding. o Other residents desired a pathway as a way to enjoy the park and vegetation up close. A few residents commented that gaps should be left in the vegetation to allow room for fishermen and park visitors to access the water. Mirror Lake sedimentation and dredging was also a common concern. There will be a public workshop to discuss this separate issue in the fall.

Silver Lake Park Revitalization Project Phase III – Park Drive City of Dover Silver Lake Commission DNREC

Background • Silver Lake is located in the St. Jones River Watershed in Kent County, Delaware • DNREC established a level of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), as mandated by the Clean Water Act, for the St. Jones River Watershed in 2006 because of the impaired status of the water • The Silver Lake sub-watershed contained the most opportunities to control pollution out of the entire watershed • The St. Jones Tributary Action Team developed a pollution control strategy to reduce pollutant loads to the TMDLs

The Clean Water Act 303d List indicates that the St. Jones River Watershed impairments include: • Nutrients (elevated nitrogen and phosphorous) • Bacteria (pathogens) • Low dissolved oxygen • Habitat degradation

The Silver Lake Park Revitalization Project came from St. Jones Tributary Action Team recommendations Tributary Action Teams St. Jones River watershed

St. Jones TAT recommendations: • A 100 foot vegetated or forested riparian buffer zone should be required within the watershed for all water bodies • Vegetation within the buffer should be made up of “recommended plantings” of native species • Buffers should be maintained in perpetuity and should be managed to maintain water quality benefits

Total acreage that has been planted in Phase I and II thus far Location Acres East side of St. Jones 0.525 West side of St. Jones 0.145

Vision of SLPR Project Area • 100-foot buffer area targeted for planting • Mix of native plants for all-year interest • Large lawn areas for group activities, plus smaller areas for readers, “lunchers” and sunbathers • Fishing locations • Mowed grass strip between sidewalk & planting beds

Buffer will be for water quality as well for the aesthetics

Silver Lake Park popular fishing areas* *We’re looking for input of other fishing spots, especially along Park Drive

Some Known Problems/Issues of Memorial Park & Mirror Lake: • Water quality • Poor habitat value • Canada Goose waste • Sedimentation of Mirror Lake • Periodic flooding Picture of direct discharge of stormwater into the St. Jones

Flooding of the St. Jones River along Park Drive in April 2007

We’re not only creating buffers… • Removing invasive vegetation • Restoring the banks of the St. Jones near the dam • Retro-fiting some stormwater discharges • Creating some wetlands within the Park Photo of biolog that will help establish wetland vegetation

Proposed Planting Locations

Proposed Planting Plans

Progress to date • 3 plantings have occurred (65% done) in Phase I • Started working on Phase II and Phase IV (Central Middle School) • For Phase II, the design has been completed and the project is currently being bid out to contractors • Started to plant phase III

Next Steps • Tweaking of planting plans based on feedback o Planting to resume in the fall • Volunteers very much appreciated to help plant! o Sign-up sheet available at end of meeting

Satellite Image: Proposed Landscape

Satellite Image: Proposed landscape

Satellite Image: Modified Landscape: Less trees

Satellite Image: Proposed landscape with less trees

All trees Less

More Trees Less Trees

Park Drive Resident Opinions of Proposed Plantings St. Jones Watershed Coordinators visited the homes of several residents along Park Drive to inquire about their opinions of the proposed plantings. • General consensus among all surveyed residents was that the planting is very welcomed.  All residents had a positive response to planting the buffer along the lake, especially if it helped deter the geese from using the area.  Increasing the amount of vegetation was desired by all; with particular interest in year-round color because of the visual interest that the buffer will offer.

City of Dover Silver Lake Sub- Watershed Implementation Strategy For the Silver Lake Commission Lara Allison 6/30/2011

St. Jones River Watershed Pollution Control Strategy A Watershed-Based Strategy to Implement Total Maximum Daily Loads in Delaware December 2012 Prepared for the St. Jones River Tributary Action Team By the Watershed Assessment and Management Section Frank Piorko, Director http://de.gov/pollutioncontrolstrategy Division of Watershed Stewardship

ST. JONES RIVER WATERSHED POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGY .............................. 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 1 LANDUSE .................................................................................................................................. 1 SOURCES OF POLLUTION ..................................................................................................... 5 PROGRESS TO DATE .............................................................................................................. 5 Agriculture .............................................................................................................................. 6 Open Space ............................................................................................................................. 7 Onsite Wastewater .................................................................................................................. 7 Stormwater .............................................................................................................................. 7 Total Progress to Date ............................................................................................................. 8 Additional Progress Items ..................................................................................................... 10 Overall Nutrient Load Reduction Progress ........................................................................... 11 ST. JONES RIVER WATERSHED POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 12 BROAD PURPOSE .............................................................................................................. 12 SPECIFIC GOALS ............................................................................................................... 12 Strategy Periodization ........................................................................................................... 13 Nutrient Reducing Recommendations .......................................................................................... 13 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 1 – Riparian Buffers ...................................................... 13 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 2 – Open Space ............................................................. 19 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 3 – Open Space Education ............................................ 21 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 4 – Sewer Repair ........................................................... 24 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 5– Septic Pump Out and Inspection .............................. 24 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 6 – Cesspools and Seepage Pits .................................... 26 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 7 – Septic Removal ....................................................... 27 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 8 – Performance Standards ........................................... 28 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 9 – Stormwater Utility................................................... 30 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 10 – Stormwater Best Management Practices............... 31 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 11 – Impervious Cover.................................................. 32 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 12 – Stormwater Retrofits ............................................. 34 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 13 – Stormwater Education ........................................... 35 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 14 – Agricultural BMPs ................................................ 37 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 15 – Nutrient Management Act ..................................... 39 Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 16 – Stream Monitoring ................................................ 43 ANALYSIS FOR TMDL ACHIEVEMENT AND COST ....................................................... 46 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS ........................................................................................ 50 Coastal Nonpoint Program – 6217........................................................................................ 50 The Delaware Forest Service ................................................................................................ 50 DNREC -- Groundwater Discharges Section ....................................................................... 51 DNREC – Nonpoint Source Program ................................................................................... 51 DNREC-Sediment and Stormwater Program ....................................................................... 51 DNREC - Surface Water Discharges Program ..................................................................... 52 DNREC – Water Supply Section – Groundwater Protection Branch ................................... 52 Local Governments ............................................................................................................... 53 Nutrient Management Commission ...................................................................................... 53 Office of State Planning Coordination.................................................................................. 53 Soil and Water Conservation Districts.................................................................................. 53 References ..................................................................................................................................... 54

Appendix A - 7426 TMDLs for the St. Jones River Watershed, Delaware.................................. 58 Appendix B - Tributary Action Team Letter to Secretary Hughes ............................................... 60 Appendix C - Public Talk –Real Choices ..................................................................................... 69 Appendix D - BMP Nutrient Reduction calculations ................................................................... 75 Appendix E - BMP Cost Calculations .......................................................................................... 91 List of Figures Figure 1 - Map of St. Jones River Watershed as of 2006 ............................................................... 2 Figure 2 - St. Jones River Watershed Land Use Distribution ......................................................... 4 Figure 3 - The year geometric mean of Entrococcus Bacteria in the St Jones River ................... 10 Figure 4 - Streams (outline in green) within Dover that require riparian buffers ......................... 14 Figure 5 - Riparian Buffers in the St. Jones Watershed ................................................................ 16 Figure 6 - Percentage of Non-Farm Fertilizer Sold in Delaware by Year .................................... 21 Figure 7 - Total Nitrogen loads in the St Jones watershed from 2003 to 2010 ............................ 45 Figure 8 - Total Phosphorus loads in the St Jones watershed from 2003 to 2010 ........................ 45 Figure 9 - Total Phosphorus Reduced in the St. Jones Watershed ............................................... 48 Figure 10 - Total Nitrogen Reduced in the St. Jones Watershed .................................................. 48 Figure 11 - Total Strategy Implementation Costs ......................................................................... 49 List of Tables Table 1 - St. Jones River Watershed TMDL Segments .................................................................. 3 Table 2 - Summary of 2007 Land Use in the St. Jones River Watershed....................................... 3 Table 3 - Land use change from 1997 to 2007 within the St. Jones Watershed ............................. 4 Table 4 - Agricultural Best Management Practice Reductions as of March 2012 in the St. Jones Watershed ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 5 - Nutrient Reduction Resulting from Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Best Management Practices as of August 2009 .............................................................................. 7 Table 6 - Implemented Stormwater Best Management Practices as of Spring 2012...................... 8 Table 7 - Typical bacteria, suspended solids, and nutrient reduction from stormwater best management practices ..................................................................................................................... 9 Table 8 - Load reduction needed based upon 2007 land use to achieve TMDL reduction of 40% for nitrogen and phosphorus ......................................................................................................... 12 Table 9 - Kent County Ordinance (187-78) and the City of Dover required setbacks from water bodies ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 10 - Acreage included in setback by means of Kent County Ordinance §187-78 or protected by §187-77* .................................................................................................................. 17 Table 11: Effectiveness of various Stormwater BMPs to reduce nutrient (TN & TP) Loads ...... 32 Table 12: Agricultural BMP Costs ............................................................................................... 39 Table 13. Percent changes in fertilizer and manure application rates by county as a result of the 2002 Nutrient Management Law (data from 2007 DCP Survey) ................................................. 41 Table 14: Best Management Practices Goals for Achieving the St Jones Watershed TMDL Reductions..................................................................................................................................... 47

ST. JONES RIVER WATERSHED POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGY INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The St. Jones watershed is located in Kent County, Delaware, with the Delaware Bay along its eastern border, the Choptank River watershed of the Chesapeake Basin to its west, the Leipsic River and Little Creek watersheds to the north and northeast, respectively, and the St. Jones watershed to its south (DNREC 2005). The watershed is one of sixteen watersheds in the Delaware Bay and Estuary Basin, and one of nine watersheds in Kent County (USGS HUC-10). The watershed is comprised of 57,735 acres of land (DNREC 2005) and contains six municipalities: Dover, Wyoming, Camden, Woodside, Magnolia, and Bowers Beach. The watershed gets its name from the area’s major water system, the St. Jones River, which is 22 miles long and begins in the western portion of Kent County, flowing in a southeasterly direction until it empties into the Delaware Estuary at Bowers Beach. Due to the tidal nature in the lower half of the St. Jones River, the flow decreases and the waters become turbid in these areas. The surrounding soils near the river are considered to have high to very high agricultural productivity. According to 2007 state land use Geographic Information System (GIS) data, agriculture remains the number one land use in the watershed (37.4%), followed by urban land uses (33.3%), wetlands (17.5%), forests (8.4%), barren land (3.2%). Although only 30% of the watershed is classified as urban/residential, the watershed has the highest population of all watersheds in Kent County (DNREC 2005). Table 1 lists the water bodies within the St. Jones River watershed listed on the State of Delaware’s 1998, 2002, 2004, and 2006 303(d) reports. There are a total of eight listed water segments: 2 tidal segments of the St. Jones River, 3 freshwater stream segments, and 3 freshwater lakes or ponds. These segments contain nutrients, dissolved oxygen (DO), and bacteria, with the most probable source of pollutants identified as nonpoint sources. The total maximum daily load (TMDL) development in the St. Jones River watershed addressed these water quality impairments and presented TMDLs that are aimed at improving water quality in the listed segments. LANDUSE Land use information for the year 2007 is presented in Table 2 and Figure 2. The St. Jones River watershed is approximately 57,735 acres (90 mi2) and is primarily non-urban (66.7%), with approximately 33.3/4% of that land used for agriculture. By 2007 the acreage of urban/residential lands has increased while agricultural and forested land has decreased as presented in Table 3. 1

Figure 1 - Map of St. Jones River Watershed as of 2006. 2

Table 1 - St. Jones River Watershed TMDL Segments Size Water Body ID Segment Description Parameters Affected From Old Lebanon Bridge to the mouth of DE290-001-01 Lower St. Jones 8.3 miles Bacteria, DO, nutrients Delaware Bay From the dam at Silver Lake to Old DE290-001-02 Upper St. Jones 6.7 miles Bacteria, DO, nutrients Lebanon Bridge at Road 357 From the headwaters to the confluence with DE290-002 Isaac Branch 9.1 miles Bacteria, DO, nutrients St. Jones River, excluding Moores Lake From the headwaters to Silver Lake in DE290-003 Fork Branch 7.7 miles Bacteria, DO, nutrients Dover From below Derby Pond to the confluence DE290-004 Tidbury Branch 3.8 miles Bacteria, DO, nutrients with the St. Jones River DE290-L01 Moores Lake 27.1 acres Lake east of Camden Bacteria, DO, nutrients DE290-L02 Silver Lake 157.8 acres Silver Lake at Dover Bacteria, nutrients DE290-L03 Derby Pond 23.1 acres Pond south of Wyoming Bacteria, nutrients Table 2 - Summary of 2007 Land Use in the St. Jones River Watershed Land Use Area (a) % Total Area Agriculture 21,596 37.4 Forest 4,858 8.4 Pasture/Rangeland 415 0.7 Urban/Built-up Land 19,206 33.3 Water 1,552 2.7 Wetland 8,689 15.1 Others 1,419 2.4 Total 57,735 100.0 3

Figure 2 - St. Jones River Watershed Land Use Distribution Table 3 - Land use change from 1997 to 2007 within the St. Jones Watershed 1997 2007 Change Land Use % Total Area % Total Area Agriculture 44.4 37.4 -6.4% Barren/Open 1.8 3.2 1.4% Urban 26.9 33.3 6.4% Forest Land 9.8 8.4 -1.4% Wetlands/Water 17.1 17.5 0.4 4

SOURCES OF POLLUTION Both nonpoint sources and point sources of pollution can be found in the St. Jones watershed. Nonpoint source pollution can be defined as pollution caused by land use practices that occur over large areas. Unlike point source pollution, which deposits pollution into a water body at a specific location, nonpoint sources reach waterbodies at nonspecific locations through groundwater seepage or agricultural runoff along a stream. The land use distribution in the St. Jones River watershed was generalized into the groups shown in Table 2: agriculture, forest, pasture/rangeland, urban/built-up, wetlands and others. Each of these land uses has a different possible source of pollution that is deposited directly or indirectly into the water system. The “other” land use category includes transitional construction and inland natural sandy areas. Forested areas, made up of deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forests, account for just over 8.4 percent of the watershed. Nutrients and bacteria from the resident wild animals, and organic material from the native plants, are common sources of nonpoint pollution. Wetland areas make up 15.1 percent of the total watershed and are home to many species of plants and wildlife that produce organic, nutrient, and bacterial wastes. Approximately 37.4 percent of the St. Jones River watershed is classified as agricultural, including cropland, farm related buildings, idle fields, orchards, and land used for nurseries. Possible nonpoint sources of pollution from these areas include bacteria and nutrients from animal feed lots, organic material from plants, nutrients from industrial fertilizers, and particulate and dissolved nutrients in runoff. Pasture/rangeland comprises less than 0.7 percent of the watershed, and includes pasture and herbaceous, brush and mixed rangelands. Nutrients and bacteria from animal grazing or production are common sources of nonpoint pollution. Urban land has a higher amount of pollution due to a lower amount of pervious land. Examples of urban land are: roads, salvage yards, mixed urban, professional retail, single family dwellings, utilities and warehouses. Among the causes of pollution from urban land use are nutrients and bacteria in runoff from impervious surfaces, nutrients and bacteria from septic systems, nutrients from residential fertilizers, industrial wastes and domestic pet wastes. In 2007, approximately 33.3 percent of the St. Jones River watershed is urban or built-up. Based on the land use data, the St. Jones River watershed is primarily non-urban (70%); and non-point sources (NPS)_ are an important source of pollution in the watershed. There are two active National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System sites (NPDES) permitted in the watershed but these are non-contact cooling water discharges with low loadings of pollutants: Reichhold Chemicals Dover Plant and Dover McKee Run Power Plant. Therefore, NPSs are the dominant source of pollution in the watershed. PROGRESS TO DATE Six years have passed since the TMDL for the St. Jones River was promulgated using pollution levels from 2006. Since that time, population and pressures from development have increased throughout the watershed. However, stormwater and wastewater regulations have improved, and farmers have increased their use of best management practices (BMPs). Increased use of BMPs in all sectors reduces nutrient loading and contributes to progress towards achieving water quality standards. 5

Estimated water quality improvement resulting from the installation of best management practices after the TMDL baseline was calculated and the subsequent nutrient reductions from those BMPs are presented in the following sections. Scientists researched the nutrient load reduction efficiencies associated with these practices in order to estimate pollution reductions. Appendix D documents those calculations and Appendix E estimates the associated costs. Agriculture Since the baseline period, the agricultural community has reduced a significant amount of nonpoint source nitrogen and phosphorus, leading the efforts to curtail nonpoint source loadings. From the baseline to 2006, multiple BMPs have been implemented and the Delaware Nutrient Management Act was passed. As of January 2007, all farms that apply nutrients to 10 acres or more are required to have Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs). Subsequent Farm Bills have also led to increased funding levels of cost-share programs for BMPs that protect the environment, especially water quality. Table 4 - Agricultural Best Management Practice Reductions as of March 2012 in the St. Jones Watershed Load Reduction (lb/day) Acres TN TP Cover crops acreage for 2011 890 10.79 0.38 CRP Practices (data from 2004 and earlier) Shallow water areas for wildlife (CP9) 13.8 0.3 0.03 Existing Trees (CP11) 3 0.1 0.00 Grassed waterways (CP8) 0.4 0.0 0.02 Grassed filter strips (CP21) 2.5 0.0 0.23 Wildlife habitat (CP4D) 33.5 0.0 0.23 CREP Practices* (data from 2005 and later) Grass buffers (CP21AC) 8.5 0.4 0.16 Wildlife Plantings (CP4D) 42.3 1.7 0.70 Hardwood Plantings (CP3A) 130.3 3.6 1.43 Riparian buffers (CP22) 7 0.2 0.12 Shallow water areas for wildlife (CP9) 10.9 0.4 6.20 Wetland Restoration (CP23) 352 11.5 1.51 Critical area planting 14.3 0.1 0.00 Conservation tillage 1981 1.4 0.00 Manure Relocation (annual tons) 646 3.76 2.79 Phytase 1,007.59 0.44 Nutrient Management Plans 21587.6 63.1 51.10 Total 95.33 64.03 6

Total Progress to Date: Estimated Nutrient Reductions 95.33 lbs/day TN; 64.03 lbs/day TP Estimated Progress to Date Implementation Cost: $2,503,028 (This cost does not include manure relocation and phytase costs). Open Space The Tributary Action Team has made some recommendations for open space, but their recommendations are more voluntary than regulatory. Using GIS mapping tools to determine acreage of open space within the St. Jones indicated there are 8,070.9 acres of public lands in the watershed and approximately 55 % of the public lands are in tidal areas of the watershed. Total Progress to Date: Estimated Nutrient Reductions: lbs/day TP unknown; lbs/day TN unknown Onsite Wastewater Current septic system pump outs of 100 systems and 18 holding tanks have helped to decrease the nutrient pollution entering the St. Jones watershed. Table 5 - Nutrient Reduction Resulting from Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Best Management Practices as of August 2009 Load Reduction (lbs/day) Number of Tanks TN TP Holding Tanks (12 18 1.36 0.45 pump-outs/year) Septic System Pump 100 0.24 0.10 Outs Total 1.60 0.55 Total Progress to Date: Estimated Nutrient Reductions: 1.60 lbs/day TN; 0.55 lbs/day TP Stormwater In June 1990, the Delaware Legislature passed the Sediment and Stormwater Law to help correct the State’s water quality and quantity problems. Implementation was initiated in July of 1991, and addressed sediment control during construction and post-construction, stormwater quantity, and water quality control. Since this implementation, many BMPs for stormwater have been implemented and more are constructed each year. The Sediment and Stormwater Regulations are currently being revised to promote the use of stormwater management techniques that are more efficient at reducing nutrient loading, heightening awareness of green technology BMPs, and promoting stormwater management practices based on low impact development and conservation design. 7

Table 6 - Implemented Stormwater Best Management Practices as of Spring 2012 Daily Load Actual Acreage Reduction From Best management Practice (BMP) Treated Stormwater BMP (lbs/day) TN TP Biofiltration/bioswales 276.1 2.35 0.39 Dry ponds 1271.82 1.08 0.25 Filter Strip 8.17 0.07 0.01 Infiltration systems 245.74 2.09 0.34 Sand Filter 8.7 0.06 0.01 Wet Pond 3231.58 16.48 3.23 Street sweeping, Stream bank restoration and Regenerative step pool system 4.01 3.08 The City of Dover has developed a storm water management program in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) regulation referred to as the Stormwater Phase II Rule. Under this rule, storm water discharges to certain municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are regulated. Specifically, discharges of storm water, to waters of the State of Delaware, from the storm sewer system owned, operated or maintained by the City of Dover are regulated and require a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit. The City of Dover, through the Department of Public Works, received its NPDES/State permit from the State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) in 2003. This permit authorizes the discharge of storm water from the City’s storm sewer system and requires the implementation of the City’s storm water management program. Elements of the City’s program include public education and outreach, public involvement and participation, illicit discharge and elimination, construction site runoff control, post construction storm water management, and pollution prevention good housekeeping for municipal operations. When implemented together, it is expected that pollutants discharged into receiving water bodies will be reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Total Progress to Date: Estimated Nutrient Reductions: 26.14 lbs/day TN; 7.32 lbs/day TP Estimated Progress to Date Implementation Cost: $20,855,707 (Street sweeping, stream bank restoration and regenerative step pool system costs not included) Bacteria reductions Bacteria survival is dependent on soil moisture, temperature, pH, availability of nutrients and antagonistic organisms. Under ideal conditions, the bacteria is retained near the soil surface long enough for infiltration of water into unsaturated soil to occur, resulting in bacteria die off within 8

the first two feet. Under less than ideal conditions, best management practices (BMPs) are the most effective and practical means of preventing or reducing bacteria from entering surface waters. BMPs reduce bacteria levels in many different ways. Non-structural BMPs are practices that mainly control bacteria at the source; a few examples of these are proper cleanup of pet waste, managing livestock manure, and routine septic inspections and pump-outs. Septic tanks should be inspected every three years and pumped as needed, usually every three years or when the tank is about 1/3 filled. By maintaining your septic system regularly, it is less likely to fail and contaminate surface or ground water. It also extends the longevity of your septic system, saving money for costly repairs or replacements. Structural BMPs usually involve building a structure and may have a higher cost associated with it. Examples include buffers, constructed wetlands, sand filters, infiltration trenches, low impact development, and stream fencing. Dense vegetative buffers facilitate conventional bacteria removal through detention, filtration by vegetation, and infiltration into soil. Other methods of bacteria removal include the use of chemicals, such as chlorine, or the use of ultraviolet lights. These methods can be costly and require considerable oversight. Table 7 illustrates typical bacterial reductions from commonly used BMPs. Table 7 - Typical bacteria, suspended solids, and nutrient reduction from stormwater best management practices Total Total Land Nitrogen Phosphorus Suspended Bacteria Area % % Solids % Reduction BMP Needed Cost Reduction Reduction Reduction % Total Total Land Nitrogen Phosphorus Suspended Bacteria Area % % Solids % Reduction BMP Needed Cost Reduction Reduction Reduction % Buffer Strips Low Medium 20 - 60 20 - 60 20 - 80 43-57 Constructed N/A N/A 20 45 60 78-90 Wetlands Sand Filters N/A N/A 47 41 57 36-83 Dry Detention Pond High High 15 25 70 Infiltration Trenches Low Medium 45 - 70 50 - 75 75 - 99 Wet Ponds* Medium High 20 45 55-94 44-99 Biofiltration N/A N/A 25 34 >99 Bioswales Low Medium 25 34 70 Storm water N/A N/A 30 49 N/A 78-90 wetlands *if properly managed The St Jones bacteria TMDL requires a 90% reduction in bacteria numbers. The State of Delaware Surface Water Quality Standards, as amended July 11, 2004, provides specific numeric 9

criteria for bacteria for the waters of the Christina Basin. The water quality standard for enterococcus bacteria in the Christina Basin is as follows for primary contact recreation for fresh waters: • Single-sample value is 185 enterococcus colonies per 100 ml. • The geometric mean of representative samples should not exceed 100 colonies per 100 ml. The geometric mean enterococcus bacteria levels in the St Jones River are discussed in more detail below. 400 Geometric mean of Enterococcus Bacteria 300 St Jones Watershed Enterococus (cfu/100 ml) St. Jones at Bowers 200 Beach, mouth to Del.Bay. St. Jones River @ Barkers Landing 100 St. Jones River @ Rt. 10 Moores Lake @ S. 0 State St. 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year Figure 3 - The year geometric mean of Entrococcus Bacteria in the St Jones River. The levels of enterococcus bacteria in the St jones River have fluctuating levels with a mostly decreasing trend across stations. Figure 3 shows the geometric mean enterococcus bacteria levels in the River from 2001 to 2012. Implementing these Pollution Control Strategies will result in continued reduction in bacteria numbers. Only monitoring of the surface-water will clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the installed BMPS in reducing bacteria numbers. Additional Progress Items In 1986, the Silver Lake Commission (Commission) was formed following the recommendation of Dover’s City Council. On August 27, 1990, by request from then-Mayor Jack Richter, the Commission was officially adopted as an advisory committee to the City Council and City staff. Since then, the Commission has worked to improve the condition of the Lake and provide a forum for public involvement on issues related to the Lake. Commission members seek ways to 10

improve the Lake’s water quality, wildlife habitat, open space and park opportunities, and water- related activities through participation and coordination with other government bodies and institutions. The hard work of the Commission and its partners has paid off and can be verified by the amount of progress that has been made within the last year. Some of the major accomplishments of the Commission include: • Silver Lake Park - Two successful planting events took place this past spring and fall of 2011 and one took place in the spring of 2012 that expanded the riparian buffer zone around the St. Jones River in Silver Lake Park. Approximately 120 volunteers helped plant shrubs and trees that will help improve water quality and protect the stream banks. The plantings were a continuation of the Silver Lake Park Revitalization Project that was initiated in 2007. • Delaware Agricultural Museum – The mill pond has been enhanced and the old wind mill is fully functional again. A buffer of native vegetation has been planted around the mill pond to improve water quality and to limit Canada geese access to the pond. The monitoring of bacteria levels in the pond hasdecreased since the buffer has been planted. • Mirror Lake – The Commission is working in conjunction with DNREC and the City of Dover to move forward with the cleanup of Mirror Lake. A stormwater wetland will be constructed in the near future to treat runoff from the DNREC and Treadway Tower parking lots. • Eroded channel behind the Ag Museum and Dover pools – A regenerative step pool system will replace the highly eroded drainage channel that empties directly into Silver Lake. The plunge pools will help collect sediment before it enters the Lake and a newly constructed wetland at the foot of the channel will also help filter the water. • Outreach material – Educational brochures have been developed for City of Dover residents to educate the public about their impact on our local waterways. • Rain garden planted at Fairview Elementary – Over 300 students from kindergarten through fifth grade participated in planting over 200 native plants. The rain garden will collect and filter runoff from the school’s roof and will also provide a unique garden for teachers to utilize for outdoor learning activities. Overall Nutrient Load Reduction Progress All sectors to date have taken steps to improve water quality through the implementation of laws, regulations, and voluntary BMPs. Analysis using a basic land use loading rate model shows that, to date, nonpoint sources of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus have been reduced by 34% and 151 % respectively from the TMDL baseline levels. While land use modeling based on current practices predicts phosphorus reductions exceeding that required by the TMDL, there is still a need for further reductions in nitrogen and areas that are currently lacking, such as wastewater and stormwater. The total strategy implementation reductions and costs are discussed in more detail in the section entitled, “Analysis for TMDL Achievement and Costs”. 11

ST. JONES RIVER WATERSHED POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS BROAD PURPOSE Remediate the waters of the St. Jones to a condition that meets the standards of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Once the water quality has improved to the necessary extent, the waters can be removed from the 303d list. SPECIFIC GOALS Limit pollutants to levels at or below the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) values specified in the regulation; this entails an overall reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus in the waterways by 40%. Nonpoint sources must reduce total nitrogen by 376.51 lbs per day and total phosphorus by 47.62 lbs per day. Table 8 - Load reduction needed based upon 2007 land use to achieve TMDL reduction of 40% for nitrogen and phosphorus Load Reduction Nitrogen N (lbs/day) Phosphorus (lbs/day) Stormwater-Current 26.14 7.32 Wastewater-Current 1.60 0.55 Agriculture-Current 95.33 64.03 Riparian Buffers – Current 0.02 0.01 Total – Current Practices 123.09 71.91 Stormwater - Future 13.57 0.66 Wastewater - Future 65.62 7.34 Agriculture - Future 166.22 26.07 Total – Current and Future 368.50 105.98 Practices TMDL Target Reductions 367.51 47.62 12

Strategy Periodization The recommendations are organized by major categories (Open Space, Stormwater, Wastewater, Agriculture, and Other) according to pollutant loads and nutrient reduction strategies. The Tributary Action Team first recommendation was that there be a fully funded staff position to coordinate watershed projects. The watershed coordinator responsibilities would be: 1. To develop an implementation strategy from the St Jones Watershed Implementation Plan. 2. Determine what water quality projects are feasible from Implementation Plan based upon water quality benefits, cost of installation and ability to implement project(s). 3. Work with Silver Lake Commission to create partnerships for water quality project(s). 4. Obtain funds for design and construction of water quality projects. 5. Work with City of Dover to plan and create a stormwater utility for watersheds within City of Dover municipal boundaries. 6. To develop watershed educational materials. The watershed coordinator was initially funded in 2007 through Delaware’s 319NPS program and for the last three by a FY 2009 106/604(b) WORKPLAN Subobjective 2.2.1: Protect and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis, awarded to the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control in October 2008. As part of that award, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has directed the Department to carry out planning functions and implement projects which define, assess, and manage pollution entering State waters from “nonpoint sources”. Nutrient Reducing Recommendations Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 1 – Riparian Buffers A St. Jones watershed buffer overlay map should be developed to ensure buffers are in place throughout the watershed. This overlay map should be developed in cooperation with local municipalities, used to coordinate efforts among jurisdictions, and must consider urban (developed) and rural (undeveloped) settings. A 100-foot vegetated or forested riparian buffer zone should be required within the watershed for all water bodies, except for those on agricultural lands. Measurement should be taken from the edge of the bank of the water body landward. Implementation Goal: Require 100 foot riparian buffer from top of bank. Basis of Recommendation: Buffers help to filter nutrients and slow overland stormwater flow. Kent County has issued several ordinances related to development and buffers, including an ordinance requiring 100-foot setbacks from blue line streams and tax ditches, and a 25-foot buffer/setback for wetlands. However, the County setbacks are not required to be vegetated. 13

The City of Dover has an ordinance that requires all buildings, structures, and impervious surfaces to be set back at least 100 feet from the top of bank from wetlands greater than 0.25 acres in size and from all water bodies. The setback can be reduced provided a riparian buffer is established in the setback. The setback can be further reduced to 30 feet provided the riparian buffer planted in native vegetation and bank stabilization is implemented through the planting of native species. For single family residential use the setback sets may be reduced to 75 feet. The ordinance allows small (less than 200 square feet) stairs, ramps, open decks, patios, or docks to be placed within setback if they are necessary for access to natural features. These ordinances were approved as of November 2010. Figure 4 shows these areas that would be protected under this ordinance and the Kent County’s buffer requirements. Figure 4 - Streams (outline in green) within Dover that require riparian buffers 14

The St. Jones Tributary Action Team feels these ordinances (Table 9) may not be strong enough as written to adequately protect the waters of the St. Jones River watershed. Recommendations are being made to strengthen and supplement County and municipal ordinances. Table 9 - Kent County Ordinance (187-78) and the City of Dover required setbacks from water bodies Planting Waterbody type Distance in feet Requirements required No Buildings, structures, 100 from shoreline paved surfaces, except Kent County --Tidal (as defined by mean stairs , ramps, patios, or No high-water line) docks less than 200 square feet 100 from top of City of Dover- Tidal Same as above No* bank Kent County-Non-tidal 100 from shoreline freshwater body, lake, pond or as defined by mean Same as above No “blue –line stream” high-water line City of Dover- wetlands and 100 from top of Same as above No* all water bodies bank Kent- County -Any non-blue 50 from shoreline Same as above No line stream, creek or ditch or top of bank Requires preservation or Kent County -Any TMDL 100 from center May be reestablishment of promulgated basin line of stream required riparian buffer City of Dover – No TMDL NA NA NA requirement * Setback be reduced if riparian is planted with native vegetation and bank is stabilized through planting of native vegetation. 15

Figure 5 shows the area that would be protected by modifying setback by means of Kent County Ordinance §187. Figure 5 - Riparian Buffers in the St. Jones Watershed The County setbacks are not required to be vegetated except in some cases for TMDL watersheds. Based upon the Tributary Action Team’s recommendations, DNREC is recommending that the County strengthen and supplement County requirements with the expectation that these measures will protect and improve water quality and the quality of life for the residents in the watershed. From the Team’s recommendations, DNREC performed GIS analyses using ESRI’s ArcGIS software on the 2007 National Hydrologic Data Set from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Delaware Statewide Wetlands Mapping Project state wetlands maps (SWMP). Using these tools, DNREC was able to compare the current and proposed setback and buffer protection measures for all waterbody types, including TMDL and non-TMDL waters, as well as identify vulnerable areas that require additional protection. 16

In the first GIS analysis, perennial and intermittent streams were delineated using the Hydrologic Data Set, and 100 and 50 foot buffers were applied respectively either from the center line of the stream for TMDL watersheds, or from the mean high water line, shoreline and/or top of bank for non-TMDL watersheds. To improve consistency, however, the outer limits of delineated tidal or freshwater wetlands served as the starting point to apply the appropriate buffer distances for non- TMDL watersheds. Providing the same buffer starting point for both TMDL and non-TMDL watersheds presents the data in a format conducive for comparisons. A second GIS analysis was conducted where the buffers were applied from edge of the wetland associated with the perennial and intermittent streams. The City of Dover’s ordinance is similar to Kent County’s, except the TMDL streams in Dover are not required to have setback as required in Kent County’s ordinance; A 100 foot buffer was applied to perennial streams from top of bank (i.e. edge of wetland) and 50 feet from top of bank of the intermittent streams to mimic Kent County setback requirements (ordinance 187-78) for non-TMDL and the City of Dover set back ordinances. Acreage of the buffers from each GIS analysis was determined so that comparison could be made between riparian buffering schemes. Table 10 - Acreage included in setback by means of Kent County Ordinance §187-78 or protected by §187-77* Setback Distance Type Acreage Additional acres Total acres in feet included in protected by protected required wetlands ordinance resulting from County 187-77* current County setback ordinances 187-78 187-77, 187-78 Any TMDL 100 from Perennial 3668 6436 10104 promulgated center line watershed of stream Any TMDL 100 from Intermittent 931 0 931 promulgated center line watershed of stream Non-TMDL 100 from Perennial 2689 6436 9125 watershed shore line fresh and/or or mean- tidal waters high line Non-TMDL 50 from intermittent 1152 1260 2412 watershed shore or stream or top of ditch bank * As per ordinance § 187-77, Kent County does not allow subdivision, filling, developing or clearing of vegetation in wetlands unless granted permission by a regulating agency. The GIS analysis showed that by applying the non-TMDL water setbacks to all perennial and intermittent streams within the St. Jones watershed, an additional 502 acres of buffers would be provided. These acres would protect the streams in the St. Jones watershed and increase the 17

water quality benefits for the entire watershed. DNREC believes that the current County’s TMDL setback ordinance for watersheds does not provide adequate water quality protection to the streams. In most cases, streams are bordered by wetlands without buffers to protect them from adjacent uplands; upland sources are a primary contributor of nutrients and bacteria found in these waters. It must be noted this scenario assumes that all lands adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams were developed, but this would most likely not occur in the St. Jones watershed under current County and municipalities zoning ordinances but some development will occur. Research has shown that for each acre of grass, shrub, or tree buffer, two upland acres and its excess nutrients and bacteria are removed from the surrounding area. If the County ordinance for non-TMDL waters was applied to TMDL waters in the St. Jones watershed, so that the setback was applied at the mean high tide line for tidal waters and the top of bank for non-tidal waters, an additional 502 acres of buffer would protect the water quality in these waterways. The proposed recommendation would offer protection for a portion of existing forested riparian buffer that is currently at-risk of being developed under current County and municipal setback requirements. The recommendation would allow inadequate buffers to be reestablished so that they can fully provide water quality treatment benefits. Developers should be required to protect existing, or provide new buffers when necessary, as community open space; however, the responsibility for buffer maintenance will fall to civic and homeowners associations or maintenance corporations rather than individual homeowners. Buffers should be planted and designed to require minimal maintenance. In addition, buffers should be planted with native species in an effort to ease maintenance, reduce erosion, and increase nutrient uptake capabilities. The developer should also guarantee all trees planted in the development remain living for the first year, or offer replacement plants as individuals are lost. From the GIS analyses and Tributary Action Team recommendations, DNREC proposes that a 100 foot vegetated buffer be applied to all perennial streams from either top of bank or the mean high-tide line based on tidal properties, and 50 feet from top of bank for intermittent streams within the St. Jones watershed. This would mimic Kent County’s current ordinance 187-78 for non-TMDL waters, except the setback (buffer) would need to be planted in native vegetation. As applied, the County’s TMDL ordinance is less protective than its non-TMDL setback requirements. Implementation Schedule: City of Dover adopted riparian ordinance in November 2010 and Kent County has proposed a new buffer ordinance in 2012. Expected Reduction: For each acre of 100 feet wide buffer installed, 0.004 lbs per day of TP and 0.18 lbs per day of TN would be reduced. Cost: Estimated at $115,000. Developers should be required to protect existing and/or provide new buffers if necessary as community open space; however, the responsibility for buffer maintenance will fall to civic and homeowners associations or maintenance corporations, not individual homeowners. Buffers should be planted and designed to require zero or minimal 18

maintenance. The developer must also guarantee all trees planted in the development for the first year. Potential Funding Sources: Funding would come from developers. Action Needed: The Department will work with Kent County and other municipalities within the watershed to develop buffer regulations that will be consistent with existing ordinances. Also, the Team recommends that Kent County Conservation District (KCD) have the authority to enforce buffer compliance. DNREC will initiate discussions with KCD about this recommendation, and note the possibility of linking the buffer compliance with the recommended implementation of a stormwater utility. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 2 – Open Space Land maintained as passive or active open space under local ordinances or codes should be managed to minimize nutrient loading. Implementation Goal: Encourage the planting of open space in native vegetation and require compliance of Nutrient Management Act for parcels greater than 10 acres. Basis of Recommendation: The St. Jones watershed has the highest population of all the watersheds in Kent County, likely due to the high number of economic opportunities in the state capital of Dover. In the past ten years, drastic land changes have taken place in the watershed. Urban and residential land uses have increased by 6.4% in the watershed and agricultural and forested land uses have decreased by 6.4% and 1.40%, respectively. Along with these changes, the amount of impervious surface in the watershed grew as more rural land was converted to urban uses. Currently, the St. Jones watershed has impervious cover well over 13%. As a result of the higher area of impervious cover and increased urbanization, surface water pollution has become an issue throughout the watershed. Open space can have many valuable functions and should include natural areas such as wetland restoration areas and buffers. Open space should be planted with appropriate native vegetation and protected though easements. In impaired watersheds, water quality protection must be a priority when developers design open space; more emphasis placed on water quality leads to lower nutrient loads. Keeping some of the developing area as open space also helps to reduce nutrient loads. Kent County subdivision ordinances have established protection and planting standards for woodlands, and have restricted subdivision and/or clearing under the jurisdiction of United Sates Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, Kent County considers lakes, ponds, and streams as permanent open space. The City of Dover has drafted environmental protection ordinances to protect public health and safety by ensuring that environmental standards for water, air, and soil in Dover are adequately addressed. The City’s intent is to protect environmentally sensitive land as well as the plants and animals that reside on that land. Dover included all land areas that contain one of the following natural features that shall be considered to be an environmentally sensitive area or an area of scarce resources subject to specific requirements for environmental protection and conservation: 19

flood hazard areas, steep slopes, water bodies and wetlands, wet soils, woodlands, significant wildlife habitats, prime agricultural soils, and designated scenic areas. Every five years the municipalities in Delaware must review their comprehensive management plans but must be updated every 10 years. Camden, Wyoming and Cheswold are working on their comprehensive management plans. Dover has revised its plan. During 146th legislative session, the General Assembly changed the Act (Senate Bill 138 w. SA 1, An Act to Amend Title 9 Relating to Comprehensive Land Use Plans) that required County governments to review and update their comprehensive plans every five to be updated every 10 years, which is the same presently required for municipalities in the state. DNREC reviews these plans through the State’s Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS) and recommendations are made to improve the protection of the natural resources within their municipal boundaries. The Delaware Nutrient Management Commission (DNMC) is the controlling authority for fertilizer application on parcels of land greater or equal to 10 acres within the State based upon the Nutrient Management Act promulgated in 2000. The Nutrient Management Act requires nutrient applicators to be certified. Requiring applicators to log the amount of nutrients they are applying will help to track the amount of nutrients being applied to individual non-agricultural properties. The DMNC has also recognized that significant contributions of nitrogen and phosphorous come from land parcels less than 10 acres in size. In response to this knowledge, the DNMC has produced brochures on proper lawn maintenance. These brochures have been placed in most retail outlets that sell fertilizer in the watershed. In addition, a public service advertisement was broadcast on WBOC television station reminding people about proper lawn nutrient application and urging people to get a soil test done prior to applying fertilizer. Lawn care companies must be in compliance with the Nutrient Management Act requirement for turf management. Implementation Schedule: Will work with the county and other municipalities to create ordinances. Expected Reduction: For each acre of open space that is converted from agricultural land, 0.0068lbs/day of TP could be reduced, and.048 lbs/ day of TN could be reduced. Cost: There is no additional cost for implementing Recommendation 2 because open space is required by existing municipal and county ordinances. There is a cost to enforce the ordinances; however, most of the cost is absorbed by the development community. Potential Funding Source: Cost is first absorbed by the developer of the project, and then passed on to the new property owner. Action Needed: DNREC will work with the Department of Agriculture about promulgating regulations prohibiting the application of nutrients to open space unless prescribed by a nutrient management plan and will work with the County and municipalities to implement. The Department also requests communities to follow the Helping the Environment Starts in Your Back Yard which was developed by the Department’s Coastal Program to restore, manage and maintain open space. 20

Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 3 – Open Space Education Homeowners’ association members and homeowners should be educated on caring for open space in their neighborhoods and caring for their backyards to minimize nutrient loading and encourage natural habitat. Implementation Goal: Develop an education program for caring for open space maintenance and backyard conservation. Basis of Recommendation: Based on 2007 land use data, a significant portion of the St. Jones watershed is urban (33.3 percent) and much of it is turf. Over 73,000 acres of residential turf exists in Delaware and 58 percent of it is fertilized, usually without having a soil test indicating the need for fertilization. It is apparent from the data set below that the non-farm fertilizer tonnage has grown significantly since 1995 to 2008. Correspondingly, there has been an eight percent increase in urban acreage over this time period suggesting that fertilizer applications to other land uses, such as residential lawns, is increasing. Sims et al. 1 (2007) reported that from 2000 to 2006, 50%, 30%, and 20% of the non-farm N fertilizer and 44%, 32%, and 24% of the non-farm P fertilizer was used in New Castle, Kent, and Sussex County, respectively. Figure 6 - Percentage of Non-Farm Fertilizer Sold in Delaware by Year (Source: Jones, Lyle and Volk Jennifer. 2008. Effect of Delaware’s Nutrient Management Law On Nutrients Sold in Delaware and Its Apparent Impact on Nitrogen and Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Loads ---- Another Perspective.) 1 Sims, J.T., J. McGrath, and A.L. Shober. 2007. Nutrient Mass Balances for the State of Delaware: Final Project Report, Submitted to the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission. University of Delaware, Newark, DE. 21

In response to the needs outlined in the St. Jones Implementation Plan, the St. Jones watershed Coordinator proposes to launch an educational/outreach campaign in the St. Jones watershed in an effort to change watershed residents’ lawn care practices. The St. Jones watershed Coordinator, along with project partners, believes that by figuring out the real reasons people over-fertilize, they can cause the necessary behavior changes to reduce nutrient runoff from lawns in the watershed. They are doing this by helping to develop the Delaware Livable Lawns Program. The Livable Lawns Program certifies lawn care companies that follow environmentally-friendly practices in fertilizer application while educating homeowners. While many homeowners may be unaware of where, when, and how much fertilizer to apply, professional lawn care staff have the expertise to fertilize lawns correctly. Certified Livable Lawns companies go a step beyond the current regulations that govern fertilizer use by following environmentally-friendly practices resulting in healthy lawns and healthy water. In addition, the Livable Lawns program is beginning a residential education portion to educate homeowners as to their responsibility when it comes to fertilizer application and how what they do on their lawns can affect us all. The Delaware Livable Lawns Program is administered by the Delaware Nursery & Landscape Association (DNLA). The DNLA is a non-profit trade organization serving Delaware's horticultural related businesses and the companies that supply them. The DNLA's mission is to advance the common interests of its members and to promote the use, and enhance the quality, of the products and skills of the green industry. The DNLA also works in cooperation with the Delaware Department of Agriculture and Delaware Cooperative Extension to shape legislative and administrative policies and procedures on matters that are of interest to Delaware's Green Industry. The Delaware Livable Lawns Program Advisory Group was developed through a cooperative effort of: • Delaware Department of Transportation • Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control • Appoquinimink River Association • Delaware Department of Agriculture Nutrient Management Commission • New Castle Conservation District • US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service • University of Delaware Institute for Public Administration Water Resources Agency • University of Delaware Cooperative Extension • Delaware Grounds Management Association • Delaware Nursery & Landscape Association At no cost to participants, the Smartyards Program provides official certification for properties where owners meet the four criteria necessary for wildlife habitat: food, cover, water, and places 22

for wildlife to raise young. Certified habitats may range from those meeting the minimum requirements, such as a small urban balcony or rooftop, to extensive naturalized areas that meet a variety of wildlife needs. By adopting practices beneficial to wildlife such as planting native species, limiting use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, reducing the size of lawn areas, and better maintaining small areas of forest or wetlands if located in backyards, participants help to improve local water quality. Smartyards provide habitat for a greater diversity of wildlife species, prevent the pollution of runoff from urban and suburban yards, and reduce the quantity of runoff more than traditional turf grass landscapes. Participants begin to make the connection that the wildlife in their yards is a part of the natural environment of their community, which includes the St. Jones River and its tributaries. The Watershed Coordinator has received some interest in this program in Dover and wants to implement it in the St. Jones in 2012. In late 2005, the Delaware Coastal Program produced Community Spaces, Natural Places which is a guide to restoration, management and maintenance of community open spaces. The guide provides communities and landowners with a basic understanding of low cost natural habitat options for community open space and was designed to provide practical approaches for open space management, challenges, and opportunities of mobilizing a community open space as well as low cost natural habitat options for open space. Expected Reduction: 0.11 of N and 0.04 lb per acre lot of P for Smartyard landscaping Cost: The average cost of installing Smartyard landscaping in residential lawns in the Appoquinimink watershed has been $956.20 per ¼-acre yard. This is an average of the total costs of 20 projects in the fall of 2004 and 20 projects in spring of 2005. Therefore, based on this initial cost, the cost of the nutrient reductions is $34,933/lb N and $95,272/lb P on an annual basis. These high costs are obviously excessive per pound of nutrients reduced because of the first year’s cost of installation, staff time and educational materials. The annual maintenance and operation costs will undoubtedly be a small fraction of the original installation cost, so the nutrient reduction cost should decrease considerably in successive years. Cost of the Liveable Lawns program was $40,000 for the first year and will be $25,000 each year thereafter. Implementation Schedule: Liveable Lawns program started in January 2011. Expected Reduction: For Smartyards 0.11 of N and 0.04 lbs per acre lot of P for Smartyard landscaping and but EPA considers urban stormwater runoff from yards, streets, parking lots and other areas to be one of the most significant of contamination in our county’s waters. Potential Funding Source: Program was funded through DelDOT initially. The Department will work with partners including the County and local governments to apply for grants for this work. Action Needed: The Department will work with the Delaware Nursery and Landscape Association and the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission to accomplish this 23

recommendation and will work with other partners including the County and local governments to accomplish this recommendation. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 4 – Sewer Repair Sewer transmission systems should be repaired to reduce infiltration and inflow during wet periods. Implementation Goal: Reduce inflow and infiltration into Kent County Sewer system. Basis of Recommendation: Based upon information provided to the Team from Kent County’s wastewater treatment facility, flow to the county wastewater treatment plant may double during rain events and nutrient loads may increase from more runoff. It is estimated that Dover residents are paying at least $100,000 a year just to treat rainwater that has infiltrated into Dover’s collection system. In the fall of 2006, Dover contracted with Video Pipe Services of Beltsville, Maryland to determine areas where the sewer collection system needs repairs in order to eliminate infiltration. From the information collected from this action, the City of Dover estimated that over 700,000 gallons of rain water was eliminated from infiltrating and inflowing during wet periods into their collection system. This estimated inflow resulted from 27 homes in old Dover. The video of the collection system and subsequent smoke testing showed that most of the infiltration came from roof downspouts being connected to the wastewater collection system in old Dover area of the City. The City requested that each of the 27 home owners have their downspouts disconnected from their below grade drain pipes which connected to sewer system and requested the downspouts be allowed to flow on to the ground. The City re-checked each home to see if the disconnection was completed. As of November 2012 over 60 homes have had their down spouts disconnected from the sewer and the City is in the process of relining sewer mains to reduce inflow and infiltration of rainwater. Implementation Schedule: On going process. Expected Reduction: Reduction of 2.9 lbs/day of P and 35 lbs/day of N from rain water inflowing from 27 homes. Cost: The City of Harrington estimated $400,000 to fix leaky sewer pipes that are letting rainwater into the town’s sewer system. Potential Funding Source: Sewer fees from customers of Kent County Wastewater Treatment Facility and from City of Harrington. Action Needed: None. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 5– Septic Pump Out and Inspection Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (OWTDSs) should be inspected and pumped out regularly to reduce nutrient loading of the groundwater. Compliance with current regulations should be promoted. 24

Implementation Goal: Have all systems within the watershed inspected once every three years. Basis of Recommendation: Currently septic permits require that the systems be pumped out every three years or when the system contains 30 percent or more of solids. The County and/or Department should institute a program that enforces the inspection and pump-out requirement for onsite septic systems. A notification system should be developed such that homeowners would be notified of this requirement in the year their system is due to be inspected. The County and State should use computer software to track the occurrence of inspections and cooperate to ensure compliance with regulations. The program should assist residents who have not had their septic pumped in the previous two years to have their system pumped and inspected. The State and County should subsidize the cost of inspections and pump outs. Following the inspection, the inspector should provide the homeowner/resident with educational materials and receipt of pump out. Additionally, the Department has the authority to regulate OSWDS. On July 11, 2003 the Governor signed House Bill 150 into law, which authorized the Department to establish a license for persons who inspect systems and other OWTDS, and set an annual license fee for septic system designers, installers, site evaluators, liquid waste haulers, inspectors and percolation testers, similar to other license fees charged by the Department. On January 1, 2006, DNREC developed and implemented Class H licenses for a septic system inspectors. Following the inspection, the inspector provides the homeowner/resident with educational materials and receipt of pump out. With the promulgation of new proposed Regulations Governing the Design, Installation, and Operation of On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems by the end of 2012, the Department believes that inspected and pumped out on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems will occur more regularly. The proposed regulations require that a septic system to be inspected when the parcel is sold. If the new regulations are not promulgated as anticipated, the Department will promulgate the necessary regulations for this recommendation. The watershed currently has 6,244 OSWD systems within its boundaries. If all systems are pumped once every three years, as required by state regulations, [14] then 2,081systems would be pumped annually. The soils in the watershed are mostly well drained so the actual TP reduction will likely be significantly less. Each system pumped out would reduce TP and TN surface and/or groundwater load by 0.6 lbs/system/year and1.6 lbs/system/year, respectively. Implementation Schedule: New regulations will be promulgated by 2012. Expected Reduction: 5.69 lbs/day of TP and 14.2 lbs/day of TN for pumping out 2,081 septic tanks Cost: The costs of the inspection will be covered through an agreement between the buyer and the seller. The cost of pumping out OWTDS ranges from $185-200 per system, with an average [14] Regulations Governing the Design, Installation and Operation of On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems, adopted March 11, 2002. 25

cost of $192.50 per system (DNREC Small Systems Branch, personal communication, 2007). Permit conditions require that septic systems be pumped once every three years, which capitalizes this figure to $68.60/system/year. The proposed inspection will be performed at an estimated cost that range from $200 to $400 with an average cost of $300 at the time of pump- out (DNREC Small Systems Branch, personal communication, 2007). Thus, the inspection fee will only be incurred once every three years, so that annually it equates to $100. The total cost of the OWTDS inspection and compliance program will cost the system owner $169/system/year. Potential Funding Sources: The cost of these systems will be paid by the land owner. Cost share funds may be found to assist those of middle income and below. At present, State Revolving Fund (SRF) money and Septic Rehabilitation Loan Program funds may be used to provide low interest loans to property owners that need to replace or repair a failing system. Action Needed: With the promulgation of the new proposed Regulations Governing the Design, Installation, and Operation of On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System by the end of 2012, the Department believes that Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 5 for inspections of individual onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems (OSWDS) will occur at the time of sale and at least once every three years. If the new on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system regulations are not promulgated as anticipated, the Department will promulgate the necessary regulations for this recommendation. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 6 – Cesspools and Seepage Pits Cesspools and seepage pits should be eliminated systematically as these wastewater systems discharge nutrients and bacteria directly into the groundwater. The septic inspection and maintenance program should help locate and eliminate them. Implementation Goal: Eliminate all cesspools and seepage pits in the watershed. Basis for Recommendation: The DNREC Watershed Assessment Section estimates that there are at least 30 cesspools [15] and/or seepage pits in the St. Jones watershed, however that estimation may be low. Any existing cesspools would likely be with old farmsteads and very old mobile home parks. Implementation Schedule: New regulations will be promulgated by 2012. Expected Reduction: 0.6 lbs/day of TP and 0.16 lbs/day of TN for 30 cesspools Cost: The cost depends on the number of systems that need replacement and the types of systems that would be permitted in their place. [15] This number was determined by using a GIS and old aerial photographs to assess large parcels over 10 acres within the Murderkill Watershed with the assumption that large parcels were farmsteads and had a dwelling unit and cesspool. 26

Potential Funding Source: The cost of these systems upgrades will be paid by the land owner. Cost-share funds may be available to assist those of middle-income and below. At present, State Revolving Fund (SRF) money and Septic Rehabilitation Loan Program funds may be used to provide low interest loans to property owners that need to replace a failing system. Action Needed: With the promulgation of the new proposed Regulations Governing the Design, Installation, and Operation of On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems in 2012, the Department believes that Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 6, which details the systematic elimination of cesspools and seepage pits as the properties are transferred from one owner to another. If the new on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system regulations are not promulgated as anticipated, the Department will promulgate the necessary regulations for this recommendation. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 7 – Septic Removal If it is physically and legally available (as defined by the Regulations Governing the Design, Installation and Operation of OWTDSs), OWTDSs should be removed in growth zones and connected to the Kent County Wastewater Treatment Facility. The inspection and maintenance program will identify the connection of failed systems to sewer systems, if available, or replacement systems, if not. Implementation Goal: Eliminate failing septic systems by connecting them to Kent County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Basis for Recommendation: In Delaware, surface and ground water are directly connected. Consequently, impacts on groundwater will impact the quality of the surface water. In the summer, surface water flow is primarily groundwater seepage into the stream. Nutrients from onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems will reach the surface water through the groundwater. With the promulgation of the new proposed Regulations Governing the Design, Installation, and Operation of On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems by the end of 2012, DNREC believes that Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 7 will be met. If the new regulations are not promulgated as anticipated, the Department will promulgate the necessary regulations for this recommendation. St. Jones watershed is estimated to have 918 residents that with be connected to Kent County Treatment Facility over the next 15 years. Many of these systems are old and are malfunctioning. Implementation Schedule: To be completed by 2027. Expected Reduction: 0.11 lbs/day of TP, and 3.44 lbs/day of TN for 61 system per year Cost: Kent County charges a capital impact fee of $1,679 and a sewer district impact fee of $1,491 for each home or equivalent dwelling unit. There is also an $85 permit fee required by 27

the County. Total cost to connect to county sewer is $3,255 but this does not include the actual cost to run the sewer pipe into the county sewer line. Potential Funding Source: As areas are being developed by private entities, the developers will absorb some of the septic elimination cost. Action Needed: Assist the county by identifying areas that have a large number of failing old wastewater treatment and disposal systems due to system age and undersized disposal areas. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 8 – Performance Standards All new and replacement onsite wastewater disposal systems must be designed to achieve performance standards using the best available “new technology” to achieve required nutrient reduction targets for the watershed. Implementation Goal: Require all new onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems to meet TMDL nitrogen reductions. Basis for Recommendation: In response to the TMDL, Kent County requires that new individual residential, large, or community onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems sited in a watershed with an established Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) shall be designed and installed in accordance with the nutrient load reductions prescribed by the TMDL or they shall use the best available technologies in order to achieve the required nutrient reduction targets set for the particular watershed (See Chapter 187, Subdivision and Land Development (Adopted June 24, 2003)). The DNREC Ground Water Discharges Section and the Watershed Assessment Section contracted with Dr. Mike Hoover with the University of North Carolina to develop and recommend performance standards for all sizes of onsite systems. Technologies are available to reduce the nutrients in OWTDS effluent and are defined by the following performance standards: Performance Standard Nitrogen level 1 (PSN1) to achieve 5 mg/l at the end-of-pipe of the pretreatment unit; PSN2 10 mg/l at the end-of-pipe of the pretreatment unit; PSN3 20 mg/l at the end-of-pipe of the pretreatment unit; PSP1 4 mg/l at the end-of-pipe of the pretreatment unit; PSP2 8 mg/l at the end-of-pipe of the pretreatment unit. Because of this work, the permit applicant can select an approved technology from a list maintained by the Ground Water Discharges Section. Since alternative systems are more expensive than standard systems, the Department wants to ensure that they are functioning in order to ensure the nutrient reductions and protect the investment, and therefore will require a service contract with a certified service provider. In addition, new homebuyers may not understand the functioning of their system or the impacts a failing system could have on the environment. Therefore, by providing education materials, the homeowner may prevent long-term problems and save money. Implementation Schedule: Will be implemented with adoption of new regulations in 2012. 28

Expected Reduction: A total of 210 septic systems were pumped out and inspected in Sussex County, and seventy percent were in satisfactory condition. So, there was a 30% failure rate. If this rate was applied to the St. Jones watershed, there would be a potential of 1,809 failed septic systems within the watershed, and of these 1,809 failing system, 61 would be connected to county sewer. Because Kent County ‘s Chapter 187, Subdivision and Land Development (Adopted June 24, 2003) only requires new systems to meet TMDL reductions, no reductions in nutrients would occur with this part of the recommendation unless the system was to connect to county sewer. As existing systems less than 2,500 gpd fail and require replacement, PSN3 will be required by the revised state Regulations Governing the Design, Installation, and Operation of Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems and will result in a reduction up to 10.6 pounds of nitrogen per year per system. Cost: DNREC’s Small Systems Branch (personal communication, 2006) revealed that the installation of best available technologies (BATs) to existing small (<2,500 gallon per day (gpd)) OWTDSs for advanced nitrogen removal would cost between $3,500 and $6,000 per system with an average of $4,750. These technologies require a service contract by a certified service provider with an estimated annual cost that ranges from $150 to $300, with an average cost of $225/system/year. In addition, the systems will still require pump-outs, which cost $64/system/year (DNREC small System Branch, personal communication, 2007), and will need periodic mechanical parts repaired, estimated to cost $50/system/year and the electric cost of running the system is likely to also cost about $50/system/year (DNREC Financial Assistance Branch, personal communication, 2007). Costs are not currently available for the retrofit of larger systems. The cost of these systems will be paid by the landowner. Cost-share funds may be found to assist those of middle income and below. At present, State Revolving Fund (SRF) money and Septic Rehabilitation Loan Program funds may be used to provide low interest loans to property owners that need to replace a failing system. Potential Funding Source: The cost of these systems will be paid by the land owner. Cost- share funds may be found to assist those of middle income and below. At present, State Revolving Fund (SRF) money and the Septic Rehabilitation Loan Program provide low interest financing for replacing failing septic systems and cesspools with on-site wastewater disposal systems that will function in an environmentally sound and cost effective manner. The loan is secured by a mortgage lien on the rehabilitated property. This program is managed by the Financial Assistance Branch with technical assistance from the Ground Water Discharges Branch. The Financial Assistance Branch shares a partnership with First State Community Action Agency (FSCAA), who has program specialists in Georgetown and Dover to assist with the application process. Action Needed: With the promulgation of the new proposed Regulations Governing the Design, Installation, and Operation of On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems by the end of 2012, the Department believes that this recommendation on performance standards will be met. 29

If the new regulations are not promulgated as anticipated, the Department will promulgate the necessary regulations for this recommendation. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 9 – Stormwater Utility A stormwater utility should be implemented to generate a stable source of funding for stormwater management within the watershed. Implementation Goal: Institute a stormwater utility in Kent County and within Dover. Basis of Recommendation: Governor Minner’s Task Force on Surface Water Management quantified the statewide financial need for stormwater management. The Finance Subcommittee identified stormwater capital requirements of $207.3 million over the next five years and projected annual maintenance requirements of $13.73 million (DNREC, 2005). The Task Force recommended that a stormwater utility operating at the county or local level should be formed as a funding vehicle for the purpose of providing a simplified and comprehensive approach to drainage and flooding problems. A stormwater utility is an approach that can generate a stable source of funding for stormwater management within the region. The funds are made available by collecting user fees. Stormwater utility fees are generally set by the amount of impervious cover on each resident’s property; the higher the impervious cover the higher the fee. GIS mapping will be utilized to measure impervious surface generated by residential and commercial development, and the utility fee will be charged based on the property’s Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU). Level of Service analysis began in May of 2008 and was funded equally by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) Division of Soil and Water Conservation, the Kent Conservation District, and Kent County. Representatives from these agencies oversaw its preparation as the Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC). The purposes of the project were to determine the current level and costs of surface water management offered in Kent County and to identify the levels and costs needed to adequately meet the needs of current residents and the expanding population. This analysis built upon previous efforts such as Governor Minner’s Task Force on Surface Water Management (2005) and the Delaware Public Policy Institute Dialogue on Financing Wastewater and Stormwater Infrastructure (2006). In addition to the sponsoring agencies, meetings were also held with numerous other government entities and stakeholders including DelDOT, tax ditch managers, municipal representatives, the Home Builders Association of Delaware, and the Kent County Conservancy. This Level of Service analysis offered several recommendations on stormwater management through creating a stormwater management district and developing mechanisms governing the maintenance of privately-owned stormwater management structures. Level of Service Analysis provided a framework for budgetary conversations and guidance for moving forward. It is not an end point but rather a blueprint for future actions. One challenge for the City of Dover to establish a storm water utility within its borders is that the City is not a delegated agency for stormwater management. Thus, the City would need to 30

become a delegated agency, which would include developing a fee schedule and staffing plan to accomplish this. Additionally, any proposal that includes additional fees will likely not gain any traction until the economy turns around. Implementation Schedule: No date has been set. Expected Reduction: Nutrient reductions cannot be assigned to this recommendation as it is a mechanism for funding practices, not for implementing practice. Cost: DNREC, Kent County, and KCD requested a level of service analysis and investigation of the stormwater service district. URS, Inc. received the contract for the analysis, which costs $75,000. Potential Funding Source: Kent County and City of Dover Action Needed: The Department will assist the County and/or Dover to implement a stormwater utility in their jurisdictions. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 10 – Stormwater Best Management Practices Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be designed to reduce nutrients according to TMDLs. Implementation Goal: Implement the new proposed Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations. Basis of Recommendation: The Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations govern the development of plans and design the criteria implemented in the State. Current regulations minimize water quality and quantity impacts due to land disturbing activities by preferring the use of “Green Technology BMPs.” “Green Technology BMPs” are practices that achieve stormwater management objectives by applying the principles of filtration, infiltration, and storage associated with natural vegetation and undisturbed soils, while minimizing a reliance on structural components. These BMPs are effective in nutrient reduction. Additionally, the report “Governor Minner’s Task Force on Surface Water Management” recommends including nutrient reduction as an aspect of sediment and stormwater law. As part of recommendation 10, it is suggested that State Sediment and Stormwater Regulations and plans be updated to include requirements for stormwater recharge, runoff volumes, land use cover conditions, turbidity limits, adequate conveyance, and pollutant loads. The Sediment and Stormwater Regulations are currently under revision and will be modified to better address volume management by increasing emphasis on recharge and infiltration of stormwater, where it is technically and environmentally feasible. In addition, regulations should include design criteria to reduce nutrient contributions through practices such as comparing post development conditions with and without stormwater quality controls, using treatment trains of stormwater controls, or reducing impervious cover. 31

Implementation Schedule: Promulgate regulations by end of 2012. Expected Reduction: Table 11: Effectiveness of various Stormwater BMPs to reduce nutrient (TN & TP) Loads Reduction Efficiency for Stormwater BMP Reduction Efficiency for TN TP 1 Wet Ponds 0.30 0.50 Dry Ponds1 0.05 0.10 1 Sand Filters 0.40 0.60 1 Infiltration Systems 0.50 0.70 Biofiltration/bioswales1 0.50 0.70 1 Stormwater wetlands 0.3 0.50 1 Rain Gardens 0.40 0.60 1 : Chesapeake Bay Non- Point Source Best Management Practices Table 1, 2006. Cost: Approximately $200,000 for consulting services for regulation development Potential Funding Source: Funded through State general funds. Action Needed: With the promulgation of the new proposed Sediment and Stormwater Regulations by the end of 2012, the Department believes that this recommendation will be met. If the new regulations are not promulgated as anticipated, the Department will promulgate stormwater regulations for the St. Jones watershed that meet this recommendation and the required TMDL reduction. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 11 – Impervious Cover Local municipalities, Kent County Conservation District and Kent County, should meet to determine how to limit the addition of new effective impervious cover and encourage the use of pervious surfaces. Implementation Goal: Implementation of new proposed Sediment and Stormwater Regulations to limit effective impervious cover. Basis for Recommendation: Limiting impervious cover reduces the amount of runoff that can enter the river and its tributaries. Research has consistently shown that once a threshold of imperviousness is crossed in a given watershed, water quality and stream habitat cannot be maintained at the predevelopment level. The consensus among many independent researchers is that watershed imperviousness should not exceed 10 percent in environmentally sensitive watersheds. As research has uncovered the link between increasing impervious cover and deteriorating water quality, businesses have developed pervious paving products that can replace impervious products (Center for Watershed Protection, March 2003). 32

The Department recommends that the effective impervious cover be reduced on redeveloped properties. Effective impervious cover is the portion of the total amount impervious cover that is directly connected to the storm drain system. Impervious cover that drains to vegetated areas where stormwater can infiltrate, or be filtered and stored, is not considered part of the effective impervious cover. Kent County Code (Chapter 187, Article 5, §205-51) presently allows 20 percent of each lot to be covered by impervious surfaces; however, this allotment does not include streets or other impervious areas outside the lot boundary. Consequently, subdivisions have over 20 percent impervious cover, while commercial lots could have 100 percent impervious cover. In 1992 impervious cover within the St. Jones watershed was estimated to be around 11 percent, and in 2007 is estimated to have increased to 12.5 percent. With the present rate of growth in the St. Jones watershed in the past five years, impervious cover could be nearer 15%. The State of Delaware Source Water Protection Law of 2001 requires local governments with year-round populations of 2,000 or greater to implement measures to protect the quality and quantity of public water supplied within delineated surface water, wellhead, and groundwater recharge areas by 2007. This law required Dover, Camden, and Wyoming to develop measures to protect source water. In the Source Water Protection Guidance Manual for the Local Governments of Delaware, local governments are encouraged to adopt ordinances that protect ground and surface waters in Water Resources Protection Areas (WRPAs) through a source water protection hierarchy (ranked in descending order of preference): 1. Preserve WRPAs as open space and parks by acquisition or conservation easement. 2. Limit impervious cover of new development to 20% within WRPAs. 3. Allow impervious cover of new development to exceed 20% within WRPAs (but no more than 50% impervious) provided the applicant develops recharge facilities that directly infiltrate rooftop runoff. 4. Allow impervious cover of new development to exceed 20% within WRPAs (but no more than 50% impervious) provided the applicant develops recharge facilities that infiltrate stormwater runoff from forested and/or grassed surfaces with pretreatment. The new State Sediment and Stormwater Regulations are expected to limit some of the negative effects of impervious cover by virtue of the requirement that stormwater must be infiltrated rather than discharged through a conveyance system. If infiltration is not possible on the site, the stormwater treatment on site must have several best management practices designed to reduce the stormwater nutrient and bacteria load. As for existing properties that will be redeveloped, unless new construction will be undertaken on the property, no reduction of impervious cover will result. Implementation Schedule: The new regulations will be promulgated by December of 2012. 33

Expected Reduction: Although there have been links between percent impervious cover and watershed health, nutrient loading rates for phosphorus and nitrogen have not been established for percent imperviousness. Reducing runoff will reduce nutrient loads in the river, ponds, and tributaries, although we do not have the ability to connect a numeric reduction with coverage limits. Cost: This recommendation would only apply for new proposed development so it is not possible to calculate implementation costs at this time. Potential Funding Source: In a study funded by DNREC (1997), the Brandywine Conservancy demonstrated that by reducing road and driveway widths and minimizing the disturbance boundary in developments in Kent County, the developer could reduce impervious cover 24% and at the same time reduce development costs by 39%. Action Needed: With the promulgation of the new proposed Sediment and Stormwater Regulations by the end of 2012, the Department believes that this recommendation to establish watershed-wide limit for effective impervious coverage will be met. The Department will work with Kent County or any municipality to develop effective impervious cover reduction controls through ordinances on redeveloped properties. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 12 – Stormwater Retrofits A stormwater inventory should be conducted to identify areas where stormwater retrofits would effectively reduce sediment and nutrients. Implementation Goal: Use the existing stormwater BMP database to identify retrofit areas. Basis for Recommendation: Land developed prior to 1990 did not have any stormwater requirements. Kent County Conservation District has delegated authority from DNREC to run the stormwater program in Kent County and is in the process of identifying priority areas for stormwater retrofits. DNREC hired Duffield Associates, Inc. to develop a Watershed Implementation Plan (2008) for the St. Jones River. The purpose of the plan is to characterize the watershed quality, identify potential sources/types/locations of impairment, and to identify potential restoration opportunities. The focus of this watershed plan is to improve water quality and associated natural resources. A focus of the study is to identify potential restoration opportunities in the watershed. Restoration/enhancement/preservation opportunities were identified in the following major categories: • Stream/Riparian Buffers/Floodplains; • Wetlands; • Agricultural Best Management Practices; • Urban Stormwater Retrofits; 34

• Urban Sub-Watershed Site Reconnaissance; and • Conservation Easements or Acquisitions. Implementation Schedule: Inventory was completed October 2008. Expected Reduction: Nutrient reductions will depend on the specific systems selected for upgrade and the acreages involved. Cost: Cost of the St. Jones River Watershed Implementation Plan was $175,000. Cost will of implementation depends on the specific systems selected for upgrades. Potential Funding Source: State and federal grants Action Needed: Implement the existing St. Jones River Watershed Implementation Plan. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 13 – Stormwater Education Since Homeowners Associations are critical for successful stormwater BMP maintenance, there should be a governmental agency charged with making sure the Associations are functional. In the Association by-laws, there should be a requirement for stormwater education. An education program for Homeowners Associations should be developed for stormwater BMP maintenance. Implementation Goal: Develop an education program for stormwater management and maintenance. Basis of Recommendation: Educational resources should be provided to homeowners associations, especially face to face education, which stresses the organizations’ responsibilities. Topics should include: proper use and application of fertilizer and use of salt and sand during periods of snow. The Smartyard Program should be implemented in the watershed to assist homeowners in planting native landscaping to conserve water and reduce fertilizer and pesticide use. The plan should consist of the following parts: 1. Identify values which are affecting residential activities and target those that will affect behavior change. 2. Encourage educational facilities with turf athletic facilities where nutrients are applied to develop a nutrient management plan for their facility. 3. Develop an advertising strategy that promotes the use of soil tests to the urban/suburban homeowner. 4. Work with the University of Delaware to revise their soil test results sheet for homeowners to make it easier to be understood and provide specific fertilizer application recommendations based upon existing fertilizer blends found within the State. 5. Education of fertilizer retailers such that retailers will pass out educational materials with purchase of fertilizer and will have available soil testing materials at their location. 35

6. Educate homeowners and homeowner associations on stormwater BMPs that can be used around the home to reduce impact on water quality. 7. Integrate education into various (State and local) permitting processes. 8. Create public information campaigns based upon goal of behavior change. 9. Support a demonstration project/workshop for homeowners on application of fertilizers and composting methods. 10. Support and encourage the use of water conservation measures like those below by individuals to help reduce the amount of nutrients leaving individual properties. • Gray water recycling (use of gray water around the home on plants and gardens, etc). • Rain collection systems such as rain barrels and rain gardens. • Directing stormwater runoff from roofs and impervious surfaces onto grassy areas. • The use of water saving devices in and around the home. • The overall reduction of water usage in households and on lawns. 11. Work with the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission and the Master Gardeners to provide education and programs for homeowner’s on lawn and garden best management practices such as: • Proper mowing practices. • Leaving lawn clippings on the lawn. • Leaving a buffer along stream edge. • Reducing lawn size. • Water conservation measures and stormwater BMPs for the lawn and garden. • Encouraging use of native species and noninvasive species. • Discouraging ideas that lawns need chemicals to be green. • Proper use of lawn and garden chemicals (including natural fertilizers and compost). • Use of compost rather than chemicals as a means of reducing synthetic chemical fertilizers. Implementation Schedule: The Delaware Liveable Lawns program was initated in early 2010. The Delaware Livable Lawns Program certifies lawn care companies that follow environmentally-friendly practices in fertilizer application while educating homeowners. While many homeowners may be unaware of where, when, and how much fertilizer to apply, professional lawn care staff have the expertise to fertilize lawns correctly (See Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 3). The Delaware Liveable Lawns website helps homeowners and commercial applicators to learn about proper fertilization (www.delawarelivablelawns.org). On September 15, 2010, “Rain Gardens for the Bays” – a regional campaign for greening our neighborhoods and improving water quality in the Delaware Bay, Maryland Coastal Bays, and Delaware’s Inland Bays was launched at the Delaware Agricultural Museum and Village in Dover. At the event, Governor Jack Markell signed a Proclamation declaring Sept. 15 – 21, 2010 as “Rain Gardens for the Bays Week” in Delaware and encouraged the public to create rain gardens where they work, live and play. 36

A rain garden is a garden located in a shallow depression near a runoff source – a downspout, driveway or paved surface – with soil that drains quickly and deep-rooted native plants and grasses that naturally absorb water and filter pollutants. When rainwater from storms comes in contact with buildings, roads, parking lots and other impervious surfaces, the runoff collects pollutants – oil and grease, nutrients, bacteria, harmful metals, and other substances – and deposits these pollutants in our waterways. Rain gardens are sustainable, affordable and particularly effective in capturing rain water, mitigating flooding, creating habitat for local species and reducing up to 80 percent of the pollutants in stormwater runoff. The campaign includes a new one-stop website, www.raingardensforthebays.org, with easy-to-use information and diagrams on how to design and build a rain garden. Photos of rain gardens planted throughout the region are posted, and the site encourages the registration of new rain gardens as a way to measure the progress of the campaign. All new rain gardens registered on the website will receive a “Registered Rain Garden” sign to post at their garden. Funding for 10 demonstration rain gardens was awarded to the campaign through the federal Clean Water Act Nonpoint Source Program via a grant to DNREC’s “319” program. Demonstration rain gardens are being located throughout the region at public buildings, schools, museums and other sites with public access, as a way to educate and encourage people to plant rain gardens. Expected Reduction: Nutrient reductions cannot be assigned to this recommendation as it is a mechanism for education,though rain gardens can reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in stormwater by as much 40% for nitrogen and 60% for phosphorus. Cost: Unknown at this time and is a function of program developed. Liveable Lawns program was begun with funds from DELDOT. The program cost $ 40,000 for the first year and will cost $ 25,000 each year thereafter. The Rain Gardens for the Bays was initiated with $50,000 from EPA and the program received and additional $50,000 in 2011 from EPA. Potential Funding Source: State and/or Federal grants. Action Needed: The Department will continue its education efforts for stormwater management and will assist Kent County and municipalities with their education efforts. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 14 – Agricultural BMPs Best Management Practices (BMPs) for agriculture should be encouraged and supported. New funding sources should be sought and financial incentives should be increased. Implementation Goal: Train Kent Conservation District staff to use existing targeting tool. Basis for Recommendation: The establishment of best management practices on agricultural land will address nutrient inputs from all facets of agriculture operations, including the use of manure from animal operations and fertilizers for crops. The environmental and quality of life 37

benefits of agriculture should be recognized as a way to encourage and enforce BMP implementation. Encourage the use of buffers on agricultural lands where best nitrogen and phosphorous uptake is likely. By targeting areas for BMP implementation geographically, more effective and efficient nutrient reductions can likely be expected. Specific BMPs that are used in the St. Jones watershed have many beneficial nutrient reducing capabilities as follows: • Cover crops protect soil when row crops are not being grown. This practice helps retain nitrogen in the soil for the next crop, reducing fertilizer costs to the farmer. • Grassed filter strips and grassed buffers trap sediments in surface runoff and take up excess nutrients. • Ponds capture nutrient losses from upland or cropped acreage. • Riparian forested buffers reduce nutrient losses from upland acres and reduce sediment bound phosphorous from entering waterways. • Wetland restoration reduces nutrient loss from upland acres. • Field border plantings trap sediment in surface runoff and take up excess nutrients. • Manure relocation removes significant amounts of excess manure, consequently removing excess nutrients. The Kent Conservation District developed a Geographic Information System database of farm fields to improve their ability to coordinate and effectively manage agricultural NPS pollutant reductions. The spatial database will facilitate a more efficient: • Consolidation of information from the numerous agricultural agencies that develop and administer BMP and conservation practices. • Approach to highlighting the geographic location of all existing BMP and conservation practice locations in a designated watershed. • Utilization of watershed planning tools capable of targeting and ranking farm field properties for various BMP and conservation practice implementation. This Geographic Information System database was developed to identify and target farm field sites for potential enrollment in various state and federal agricultural voluntary cost-share programs that address nutrient nonpoint source pollutant loading. This tool will allow the District and its state and federal partner agencies to maximize the limited implementation funds and planning resources earmarked for potential agricultural NPS loading sources within the St. Jones. Implementation Schedule: Have District staff trained by December 2012. Expected Reduction: As of December 2010, agricultural best management practices on the ground in the St. Jones River Watershed have reduced phosphorus loads by 58.30 lbs per day or 90 percent of the way towards the P load goal, and 88.61 lbs per day of nitrogen or 10 percent of the way towards the nitrogen load goal. 38

Cost: The costs of implementing BMPs have been estimated using data gathered by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) at the county and state level. Recently, changes in the state cost share program have required a Pollution Control Strategy for watershed residents to receive funding. Thus, the state cost share information found in Table 11 is based on a PCS approved for the St. Jones watershed. These are estimates, as costs for specific project may vary. Table 12: Agricultural BMP Costs Installation Lifespan Total Total Cost/ Cost / Acre (years) Maintenance Acre Costs over Lifespan Cover Crops $49.33 1 $5 $54.33 Ponds $3,758.50 10 $5 $3,808.50 Grassed $16,404.24 10 $5 $16,454.24 Waterways Filter Strips/Wildlife $495.24 10 $5 $545.24 Habitat Forest Buffers $495.24 15 $5 $570.24 Riparian $502.00 15 $5 $577.00 Buffers Wetland $4,374.50 15 $5 $4,449.50 Restoration Field Border $495.24 10 $5 $545.24 Critical Area $7,229.24 10 $5 $7,279.24 Planting Conservation $17.33 4 $5 $37.33 Tillage Potential Funding Sources: United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency, Kent Conservation District, DNREC Watershed Assessment, DNREC NPS Program 319 Funding, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, DNREC Ecological Restoration Program, Delaware Department of Agriculture Nutrient Management Commission Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 15 – Nutrient Management Act Because nutrient management plans reduce excess cropland nutrients, it is recommended that the Nutrient Management Commission ensure full compliance of the Nutrient Management Act. Implementation Goal: This has been completed as of December 2007. However, the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission is checking continuing to check compliance of Nutrient Management Act. 39

Basis for Recommendation: As of 2007, all lands (over 10 acres) that have nutrients applied must be in compliance with the Nutrient Management Act. The Nutrient Management Act requires all farms over 10 acres or with 8 animal units to establish a nutrient management plan, which includes the use of fertilizers and the fate of manure. Assessing the impact of this requirement will quantify the efficiency and reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus. Since the baseline period (1997), the agricultural community has reduced a significant amount of nonpoint source nutrient loading, leading the efforts to curtail nonpoint source nutrient loading. From 1997 to 2008, multiple best management practices (BMPs) have been implemented, and the Delaware Nutrient Management Act was passed. The 2002 Farm Bill has led to unprecedented funding levels of cost-share programs for BMPs that protect the environment, especially water quality, and with the 2008 Farm Bill, additional BMPs were constructed to further improve water quality within the watershed. In many watersheds, polluted runoff from cropland, manure-disposal sites, and concentrated animal-feeding operations (CAFOs) are some of the important sources of phosphorus to surface waters. As of 2009, there were 18 poultry operations, which produce approximately 696,004 birds annually, 18 Amish dairies, 13 beef cattle operations, 31 equine and 5 goat operations in the St. Jones watershed [8]. There are 49 Amish farms within the watershed. Potential nutrient inputs are related to manure, runoff, erosion, and atmospheric deposition of nutrients. In 2007, 37.4% of the St. Jones watershed was used for agriculture, which equates to approximately 21,588 [9] acres. In 1997, agricultural land use accounted for 44.7% [10] of the total land area in the watershed; therefore, the agricultural activity is the second leading source. There are 21,588 acres of crops in the watershed. [11] Crops require nutrients in order to produce an economic yield. Crops produced in the watershed may include soybeans, potatoes, barley, wheat, corn, and vegetables. Nutrient inputs include fertilizer and manure application, which when applied improperly can contribute to nutrient over- enrichment in streams and tributaries in the St. Jones watershed. The Delaware Conservation Partnership (DCP) conducted a survey in July 2007, after the deadline requiring all eligible farm operations to have a plan, to evaluate nutrient management planning in the state. The DCP consists of the Delaware Conservation Districts, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and strives to work together to meet the needs of Delaware farmers by providing cost-share programs, educational opportunities, and nutrient management planning services. The survey was designed to inform those programs by identifying gaps in information and education and opportunities to spend cost-share dollars more effectively. In short, the purpose of the project was to make nutrient management work better for farmers in Delaware. The surveys were sent out to everyone who has been certified by the Nutrient Management Program- 2,034 people in all. The Delaware Conservation Partnership received 698 responses- about a 34% response rate. The following shows the breakdown of responses among different sizes of farms: [8] Mark Hogan, Nonpoint Source 319 Program, DNREC. 02010. Personal Communication. [9] 2007 Landuse data [10] 1997 Landuse data [11] Glenn Gladders, Nonpoint Source 319 Program, DNREC. 2004. Personal Communication. 40

1-10 Acres- 9% 100-499 Acres- 25% 11-99 Acres- 29% 500+ Acres- 20% Animals Only- 10% The survey indicated that fertilizer application rates have most severely decreased among farmers who till at least 500 acres, while manure applications have most dramatically decreased among farmers who till between 11 and 99 acres. The County determined that Sussex farmers had the highest reduction rate of N and P fertilizer applications, Kent farmers had the lowest rate of N applications, and New Castle farmers had the lowest rate of P applications. An Agricultural Workgroup was established to gather the best available science on nonpoint source pollution prevention and compare efficiencies based on the DCP survey to other estimates of nutrient management planning effectiveness. The Workgroup operated off the basic assumption that if fewer nutrients are being applied to the land, fewer nutrients will be lost to Delaware’s water bodies. From this premise, the Workgroup determined nutrient efficiencies for various agricultural best management practices including the effectiveness of nutrient management planning as seen in Table 12. Table 13. Percent changes in fertilizer and manure application rates by county as a result of the 2002 Nutrient Management Law (data from 2007 DCP Survey) County Acres in farms Change in Change in Change nitrogen phosphorus in fertilizer fertilizer manure applications applications applicati on Kent 173,808 13.4 26.9 5.4 New Castle 16.0 20.1 13.6 66,981 Sussex 269,464 18.5 37.1 24.2 Statewide weighted average 510,253 16.7 31.0 19.9 Initially, the Workgroup looked at the impact of nutrient management planning (NMP) in the Inland Bays and Nanticoke watersheds from a study by McGowan and Milliken (1992). This study listed the reductions associated with various management practices observed over a three year period, with a total of 103,736 lbs TN reduced by 2,328 acres under nutrient management planning. To determine a general NMP TN reduction, the Workgroup removed the reductions and acreage associated with manure allowance and cover crops from further calculations; the reductions for both of these items are determined separately and all NMPs will not include manure relocation. This subtraction gave a total of 1,224 acres of nutrient management planning, and a load reduction of 70,136 lbs of TN, resulting in a reduction rate of 57.3 lbs/acre per 3-year planning cycle. McGowan and Milliken (1992) reported that the TN application rate prior to the introduction of NMPs was 280 lbs/acre per 3-year planning cycle, so NMPs produced a 20.5% reduction in TN. This estimate falls in the lower range reported by the State of 41

Maryland (MDNR, 1996), which was 20-39% for nitrogen. The corresponding phosphorus range reported by the Maryland DNR was 9-30%. In the Appoquinimink watershed, one representative farm within the watershed volunteered to allow the Workgroup to analyze the nutrient data they routinely gather. This particular farm tracks nutrient application rates to each crop field within a database that goes back to 1999, prior to the passing of the Nutrient Management Act. The data was separated into two groups, pre- Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) (1999-2002) and post-NMPs (2003-2004), and entered into Statgraphics Software for statistical analysis. It was determined that there was a statistically significant difference between the mean application rates at the 95% confidence level for nitrogen. The average nitrogen application rate decreased by 12.4% from the pre-NMP level and this value will be taken as the NMP reduction efficiency; unfortunately, no reduction could be calculated for phosphorus from this data. At the request of the NMC, Sims et al. (2008) conducted extensive nutrient mass balance calculations for the State for the years 1996 through 2006. They calculated both input/output and management–oriented mass balances for nitrogen and phosphorus. The Sims et al. (2008) approach included calculations for manure relocation and estimates of biological fixation of nitrogen by leguminous crop and clearly demonstrated that fewer nutrients are being applied to Delaware’s cropland. The Watershed Assessment Section (WAS) has worked with the NMC and the University of Delaware Cooperative Extension to determine the impact of the Nutrient Management Act on the amount of nutrients applied to Delaware’s agricultural fields. Using an input-output type analysis using fertilizer sales data and crop yields, WAS determined that on a state-wide basis, 47% less nitrogen and 62% less phosphorus has been applied to Delaware’s cropland. Both the WAS and Sims et al. (2008) approach produced similar results. The DCP values, which are based on the reductions in nutrient applications actually reported by Delaware farmers, fall within the range of efficiencies determined by the numerous other methods and data sets discussed above. As a result, DNREC proposed to use the DCP efficiencies to estimate the reduction in nutrient application rates resulting from the promulgation of the Nutrient Management Law. Implementation Schedule: Check for compliance of Nutrient Management Act December of each year. Expected Reduction: Total Phosphorus 51.10 lbs/day and 61.18 lbs/day of Total Nitrogen Cost: Estimated up to $93,900. Because nutrient management plans reduce excess cropland nutrients, it is strongly recommended that the Nutrient Management Commission ensure full compliance of the Nutrient Management Act. The cost to develop a nutrient management plan decreases as the acreage in the plan increases. A three year plan for an operation with less than 500 acres costs $5.70, with 501-1,000 acres cost $4.50, with 1,001-2,000 acres cost $3.90, and with more than 2,000 acres cost $3.30 (DNMC, 2004). The average of these values is $4.35/acre every three years, which when annualized is $1.45/acre/year. Farmers can be reimbursed the entire cost for developing a nutrient management plan from the Delaware Nutrient Management 42

Commission. The cost can also be expressed as $0.34/lb TN reduction. At this time, phosphorus reductions are not being calculated for NMPs. Potential Funding Sources: Delaware Nutrient Management Commission, State of Delaware Cost Share, DNREC Watershed Assessment, and/or NPS Program 319 Funding Action Needed: The Department and Delaware Department of Agriculture should assess the impact of nutrient management planning as required by the Nutrient Management Law. Both Departments as well as the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission are actively quantifying the effect of nutrient management on water quality. Nutrient Reducing Recommendation 16 – Stream Monitoring Ongoing in-stream monitoring must be done in order to quantify the amount of nutrients in the waterways of the St. Jones watershed. Implementation Goal: On a routine basis, monitor surface water quality of St. Jones River through DNREC’s GAMN stations. Basis for Recommendation: Monitoring plans help determine the effectiveness of watershed projects that aim to improve TMDLs and overall water quality. As a result, it is important to institute tracking and monitoring systems to measure improvements in subwatershed indicators over time. These systems include the internal tracking of restoration projects in each sub- watershed, as well as monitoring of stream indicators at sentinel monitoring stations. Performance monitoring of individual restoration projects can be tracked to improve the design of future restoration practices. Information gathered from a tracking system is then used to revise or improve the restoration plan over a multi-year cycle. Undoubtedly, over time, the St. Jones watershed will experience significant changes in land use. Monitoring plans for water quality improvement should take in to account the possibility of build out and the associated impacts. As a result, the following monitoring approaches are recommended: Project Monitoring (Milestone Monitoring): As warranted, small scale (reach or smaller) project monitoring should be conducted to illustrate benefits of individual restoration efforts. Project managers will want to invest in both in-stream and non-stream monitoring of individual restoration projects to assist in measuring project success. Such monitoring can be relatively simple (observing the success of a reforestation project or measuring public awareness through surveys) or extremely complex and expensive (measuring the pollutant reduction of a storm water retrofit or the biological response to a comprehensive stream restoration project). On an annual basis, information derived from the baseline and project monitoring should be compiled into a report. The annual report should summarize current biological and physical conditions in the watershed; the number, type, and extent of projects taken; and the St. Jones success to date of the plan in 43

improving watershed conditions. Reporting on an annual basis will allow for mid-course corrections and adjustments to be made based on the monitoring data. Sentinel Station Monitoring: Sentinel monitoring stations are fixed, long-term monitoring stations which are established to measure trends in key indicators over many years. DNRECs Water Quality Monitoring stations (GAMN) contain the history of data necessary to detect trends in water quality that would be beneficial to determine project success in removing targeted pollutants. These are the stations which TMDL data was calibrated. If future funding allows, it is recommended to expand the GAMN station locations to include routine sampling of those station currently only monitored on an as needed basis. This would allow for data continuity and ease of collection. In addition, if additional point sources are discovered or added, downstream sampling sites should be added. Additionally, as warranted on a project specific basis, increase sampling will occur to measure and document BMP efficiency. Illicit Discharge Monitoring: Illicit discharge detection and investigation are critical elements of watershed restoration and planning especially when there are obvious indicators of illicit discharges. Illicit discharges are often a significant source of pollution in a watershed that occurs repeatedly in association with specific polluting behaviors. The NPDES stations are areas where illicit discharges can be detected. Additionally, volunteer stream assessments which could be conducted yearly could identify potential illicit discharges. Implementation Schedule: DNREC evaluates its monitoring plan yearly to maximize monitoring dollars with sampling needs. Expected Reduction: An efficiency and reduction value cannot be assigned to this recommendation. Monitoring does not have a direct reduction. Cost: Each year the State spends $71,000,000 on sampling and monitoring. Potential Funding Sources: DNREC receives state funding and EPA funds for its surface water monitoring program. Action Needed: The Department has calculated nitrogen and phosphorus loads from existing water quality and flow data to determine if TMDL reductions are being met on a yearly basis. These calculations have been completed for the years 2002 through 2010. From 2002 data, TMDL have not been met. For phosphorus in the St Jones River, during years of lower stream flow, the phosphorus TMDL was met but during wet years with higher flows the phosphorus TMDL was not met. 44

Total Nitrogen Load (lb/year) 900,000 180.0 800,000 160.0 700,000 140.0 600,000 120.0 Flow (cfs) 500,000 100.0 lb/year 400,000 80.0 300,000 60.0 200,000 40.0 100,000 20.0 0 0.0 TMDL* 2002/200 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 3… Figure 7 - Total Nitrogen loads in the St Jones watershed from 2003 to 2010 Figure 8 - Total Phosphorus loads in the St Jones watershed from 2003 to 2010 45

ANALYSIS FOR TMDL ACHIEVEMENT AND COST Promulgation of this Pollution Control Strategy and full implementation of its elements should lead to the achievement of the TMDLs for Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP). Because of the lag time between seeing improvements in ground and surface water quality, estimated to be up to 30 years, improved water quality conditions will not be realized immediately. The Department will continue to monitor water quality as will many citizen volunteers. The Department is committed to revisit this Pollution Control Strategy in 10 years to ensure that water quality is improving with implementation of the regulations and voluntary practices called for within this document. Analysis using a basic land use loading rate model shows that, to date, nonpoint sources of TP and TN have been reduced by 151% and 34%, respectively. Voluntary programs for installation of agricultural best management practices have been extremely successful as well as the County’s and local governments’ efforts to protect open space and riparian buffers. Implementation of the Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Law has also led to decreases in nutrient loading. The Total Phosphorus reduction is easily achieved in the St Jones Watershed, but the required Total Nitrogen reduction is much more difficult to achieve. The existing best management practices only reduced the total nitrogen load to the St Jones by 123 pounds and an additional 245 pounds of total nitrogen is still needed in order to meet required TMDL of 368 pounds per day reduction. Those additional 245 pounds will come from converting dry pond into bioretention facility, by completing existing and proposed projects along the St Jones near Silver Lake Park (Silver lake Commission, 2011), by increasing cover crop acreage and by wetland restoration and riparian buffer creation on both public and private lands. Connecting septic systems to the Kent County wastewater treatment facility will also reduce the nitrogen load to the St. Jones. Table 13 lists the acreage needed from the various best management practices in order to achieve the required TMDL reduction. While current implemented practices have been shown to help reach the required reductions, it is important to note that there are practices that are still necessary to keep the watershed healthy and meeting its TMDL required reductions. The most important area for future implementation is wastewater. This includes requiring existing septic tanks to be pumped out at time of property transfer and preferably once every three years, continuing to connect existing septic tanks to sewer systems and implementing technologies that will allow systems to meet performance standards to remove nutrients. In addition, realizing that development is still occurring throughout the watershed and stormwater best management practices are required, future BMP implementation must move away from practices that only deal with water quantity, but also provide significant water quality benefits. Also, the strategy is based on the maintenance of agricultural practices currently in place as well as the continued push towards open space and riparian buffer preservation. Thus, future practices are critical towards meeting the TMDL required reductions as you can see in Figures 6 and 7 which show that future practices put TP to be reduced by 223% and TN by 100% towards the goal, as depicted by the green target lines. 46

Table 14: Best Management Practices Goals for Achieving the St Jones Watershed TMDL Reductions Total Total Nitrogen Phosphorus Best Management Practice Acres Reduced reduced (lbs/day) (lbs/day) Urban Dry Pond conversion to Bioretention practice 1272 9.73 1.53 0.18 Silver Mills Regenerative step pool 200 0.68 Silver Lake Mill Race 20 0.17 0.03 Wetland enhancement Central Middle School Regenerative steep 0.03 0.05 50 Pool 1200 feet St Jones stream bank restoration at Central of shore 0.66 0.1 Middle School line Total proposed reduction 11.27 1.89 Agriculture Cover Crops 12,063 174.27 6.12 Riparian buffer on public and private lands 1589.71 42.66 4.77 352 11.51 6.20 Wetland Restoration Total proposed reduction 228.44 17.09 47

120 Total Phosphorus TMDL Reduction Total Phosphorus reduction 100 80 Septic future Agriculture to date (lbs per day) 60 Stormwater to date Target Reduction Septic to date 40 Ag to urban conversion Agriculture future 20 Stormwater future Septic future 0 Figure 9 - Total Phosphorus Reduced in the St. Jones Watershed 400 Total Nitrogen TMDL Progress Total Nirogen Reduction (Ibs per 350 Target reduction 300 250 200 day) 150 Septic future 100 Ag to urban conversion Agriculture future 50 Stormwater future 0 Agriculture to date Stormwater to date Septic to date Figure 10 - Total Nitrogen Reduced in the St. Jones Watershed 48

Overall, this strategy costs over $103,000,000 including capital expenditures plus annual operation and maintenance costs of various best management practices. Of this strategy total, about $23,000,000 (about 23%) has already been paid for the installation of current practices. Figure 11 shows the total strategy costs for each category of BMP including current and future practices. $80,000,000 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 Cost of Full Strategy Implementation Future Costs (Maintenance and Future Installation) $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 Costs Already Paid for Installation $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 ltu re St or m Ag w at er W ric as te u w at er Figure 11 - Total Strategy Implementation Costs 49

Every effort has been made to make the Strategy fair and equitable. It impacts everyone in the watershed given that all activities contribute to nutrient loading. And, it attempts to take cost into consideration through promoting the least expensive actions and cost-share for those actions that are more expensive. The Department intends to review the Strategy in 10 years and update it if further actions are needed to improve water quality. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Pollution of the St. Jones has been an ongoing occurrence over a long span of time by many people. Implementing its Pollution Control Strategy will necessitate participation from a broad variety of programs, agencies, nonprofit, and community organizations. These programs will provide technical, financial, and administrative assistance in the effort to clean up these waters. Coastal Nonpoint Program – 6217 The Coastal Nonpoint Program was established by Congress in 1990 under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) to ensure that coastal states have the tools needed to address polluted runoff. A consistent set of management measures was established for states to use in controlling polluted runoff. Management measures are designed to prevent polluted runoff resulting from a variety of sources. The program includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of the measures. The Delaware Coastal Nonpoint Program is administered in the State of Delaware by the Delaware Coastal Programs in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Delaware’s Coastal Nonpoint Program is a networked program with implementation responsibilities distributed throughout the State. The Delaware Coastal Programs receives an annual award used to aid in the implementation of management measures, program initiatives and the funding of grants for projects designed to preserve and protect Delaware’s waterways from the degradation of nonpoint source pollution. Through cooperative efforts will both government agencies and local organizations, numerous projects have been designed and funded to help address issues concerning nonpoint source pollution in Delaware. The Delaware Forest Service The Delaware Forest Service is a section of the Delaware Department of Agriculture and is charged to improve and enhance the state rural and urban forest resources. Delaware’s Forest Service staff, through the Urban and Community Forestry Program, provides technical, educational and financial assistance to cities, towns, communities, developers and local governments to develop a community forestry management plans and resource evaluation studies. Foresters also review new planned subdivisions in order to conserve forest resources. Additionally, the program provides annual grant assistance to a variety of partners to provide both tree planting and tree care activities. Also, the professional foresters help private and public landowners to improve their forest resources through a variety of services. This technical assistance encompasses a wide range of forest management activities including reforestation, timber stand improvements, timber harvesting and forest management plan development. 50

DNREC -- Groundwater Discharges Section Located within the Division of Water, the Groundwater Discharges Section is responsible for overseeing all aspects of the siting, design and installation of on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems. This is a three step process which includes the site evaluation, the design/permit application and the construction/installation of the system. The Small Systems Permitting Branch reviews and approves site evaluations, permit applications and conducts inspections of system installations. Experimental/alternative technologies and advanced treatment units are approved and permitted for use by the Large Systems Permitting Branch. The Section is also responsible for the permitting of underground injection wells, large spray irrigation wastewater systems, and other means associated with land application wastewater treatment. The Section also issues waste transporter permits and licenses to designers, percolation testers, site evaluators and system installers. DNREC – Nonpoint Source Program The Delaware Nonpoint Source Program (NPS) administers a competitive grant made possible through Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. It is housed under the Division of Watershed Stewardship within the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. The grant provides funding for projects designed to reduce nonpoint source pollution in Delaware. NPS pollution may be defined as any pollution that originates from a diffuse source (such as an open field or road) and is transported to surface or ground waters through leaching or runoff. Reduction of NPS pollution, but most frequently involve agriculture, silvilculture, construction, marinas and septic systems. Proposals are reviewed and evaluated, and those which are determined to meet specific requirements are eligible for funding. All projects must include matching funding from a non-Federal source totaling at least 40 percent of the overall project cost. In addition to funding projects that achieve reductions in NPS pollution, the Delaware NPS Program is committed to addressing the issue through educational programs, publications and partnerships with other organizations working to reduce NPS pollution in Delaware. DNREC-Sediment and Stormwater Program The Sediment and Stormwater Program is managed by the Division of Watershed Stewardship in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Delaware’s stormwater management program requires sediment control during construction and post-construction, stormwater quantity and water quality control. This program functions from the time construction begins through a project’s lifespan. It requires construction and development projects to obtain sediment control and stormwater plan approval, be inspected during construction, and a post-construction inspection of permanent stormwater facilities and education and training. The program’s initial emphasis is to prevent existing flooding or water quality from worsening and limit further degradation until more comprehensive, watershed approaches (as detailed in State legislation and regulations) are adopted. Current regulations require stormwater management practices to achieve an 80 percent reduction in total suspended solids load after a site has been developed. This is achievable with present technology. Long-term removal rates over 80 percent may require other measures, such as water re-use, which may be required locally. In Delaware, day-to-day inspection responsibilities are handled by the 51

delegated local agency, but projects where site compliance is not possible are handled by the State with progressive and aggressive enforcement, including civil and criminal penalty provisions. DNREC - Surface Water Discharges Program The Surface Water Discharges Program is delegated to the Division of Water in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Program administrators are responsible for eliminating pollutant discharges into State surface waters by issuing regulatory permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). An NPDES permit legally sanctions the discharge of substances that may become pollutants. However, the NPDES permit is designed to limit the discharge of those substances so that there will be no adverse effect on the quality of the receiving waters or interference with the designated uses of those waters. The health of a water body is measured by its attainment of designated uses. If potential pollutants in a NPDES discharge are reduced to levels that allow receiving waters to meet applicable designated uses, then, in effect, the pollutant discharge has been eliminated. Municipal sewage treatment or industrial plants that discharge wastewater to surface waters of Delaware are issued permits specifying discharge limitations, monitoring requirements and other terms and conditions that must be met to be allowed to discharge. In addition to wastewater, wastewater facilities often generate a waste sludge solid that is also an NPDES discharge under federal and State regulations. The NPDES General Permit for “stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities,” a single permitting regulation with requirements that apply to a group of similar dischargers is also issued to industrial sites that discharge only stormwater. DNREC – Water Supply Section – Groundwater Protection Branch This program is responsible for providing technical review of permit applications for non- hazardous waste sites (i.e. large septic, wastewater spray irrigation, sludge application) and for water well permit applications where wells are located near problem sites. Staff hydrologists conduct investigations based on public complaints of groundwater quality, often associated with domestic water wells. The Source Water Protection Program (SWPP) has been delegated to DNREC and is managed by the Water Supply Section, Groundwater Protection Branch of the Division of Water. This program was created from the 1996 Amendments from the Safe Drinking Water Act. The SWPP is responsible for determining the locations of water supplies used for public drinking water. The program is also responsible for mapping the wellhead protection areas (those areas around a well or group of wells from which a source obtains within those delineated areas, and determining the susceptibility of the drinking water source to contamination. The SWPP is required to make this information available to the public and does so through the program’s website: www.wr.udel.edu/swaphome/index.html. Through the Source Water Protection Law of 2001, the SWPP was charged with the development of a guidance manual for the protection of source water areas. This manual was development to give the counties and those municipalities containing 2000 or more persons) ideas on methods that could be used to protect those areas by 2007. 52

Local Governments County and local governments have the authority to enact ordinances to further the goals of this Pollution Control Strategy. They are all required to complete Comprehensive Plans and address how they intend on assisting in the implementation of the TMDLs. Many of these entities have ordinances that require buffers, open space and maximum impervious coverage – ordinances that work towards achieving water quality standards. Local governments within the TMDL watershed include: Kent County, City of Dover, Town of Cheswold, Town of Camden, Town of Wyoming, Town of Woodside, Town of Magnolia, and Town of Bowers Beach. Nutrient Management Commission The Delaware Nutrient Management Program was established as a result of the Delaware Nutrient Management Law. The Delaware Nutrient Management Commission (DNMC) was established to direct the program and develop regulations pertaining to nutrient management, waste management for Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The DNMC manages activities involving the generation and application of nutrients in order to help maintain and improve the quality of Delaware’s ground and surface waters to help meet or exceed federally mandated water quality standards in the interest of the overall public welfare. All persons who operate an animal feeding operation in excess of 8 animal units (1 AU = 1,000 pounds) and/or control/manage property in excess of 10 acres where nutrients are applied must develop and implement a nutrient management or animal waste plan. The DNMC provides cost assistance programs, certifications and investigation of complaints. Office of State Planning Coordination The mission of the Office of State Planning Coordination (OSPC) is “the continuous improvement of the coordination and effectiveness of land use decisions made by state, county and municipal governments while building and maintaining a high quality of life in the State of Delaware.” Under the new PLUS (preliminary land use service) process, the OSPC will bring together State agencies and developers early in the development process in order to try to identify and mitigate potential impacts. The OSPC also supports the Governor’s “Livable Delaware” initiative and has published Better Models for Development in Delaware that includes many best management practices which will be needed in order to achieve the TMDL. Soil and Water Conservation Districts County Conservation Districts were created by State law and are administer through Delaware Natural Resources and Environmental Control. They operate the State Conservation Cost Share Program which provides funds for installation of agricultural management practices, promote the State Revolving Loan Fund Program for poultry producers (low-interest loans to implement best management practices) and are the delegated agencies for the Sediment and Stormwater Management Program carrying out plan review and field inspections in their respective counties. Watersheds prioritized by Delaware’s Nonpoint Source (Section 319) Pollution Program can be targeted by these activities. 53

References Ames, D. and R. Dean, 1999. Projected Population Growth and the New Arithmetic of Development in Delaware: 1990 to 2020, a report prepared for the Office of State Planning Coordination, State of Delaware. ASCE, 2001. Guide for best Management Practice (BMP) Selection in Urban Developed Areas. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. Boesch, D.F., R.B. Brinsfield, and R.E. Magnien. 2001. Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication: Scientific Understanding, Ecosystem Restoration and Challenges for Agriculture. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30: 303-320. Cech, T.V., 2002. Principles of Water Resources: History, Development, Management, and Policy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Center for Watershed Protection. March 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. Ellicott City, Maryland. Chesapeake Bay Program, 1998. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application and Calculation of Nutrient and Sediment Loadings, Appendix H: Tracking Best Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in the Chesapeake Bay Program. A report of the Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee, Annapolis, Maryland Chesapeake Bay Program, 2010. Estimates of County-Level nitrogen and phorphorus data for use in modeling pollutant reduction. Documentation for Scenario builder version 2.2. DNMC, 2005. 2004 Annual Report of the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission to Governor Ruth Ann Minner and the 143rd Delaware General Assembly. Delaware Nutrient Management Commission, Dover, DE. DNREC, 1994. Red Mill Pond, Final Report. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware. DNREC, 1995. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Delaware’s Inland Bays. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE. DNREC, 1996. State of Delaware 1996 Watershed Assessment Report (305(b)). Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE. DNREC, 2000a. State of Delaware 2000 Watershed Assessment Report (305(b)). Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE. 54

DNREC, 2000b. Whole Basin Management: Inland Bays Environmental Profile-An Environmental Assessment of Southeastern Delaware. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE. DNREC, 2001. Total Maximum Daily Load for the St Jones Watershed. Amended for Bacteria in 2005. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE. DNREC,2002. Regulations Governing the Design, Installation and Operation of On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE. DNREC, 2002. State of Delaware 2002 Watershed Assessment Report (305(b)). Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE. DNREC, 2004. State of Delaware Surface Water Quality Standards, as Amended July, 1, 2004. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE. DNREC, 2005. Governor Minner’s Task Force on Surface Water Management- A report in response to Executive Order No.62. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DDOSPC, 1999. Gross Land Use Changes in Delaware: 1992 to 1997. Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, Dover, DE. DOSPC, 2002. 2002 Land Use and Land Cover Data. Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, Dover, DE. DOSPC, 2007. 2007 Land Use and Land Cover Data. Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, Dover, DE. EPA, 2002. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment 1997-98 Summary Report, EPA/620/R- 02/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI. EPA, 2003. Nutrient and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Development for St Jones River, Delaware. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA. EPA. 2007. Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices, EPA publication number 841-F-07-006, December 2007. Evans, R.O., J.W. Gilliam, R.W. Skaggs. 1989. Effects of Agricultural Water Table Management on Drainage Water Quality. The Water Resources Research Institute, Report No. 237. 55

Evans, R.O., J.W. Gilliam, R.W. Skaggs. 1996. Controlled Drainage Management Guidelines for Improving Drainage Water Quality. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Publication Number: AG 443. Fetter, C.W., 1994. Applied Hydrogeology: Third Edition. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englwood Cliffs, NJ. Gold, A.J. and J.T. Sims, 2000. Research Needs in Decentralized Wastewater Treatment and management: A Risk-Based Approach to Nutrient Contamination.. In: National Research Needs Conference Proceedings: Risk-Based Decision Making for Onsite Wastewater Treatment, Published by Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, US Environmental Protection Agency and National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project: Final Report March 2001. Herlihy, A.T., J.L. Stoddard, and C.B. Johnson, 1998. The Relationship Between Stream Chemistry and Watershed Land Cover Data in the Mid-Atlantic Region, U.S. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 105: 377-386. Horsley and Witten, Inc., 1998. Assessment of Nitrogen Loading to the Delaware Inland Bays, a report prepared for the Center for the Inland Bays, Lewes, DE. Jennings, J.A., J.R. Scudlark, K.B. Savidge, and W.J. Ullman, 2003. Estuarine Eutrophication by Atmospheric Phosphorus. Poster Presentation to the National Atmospheric Deposition Program Annual Conference, Washington D.C., October 20-22, 2003. Johnston, R.H., 1976. Relation of Ground Water to Surface Water in Four Small Basins of the Delaware Coastal Plain. Delaware Geological Survey Report of Investigations, No. 24. Jones, Lyle and Volk Jennifer. 2008. Effect of Delaware’s Nutrient Management Law On Nutrients Sold in Delaware and Its Apparent Impact on Nitrogen and Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Loads ---- Another Perspective Unpublished Jordan, T.E., D.L. Correll, and D.E. Weller. 1997. Effects of Agriculture on Discharges of Nutrients from Coastal Plain Watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Environmental Quality, 26: 836-848. McGowan, W.A. and W.J. Milliken. 1992. Nitrogen Usage and Nutrient Management in the Inland Bays Hydrologic Unit. Cooperative Extension, Research and Education Center, College of Agricultural Sciences, University of Delaware, Georgetown, Delaware. Sims, J.T., J. McGrath, and A.L. Shober. 2007. Nutrient Mass Balances for the State of Delaware: Final Project Report, Submitted to the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission. University of Delaware, Newark, DE. 56

MDNR, 1996. Technical Appendix for Maryland’s Tributary Strategies: Documentation of Data Sources and Methodology Used in Developing Nutrient Reduction and Cost Estimates for Maryland’s Tributary Strategies. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland Office of Planning, University of Maryland, Office of the Governor. Metcalf and Eddy, 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse (3rd Edition). McGraw-Hill, New York, New York. NADP, 2003. National Atmospheric Deposition Program-Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network website: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/AIRMoN/. Nelson, J., 2008. Results from the Delaware Nutrient Management Survey. Delaware Conservation Partnership published in conjunction with DNREC 319 Nonpoint Source Program. Dover, DE. Ritter, W.F., 1986. Nutrient Budgets for the Inland Bays, a report prepared for the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Ritter, W. F. and M. A. Levan, 1993. Nutrient Budgets for the St Jones Watershed. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Sims et al., 1994. Development of Management Practices to Reduce Soluble Phosphorus Losses from Agricultural Soils In the St Jones Watershed. Silver Lake Commission, 2011. Silver Lake Sub-Watershed Implementation Strategy for the Silver Lake Commission, City of Dover, DE. Sims, J.T., J. McGrath, and A.L. Shober. 2007. Nutrient Mass Balances for the State of Delaware: Final Project Report, Submitted to the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission. University of Delaware, Newark, DE. URS Corporation. 2010. Kent County Surface Water Management Level of Surface Analysis. Perpared for DNREC, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Kent Conservation District and Kent County, Dover, DE. Wang, K., M.J. Torrey, A.M Stueve, S.D. Cook, 2001. Delaware Travel Barometer: 2000 Travel Trends. The Research Department of the Travel Industry Association of America, Washington, D.C. Webb, J., H. Menzi, B.F. Pain, T.H. Misselbrook, U. Dammgen, H. Hendriks, and H. Dohler, 2005. Managing ammonia emission from livestock production in Europe. Environmental Pollution, 135(3): 399-406. 57

Appendix A - 7426 TMDLs for the St. Jones River Watershed, Delaware 1.0 Introduction and Background Water quality monitoring performed by the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) has shown that the waters of St. Jones River and several of its tributaries and ponds are impaired by high levels of bacteria and elevated levels of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous, and that the designated uses are not fully supported due to levels of these pollutants in these waterways. Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to develop a list (303(d) List) of waterbodies for which existing pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain applicable water quality criteria and to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for pollutants or stressors causing the impairment. A TMDL sets a limit on the amount of a pollutant that can be discharged into a waterbody and still protect water quality. TMDLs are composed of three components, including Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) for point source discharges, Load Allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources, and a Margin of Safety (MOS). DNREC listed St. Jones River on several of the State’s 303(d) Lists and proposes the following Total Maximum Daily Loads regulation for nitrogen, phosphorous, and enterococcus bacteria. 2.0 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Regulation for St. Jones River Article 1 - The total nitrogen load from the two point source facilities in the watershed (Dover McKee Run and Reichhold Chemicals) shall be limited to 9.2 pounds per day. The nitrogen waste load allocation for Dover McKee Run will be 7.7 pounds per day and for Reichhold Chemicals will be 1.5 pounds per day. Article 2 - The total phosphorous load from the two point source facilities in the watershed (Dover McKee Run and Reichhold Chemicals) shall be limited to 0.37 pounds per day. The phosphorous waste load allocation for Dover McKee Run will be 0.24 pounds per day and for Reichhold Chemicals will be 0.13 pounds per day. Article 3 - The enterococcus bacteria load from the two point source facilities in the watershed (Dover McKee Run and Reichhold Chemicals) shall be limited to 1.67E+09 colony forming units (CFU) per day. The enterococcus bacteria waste load allocation for Dover McKee Run will be 1.1E+09 CFU per day and for Reichhold Chemicals will be 5.7E+08 CFU per day. Article 4 - The nonpoint source nitrogen load in the entire St. Jones River watershed shall be reduced by 40 percent from the 2002-2003 baseline level. This shall result in a yearly-average total nitrogen load of 860.3 pounds per day. Article 5 - The nonpoint source phosphorous load in the entire St. Jones River watershed shall be reduced by 40 percent from the 2002-2003 baseline level. This shall result in a yearly-average total phosphorus load of 63.01 pounds per day. 58

Article 6 - The nonpoint source enterococcus load in the entire St. Jones River watershed shall be reduced by 90 percent from the 2002-2003 baseline level. This shall result in a yearly- average enterococcus load of 1.63E+11 CFU per day. Article 7 - Based upon water quality model runs and assuming implementation of reductions identified by Article 1 through Article 6 above, DNREC has determined that, with an adequate margin of safety, water quality standards will be met in the St. Jones River. Article 8 - Implementation of this TMDLs Regulation shall be achieved through the development and implementation of a Pollution Control Strategy. The Strategy will be developed by DNREC in concert with the Tributary Action Teams, other stakeholders, and the public. 10 DE Reg. 1037 (12/01/06) 59

Appendix B - Tributary Action Team Letter to Secretary Hughes January 18, 2007 The Honorable John A. Hughes Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19901 Dear Secretary Hughes: The St. Jones Tributary Action Team respectfully submits the attached document as the recommended Pollution Control Strategy for achieving the 2006 Total Maximum Daily Load required nonpoint source nutrient load reductions and bacteria reductions for the St. Jones Watershed. In June 2005, a steering committee was convened by the Delaware State University Cooperative Extension and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. The committee of about twenty people included local farmers, homeowners, master gardeners, business owners, city, state and municipal planners and homebuilders. Initially the committee was charged with creating an issue booklet that outlined three approaches for how to address water pollution in the St. Jones. In February and March 2006, the Team held public forums to gather opinions from local citizens regarding these approaches and which ones best represented their interests. The forums also served as a way to educate the public about water quality concerns and encourage their involvement in the team. Following the forums, guiding principles were written to summarize the input from the public forums and provide the foundation on which the Team would develop its recommendations. In April 2006, St. Jones Tributary Action Team was formed including members of the original steering committee and new members from the community. After extensive education, both in the classroom and in the field, the Team wrote its recommendations during meetings from September 2006 to January 2007. The attached document is the outcome of these efforts. We hope you find our recommendations for the Pollution Control Strategy to be effective in reducing nutrient loads and bacteria in the St. Jones Watershed. Please keep us informed as the process continues. Sincerely, Cynthia C. McAllister Facilitator for The St. Jones Tributary Action Team 60

Participants DNREC Support Personnel Gena Acker Jennifer Bowman Jim Acker Kathy Bunting-Howarth Rhiannon Box Jennifer Campagnini Jeff Carlson Lyle Jones Zach Carter John Clendaniel Randy Cole Janelle Cornwell Kelly Crumpley Tracie Daddio Mark DelVecchio Lee DiSalvo David Edgell Patrick Erbland Bobby Fifer George Fisher Jim Galvin Glenn Gladders Ed Ide Annie Jacobs Samuel Johnson Cherie Jones Bill Kroen Beth Krumrine Mike Krumrine Dyremple Marsh John Miller Bill Murray Jon Nichols Suzanne Omrod-Schmidt Mike Petit de Mange John Pugh Stephen Shaeffer Drew Sharp Janice Truitt Ralph Truitt Josh Turner Marianne Walch Chris Ward Chris Zimmerman 61

St. Jones Tributary Action Team Pollution Control Strategy Overall Recommendation The Team recommends that there be a fully funded staff position to coordinate watershed projects. Open Space Recommendations I. Buffers A. The Department should develop a St. Jones Watershed buffer overlay map to ensure buffers are in place throughout the watershed to improve water quality. This overlay map should be developed in cooperation with local municipalities and used to coordinate efforts among jurisdictions and must consider urban (developed) and rural (undeveloped) settings. B. A 100 foot vegetated or forested riparian buffer zone should be required within the watershed for all water bodies. However, this requirement should not apply to agricultural lands. Measurement should be from the edge of the bank of the water body landward. C. If a buffer cannot be placed within a project or an existing buffer area is reduced during development, the lack of the buffer should be mitigated. The Department should develop the criteria for compensation and a selection of alternatives which can be used as compensation. The criteria should consider both urban and rural settings and provide equivalent nutrient reductions (1:1 ratio). D. Vegetation within the buffer should be made up of “recommended plantings” of native species. However, the type of plantings should not be mandated. A minimum density of plantings is required to ensure water quality benefits. E. Buffers should be maintained in perpetuity and should be managed to maintain water quality benefits. Use of easements in this regard is encouraged. F. In all common areas, boundary signs should be installed to identify the buffer and its boundary. However, signs are not required on private property. G. The Team recommends that buffer compliance should be the responsibility of the Kent County Conservation District during its planning and review process. The Department should initiate discussions with the District about this recommendation. (However if a stormwater utility is implemented, as the Team recommends, buffer compliance could be linked into this effort.) 62

Open Space Recommendations (continued) II. Open Space A. Land maintained as passive or active open space under local ordinances or codes should be managed to minimize nutrient loading. B. Home Owners’ Association members should be educated on caring for open space in their neighborhoods to minimize nutrient loading and encourage natural habitat. III. Education A. A comprehensive watershed assessment and protection program should be implemented state-wide to provide a framework for coordinating multiple watershed protection efforts. This program should promote the integration of local, state and federal water quality improvement efforts and improve public education and participation in all aspects of watershed protection. B. A comprehensive education plan to teach the public how their actions impact the St. Jones Watershed (and specifically water quality) should be implemented. Some suggestions include: 1. Public service announcements 2. Brochures distributed through real estate agents, retailers, and school children 3. Face to face education with Home Owners Associations and other organizations 4. Coordination with Master Gardeners’ education 5. Integration of education into the state and local permitting processes 6. Education on purchasing of water conserving appliances 7. Education of school children on water quality 8. Education for farmers to recommend appropriate use of buffers on lands in production. (Possibly coordinate with Nutrient Management Commission) 63

Wastewater Recommendations I. Sewer Transmission Systems should be repaired to reduce infiltration and inflow during wet periods. II. Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (OWTDSs) should be inspected and pumped out regularly to reduce nutrient loading of the groundwater. Compliance with current regulations should be promoted. III. Cesspools and seepage pits should be eliminated systematically as these wastewater systems discharge nutrients and bacteria directly into the groundwater. The septic inspection and maintenance program should help locate and eliminate them. IV. If it is physically and legally available (as defined by the regulations governing the design, installation and operation of OWTDSs), OWTDSs should be removed in growth zones and connected to Kent County Wastewater Treatment Facility. Through the inspection and maintenance program, failed systems should be identified for connection to sewer, if available, or replacement, if not. V. If an OWTDS fails, it will be identified through the inspection and maintenance program. To obtain a new permit, the system will be required to use the best available “new technology” to achieve required nutrient reduction targets for the watershed. 64

Stormwater Recommendations I. General A. A stormwater utility should be implemented to generate a stable source of funding for stormwater management within the watershed. B. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be designed to reduce nutrients according to TMDLs. C. Local municipalities, Kent County Conservation District and Kent County should meet to determine how to limit the addition of new impervious cover to less than 20% of the watershed to conserve water quality. During the review process, the use of pervious surfaces should be encouraged. D. Local municipalities and Kent County should adopt regulations to promote Low Impact Development (LID) in new construction and redevelopment. The team recommends the use of tax incentives where possible. E. A stormwater inventory should be conducted to identify areas where stormwater retrofits would effectively reduce sediment and nutrients. F. Since Home Owners Associations are critical for successful stormwater BMP maintenance, there should be a governmental agency charged with making sure the Associations are functional. In the Association by-laws, there should be a requirement for stormwater education. II. Education A. An education program for Home Owners Associations should be developed for stormwater BMP maintenance. Educational resources should be provided and ideally, face to face education that stresses the organizations’ responsibility. Topics should include: proper use and application of fertilizer and use of salt and sand during periods of snow. B. The Smartyard Program should be implemented in the watershed to assist homeowners in planting native landscaping to conserve water and reduce fertilizer and pesticide use. C. Corporate environmental stewardship should be encouraged to provide corporations with the technical expertise to help them better manage and enhance their land through the use of native species and the restoration of natural habitat. D. The Department should coordinate efforts with non profit watershed organizations (e.g., St. Jones Greenway Commission, Silver Lake Commission, etc) E. A comprehensive education program should be developed for the urban and suburban sector on issues of water quality and urban nutrients. This may include: 65

1. Working with the University of Delaware to revise soil testing so they are more user friendly. 2. Educating homeowners on the importance of cleaning up pet waste, water conservation, lawn care (and the use of fertilizers) and proper disposal of grass and yard waste. 3. Working with the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission and the Master Gardeners to provide education and programs for homeowners on lawn and garden best management practices. 66

Agriculture Recommendations I. Recommended agriculture best management practices The Team recommends that Best Management Practices (BMPs) for agriculture be encouraged and supported. New funding sources should be sought and financial incentives should be increased. The following BMPs, in particular, should be considered for additional funding: A. Cover crops to protect soil when row crops are not being grown. This practice helps retain nitrogen in the soil for the next crop which reduces fertilizer costs to the farmer. B. Grassed filter strips and grassed buffers to trap sediments in surface runoff and take up excess nutrients. C. Grassed waterways to transport surface runoff away from cropland without causing erosion or flooding and protect and improve water quality. D. Riparian forested buffers to reduce nutrient losses from upland acres and to reduce sediment bound phosphorous from entering waterways. E. Water control structures to increase the water level in the field which allows for denitrification and reduces dependency on irrigation. F. Pasture stream fencing to reduce the bacterial and nutrient loads to a water body. G. Nutrient Management Planning: The Team is aware that as of 2007 all lands (over 10 acres) that have nutrients applied must be in compliance with the Nutrient Management Act. The Nutrient Management Act requires all farms over 10 acres or with 8 animal units to establish a nutrient management plan, which includes the use of fertilizers and the fate of manure. Because Nutrient Management Plans reduce excess cropland nutrients, the Team strongly recommends that the Nutrient Management Commission ensure full compliance of the Nutrient Management Act. H. Manure relocation has removed significant amounts of excess manure from the Inland Bays and Nanticoke watersheds, consequently removing excess nutrients from those watersheds. Thus, the Team recommends that all excess manure (per the Nutrient Management Plan) be removed from the St Jones Watershed. If funds are lacking, the Team recommends that additional state and federal funds be applied to the manure relocation program. 67

Agriculture Recommendations (continued) I. Although it is difficult to quantify the nutrient reductions associated with Structural BMPs (such as manure structures, pads, sheds and composters) the Team recommends that these BMPSs be as fully funded as possible because they insure proper management and storage of manure and dead animals so that they do not become an additional problem for the environment. II. Education A. Farmers should be educated on the above mentioned BMPs. B. The public should be educated on practices to discourage resident nuisance waterfowl. C. Farm land and natural resource area preservation should be encouraged and promoted. New funding sources should be sought and financial incentives should be increased. The public should receive education on current programs, including: 1. Farmland Preservation Act 2. Kent County Transfer Development Rights 3. Non-profit environmental groups 4. Easements and donations III. Other A. New funding sources should be sought and financial incentives should be increased for wildlife habitat and wetland restoration. B. The State should partner with the Army Corps of Engineers (and other appropriate parties) to pursue restoration of the St. Jones Watershed. 68

Appendix C - Public Talk –Real Choices Introduction Public issues are complex, ‘wicked’ problems. Poverty, education, land-use, environment and others are issues not easily resolved. Delaware for example is a national leader in welfare reform, education reform, land use legislation and the environment but those close to these issues know the reforms are stalled locally and nationally. Why? We believe a lack of public engagement in creating public policy is a fundamental reason. We have become a technocratic society, resulting in the public abdicating it’s role as participants in creating public policy to a bureaucracy. It is generally accepted by both parties, the public and bureaucracy, that the public does not have the capacity” to work through complex issues. It is incumbent on those who work with the public to create a better way to engage the public in creating sustainable public policy. A Common Model for Public Engagement One model found frequently when public agencies need public input is the “workshop” model. The model begins with a selection of a small group of people, a citizens advisory committee or “blue ribbon” panel. The group, usually with the help of the public agency, goes through an education process, writes a report, and delivers it to the agency. The agency holds “tell and sell” workshops, followed by public hearings and possible promulgation of regulation. The model more often than not fails to give the public a significant chance to participate in policy formation, resulting in disillusionment, and failed policy. Both the public and public agencies need and deserve a better way to work together that produces sustainable decisions. A Preliminary Approach Losing Ground: What Will We Do About Delaware’s Changing Landscape? A series of issue forums or public conversations, throughout the state in 1996, introduced deliberative dialogue to 340 Delawareans. Deliberative Dialogue is a conversation in which people, the public, weigh the cost and consequences of their thinking and make choices based on their deliberations. It was the first time for many where in a public meeting citizens had the opportunity to both listen and talk to each other in an environment conducive to learning. It was not a public hearing where comments are taken for the record or workshop with information presented by experts. Comments after the forums indicated citizens would come out and discuss issues of importance, people want a way to engage issues personally, and will engage each other in questioning and learning. The results of Losing Ground appear to indicate the public wants a better model to engage public issues. It is from the conversations heard from citizens that participated in Losing Ground that the model Public Talk – Real Choices emerged. Why Develop Another Model? Two major citizen efforts assisted by DNREC, the Inland Bays Monitoring Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee of the National Estuary Program, produced action plans for restoration of the Inland Bays. The plans are very similar to each other, in fact a matrix of the 69

two plans attempts to avoid duplication of effort (CCMP, 1995). Citizens spent over nine years of work between the two plans. Both plans emerged from a visioning model asking the questions “What do we want the Bays to look like?” and “How can we get there?” The action plans are broad recommendations that lack specific suggestions for implementation. There remains a tremendous amount of frustration from citizens who have engaged in one or the other or both of the Bay protection efforts (Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes, 1997) and the public agency, DNREC, whose mission is to preserve and protect the natural resources of Delaware. Both parties want the same thing, healthy bays, and still there is no solution or commitment. A Caveat There is a difference between then and now and that is TMDL’s are regulations. Both the Inland Bays Monitoring Committee and the National Estuary Program were voluntary. The regulatory community can argue TMDL’s are promulgated regulation that demand action through pollution control strategies. That is true to a point. The State met the requirement of the settlement by establishing the TMDL’s for the watershed. The pollution control strategies are self-imposed requirements. Without significant public engagement in creating strategies that potentially impact all residents in the watershed, the strategies will die in the political arena. By taking time on the front end, and working through a truly public process, the State stands to gain more in the end product of a sustainable public policy. The Model: Public Talk – Real Choices The purpose of Public Talk – Real Choices is to move formulation and creation of a major public policy decision from a public agency to the public for dialogue and deliberation. Public Talk – Real Choices builds on what happened in Losing Ground forums. Using deliberative dialogue as the core, Public Talk goes further by engaging the public in learning about the issue, weighing the costs and consequences of what is important through dialogue with each other, and coming to public judgment. The model consists of six steps; Organization of Work Team, Education, Issue Framing, Evaluation of the Issue Framework, Public Forums/Choice Work, Recommendations. Model Components Organization - is a structural component that brings the public agency and public, the work team, into agreement as to what needs to be accomplished. Without preliminary understanding and agreement by both parties, the effort will fail. Education - further enhances this arrangement by building upon the knowledge of the process shared in the organizational discussions and then adding information necessary to frame the issue. A good portion of technical information will come from the public agency e.g. the Inland Bays Whole Basin Assessment Report. Issue framing - is the critical piece necessary for public engagement. Issue framing lays out in an organized fashion for public consumption three or four choices. The framework must be unbiased, represent the under girding values embedded in policy choices and articulate the basic 70

costs and consequences of the choices. It should represent the voices of all impacted by the issue. The framework sets the stage for our conflicting motives – those things we consider valuable and that pull us in different directions when we have to decide how to act. The issues need to be stated in ways that compel the public to make their views known. Evaluation of the Framework - This piece gives insight into how successfully the teams framed the issue. The use internal deliberation, focus groups, etc. enhances the success of the framework. For successful public deliberation all voices need to heard within the framework. The choices must be neutral and offer a positive approach for issue resolution. Public deliberation - is the cornerstone of Public Talk – Real Choices. A significant representation of the public must deliberate the issue. This occurs through successful planning and selection of venues for forums. The forums must result in some form of common ground for action. Recommendations - The work teams sift through and analyses the public voice they heard from the forums. From this public voice the work team develops the pollution control strategies. Why This Model? National Issues Forums National Issues forums are “town meetings” that bring people together to deliberate “wicked problems,” problems that won’t go away, with the help of moderator. The medical analogy of a broken arm versus diabetes describes wicked problems. The broken arm can be set and heals. Diabetes requires life -changing alterations. Participants use an issue book that offers three to four choices for resolution. Within the choices are basic values, cost and consequences of the choice. With the help of a moderator the public works through the choices, by looking at four things: What is valuable? What are the costs and consequences of the choice? Where is the tension? Where is there common ground for action? Participants must consider “It’s not what I want to do but what we ought to do." Why Are These Models Effective? The Harwood Group in a report Meaningful Chaos- How People Form Relationships with Public Concerns, found nine factors necessary for public engagement. Connections – People tend to enlarge rather than narrow their views of public concerns, making connections among ideas and topics that society tends to fragment. Personal Context – People relate to concerns that “fit” with their personal context, moving beyond self-interest to what is meaningful Coherence – People want to hear the whole story. They want to understand what it means. 71

Room for Ambivalence – People do not immediately see black and white. They want a gray area to question, discuss, test ideas, and become comfortable with their opinions. Emotion – Too many processes try to remove emotion from decision making. Emotions are necessary to sustain relationships with public concerns. Authenticity – People and information must “ring true”. Sense of Possibilities – People really want something to happen and they might play a role in it. Catalysts – Everyday people, not just experts and elite, are critical in helping people form relationships with public issues. Mediating Institutions – Places where people come together to talk and act on public concerns. (Harwood, 1993) National Issues Forums and Public Talk – Real Choices adhere to these tenets. The Facilitator Team Public Talk – Real Choices uses a neutral, third party facilitator. By using a neutral, third party as the facilitator, the facilitator becomes an advocate for the process (Kaner, 1996). Third party facilitation avoids the perception of bias that can occur when the facilitator is personally associated with the issue. 72

Bibliography Archie, Michele. 1995. Framing Issues: Building a Structure for Public Discussions. Kettering Foundation, Dayton, Ohio. Boyte, Harry C. 1989. Commonwealth: A Return to Citizen Politics. New York: The Free Press. Boyte, Harry C. and Nancy N. Kari. 1996. Building America: The Democratic Promise of Public Work. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Delaware Department of Natural Resource and Environmental Control. 1998. Inland Bays Advisory Committee. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware Dukes, Francis E. 1996. Resolving Public Conflict: Transforming Community and Governance. New York: Manchester. Fishkin, James S. 1995. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hesselbein, Francis et al. 1998. The Community of the Future. San Franisco: Jossey-Bass. Hustedde, Ronald J. 1994. Community Issues Gathering. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet. Lexington, KY Ilvento, Thomas, et al. 1995. Losing Ground: A Public Conversation About Delaware’s Changing Landscape. University of Delaware Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet. Newark, DE Kaner, Sam. 1996. A Facilitator’s Guide to Participative Decisions. Philadelphia: Friends Press. Martin, John H. 1998. An Analusis of Nutrient Utilization Efficiency by Agriculture in Delaware’s Inland Bays Drainage Basin. Final Report submitted to Center for the Inland Bays: Nassau, Delaware Mathews, David. 1994. Politics for People: Finding a Responsible Public Voice. Chicago: University of Illinois. Peters, Scott J. 1998. Extension Work as Public Work: Reconsidering Cooperative Extension’s Civic Mission. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Extension Service Schwarz, Roger M. 1994. The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Devloping Effective Groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ratnor, Shanna. 1997. Emerging Issues in Learning Communities. Yellow Wood Associates Inc. St. Albans, Vermont. Topkiss Foundation. Resource Book For Community Wide Study Circles. 1998. Hartford, CT. Topkiss Foundation. Watershed Assessment Section, Division of Water Resources. 1998 Draft – Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Analysis for Indian River, Indian River Bay, and Rehoboth Bay, Delaware. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware. 73

Wheatley, Margaret J. 1994. Leadership and the New Science: Learning About Organization from an Orderly Universe. San-Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Yankelovich, Daniel. 1991. Coming to Public Judgement: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World. New York: Syracuse University Press. 74

Appendix D - BMP Nutrient Reduction calculations BMP NUTRIENT REDUCTION CALCULATIONS Calculating the Required Total Maximum Daily Load Reductions Based on Land-use The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for receiving waters in the St JonesSt Jones calls for a 40% reduction in total nitrogen (TN) and a 40% reduction in total phosphorus (TP) (EPA, 2005). The baseline period for this TMDL was established from 2002 land use data used to determine the acreages of each of the following land uses: Urban, Agricultural, Forest, Wetland, Water, and Other, which includes land uses like rangeland and barren land. The results are tabulated below (Table 1). Table 1. 2002 St Jones St Jones Watershed Land-use Acreages Total Urban Agricultural Forest Wetland Water Other acreage 17,410 24023 5082 8643 1354 1824 58, 346 In order to calculate nutrient loads from non-point pollution sources, the land use acreages from Table 1 were combined with the land use loading rates in Table 2, which were determined based on results of research conducted by experts in the St Jones Watershed to produce daily nutrient loads according to land use, as displayed in Table 3. Table 2. Land-use Loading Rates TN (lbs/acre/yr) TP (lbs/acre/yr) Source Developed 6.2 0.73 St Jones TMDL, 2006 Agriculture 8.0 3.21 St Jones TMDL, 2006 Grasslands 8.0 0.73 St Jones TMDL, 2006 Forests 6.3 2.56 St Jones TMDL, 2006 Wetlands 0.0 0.00 St Jones TMDL, 2006 75

Table 3. 1997 St Jones Watershed Land-use Based Loads Urban Agricultural Forest Wetland Water Range Other Total TN 296 523.7 87.41 0 0 9.13 31.2 947.43 (lbs/day) TP 34.82 48.05 35.57 0 0 0.83 2.84 122.11 (lbs/day) I. Baseline load calculation for land-use type by reduction area: Using the land use loading rates listed in Table 2, the nutrient loads coming from non-point sources during the baseline period are determined using the equation below. It should be noted that the grassland loading rate was used to determine the loads from the “Other” land use category. Loading rate for Nutrient load Acreage of specific land-use Lbs/yr & lbs/day = specific land- X (lbs/acre/yr) (Table 3) use (Table 1) (Table 2) EX: TN load for urban land use: 6,200 lbs TN/yr 6.2 lbs or TN load = 1,000 acres X TN/acre/yr = 16.99 lbs TN/day II. Required TMDL reduction on a land-use basis: The annual and daily nutrient load reductions needed from non-point sources to achieve the reductions outlined in the TMDL are calculated using the following equation. For the St Jones Watershed, the TN load needs to be reduced by 934.8 lbs/day and the TP load by 40.29 lbs/day. In order to achieve these reductions, the best management practices (BMPs) discussed in the Pollution Control Strategy must be implemented. Required TMDL Baseline load Percent reduction = (lb/day) X reduction (lb/day) EX: TN TMDL required load reduction: Required TMDL 947.43 lbs 37.9 lbs reduction = TN/day X 40% = TN/day (lb/day) 76

Onsite Wastewater Disposal System (OWTDS) BMP Calculations In order to determine the nutrient loading by OWTDS to groundwater, local watershed data and knowledge has been utilized. Twelve OWTDS existing near Red Mill Pond in Lewes, Delaware were monitored in 1993 (DNREC, 1994). The average total phosphorus concentration of the effluent from these systems was 15.7 mg/L, while the total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentration was 58.5 mg/L and the nitrate/nitrite concentration was 0.8 mg/L. The total nitrogen concentration of the average effluent from this study was summed to equal 59.3 mg/L. Conversations with professionals in this industry have suggested that 50.0 mg/L is a more appropriate value of TN concentrations in on-site effluent and this value has been used in subsequent calculations. Small systems, which are typical individual household systems, have flows less than 2,500 gpd. The average design flow for individual residential OWTDS is 221 gpd. The nutrient load to the watershed from drain fields can be established by determining the product of the above concentrations and respective flow rates. Robertson and Hartman (1999) found that 85% of the total phosphorous in the effluent will be retained in the vadose zone or the unsaturated soil above the water table, most of which is within 12 inches of the drain field (Gold and Sims, 2000). Initial calculations presented by the Department, also based on the Red Mill Pond study, assumed that 87% of TP and 52% of TN is assimilated in the soils once the effluent leaves the septic tank. The final loading rates from OWTDS to groundwater can be determined using the following equations: Small systems (<2,500 gpd): [Conc. (mg/l) x (lb/453,592 mg)] x [(221 gal/system/day) x (3.7854 l/gal)] x (1-soil assimilative capacity) Thus, the OWTDS nutrient loading rates to groundwater in the St Jones Watershed are: • 0.052 lbs TN/system/day and 0.004 lbs TP/system/day for individual small systems less than 2,500 gpd I. Connecting OWTDS to Sewer Districts Since 1992, 11 OWTDS (septic) systems are reported to have been removed from the St Jones watershed by connecting homes and businesses to sewer districts ((New Castle County Special Services, written communication, 2009) and (Town of Middletown, written communication, 2009)). These systems have been connected to sewer districts that dispose of their waste at spray irrigation facilities. Reductions for systems that are connected to plants that use spray irrigation receive a 90% efficiency since nutrients remain in the ecosystem (DNREC Groundwater Discharges Section, 77

personal communication, 2003). The nutrient load reductions are calculated using the following equation. Nutrient load OWTDS loading # of eliminated Reduction reduction = rate X OWTDS X efficiency (lbs/day) (lbs/system/day) EX: TN reduction due to OWTDS connection: TN load 0.052 lbs 11 eliminated 0.52 lbs reduction = TN/system/ X OWTDS X 90% = TN/day (lbs/day) day II. Holding Tank Inspection and Compliance Program On average, holding tanks have a 2,800 gallon capacity. Metcalf and Eddy (1991) reported that holding tanks typically hold 2,596 gallons of effluent and 204 gallons of septage (solids). Recent observations from the compliance program indicate volumes of 2,464 gallons of effluent and 336 gallons of septage volume. The average effluent concentrations previously discussed (50.0 mg TN/L and 15.7 mg TP/L) have been used to determine the effluent loads from holding tanks. The nutrient load contribution from septage in holding tanks will be determined using the nutrient concentrations in septage from holding tanks (600 mg TN/L and 250 mg TP/L), as reported in Wastewater Engineering, Third Edition (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). The nutrients removed per holding tank pump-out are shown in Table 5, calculated using the above concentrations. Table 5. Nutrient Reductions from a Holding Tank Pump-Out Total N Total P (lbs/tank/pump-out) (lbs/tank/pump-out ) Holding Tank Effluent 1.03 0.32 Holding Tank Septage 1.68 0.70 Total 2.71 1.02 Effluent: Nutrients Removed (lbs/tank/pump-out) = Conc. (mglL) x (lb/453,592 mg) x (2,464 gal/tank) x (3.7854 l/gal) Septage: Nutrients Removed (lbs/tank/pump-out) = Conc. (mglL) x (lb/453,592 mg) x (336 gal/tank) x (3.7854 l/gal) There is 1 holding tank currently in the St Jones Watershed. Each time a holding tank is pumped, 2.71 lbs TN and 1.02 lbs of TP do not enter the St Jones. Initially, the Department assumed that tanks are pumped-out 16 times per year. The Small Systems Branch, Groundwater Discharges Section of the Division of Water Resources determined this number to be high. Records from the Holding Tank Compliance program indicate that on average, holding tanks are pumped-out about 12 times per year, or once a month 78

(DNREC Groundwater Discharges Section, personal communication, 2001). Thus, this latter figure was used for subsequent calculations to determine the annual load reduction using the equation below. Nutrient load Reduction rate 12 pump- reduction = (lbs/tank/pump X outs year X # of tanks (lbs/yr) -out) EX: TN reduction due to Holding Tank Pump Out: TN load 2.71 lbs 32.52 lbs TN/yr 12 pump-outs reduction = TN/tank/pump- X year X 1 tank = or (lbs/day) out 0.09 lbs TN/day III. OWTDS Pump-outs Using a GIS, an analysis was conducted that determined as of March 2009, there were 6244 OWTDS in the St Jones Watershed. Waste haulers usually deliver waste to the nearest wastewater treatment plant. According to information from the Wilmington Treatment Facility, 53 tanks were pumped from the St Jones Watershed in 2001. In addition, it was estimated that 47 tanks from the St Jones Watershed were pumped from the Kent County Treatment Facility in 2001 because they could not give exact information on the number of systems pumped. This equals 100 tanks being pumped out a year in the St Jones Watershed based on a 1,000 gallon tank capacity. By assuming that after three years, a septic tank will contain 750 gallons of effluent and 250 gallons of septage (volumes based on local inspector-hauler observations), and using the concentrations of effluent and septage given above, the effluent load reductions per system achieved by a pump-out program are shown below in Table 6. Table 6. Nutrient Reductions from an OWTDS Pump-Out Total N Total P (lbs/system/pump-out) (lbs/system/pump-out) OWTDS Effluent 0.31 0.10 OWTDS Septage 1.25 0.52 Total 1.56 0.62 Effluent: Nutrients Removed (lbs/system/pump-out) = Conc. (mg/l) x (lb/453,592 mg) x (750 gal/system) x (3.7854 l/gal) Septage: Nutrients Removed (lbs/system/pump-out) = Conc. (mg/l) x (lb/453,592 mg) x (250 gal/system) x (3.7854 l/gal) The load reduction in the water column achieved by this practice can be calculated using the following equation. 79

EX: TN reduction due to OWTDS pump-out program: IV. OWTDS Performance Standards Wastewater pretreatment technologies exist to remove nitrogen, phosphorus, or both from wastewater prior to soil dispersal of the effluent. A consultant hired by the Department evaluated the performance efficiencies of these technologies then recommended performance standards for OWTDS in Delaware and several levels of performance efficiencies for nitrogen and phosphorus (The On-Site Wastewater Corporation, draft written communication, 2003). A recommendation in the St Jones Pollution Control Strategy surrounding small septic systems requires new and replacement subdivisions in areas outside of sewer districts to be equipped with systems that can reach standards such as “Performance Standard Nitrogen 3” (PSN3) to reduce nutrients. Technologies that can achieve PSN3 will produce a 50% reduction of effluent TN concentration when compared to the TN influent concentration. The nutrient load reduction can be determined using the following equation. Nutrient load OWTDS loading # of existing Reduction reduction = rate X OWTDS in X efficiency (lbs/day) (lbs/system/day program EX: TN reduction due to upgrading to alternative systems: TN load 0.052lbs 1,034 27.1 lbs reduction = TN/system/ X OWTDS X 50% = TN/day (lbs/day) day 80

Stormwater BMP Calculations I. Stormwater BMPs Several types of structures that treat stormwater runoff are used throughout the St Jones Watershed. The efficiencies associated with common stormwater BMPs are listed in Table 7. In order to calculate the load reduction to the receiving water body, the calculation outlined below is used. The nitrogen urban loading rate is 15 lbs/acre/yr, while the phosphorus loading rate is 0.5 lb/acre/yr (Ritter and Levan, 1992). Table 7. Stormwater BMP Reduction Efficiencies (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2009) BMP TN (%) TP (%) Wet ponds 30 50 Dry pond (extended detention) 5 10 Infiltration (swale, infiltration basin/trench) 50 70 Biofiltration 50 70 Filtering Practice (bioretention) 50 70 Nutrient load Total drainage area Urban Reduction reduction = treated by X loading rate X efficiency (lbs/day) structures (acres) (lbs/acre/yr) EX: TN reduction due to wet ponds: TN load 5,861.43 26,376 lbs TN/yr 15 lbs reduction = acres treated X TN/acre/yr X 30% = or (lbs/day) on average 72 lbs TN/day II. Potential Future Stormwater Retrofit Projects: It is anticipated that an additional 1272 acres of urban area in the St Jones watershed will be retrofitted in the future. It is difficult to project, however, the exact number and type of treatment structures that will be used. The majority of stormwater practices currently in use in the watershed are wet and dry ponds, while infiltration, biofiltration, and filtration structures together are less likely to be used. It is unlikely that these same proportions will be used in future retrofit projects since the construction of ponds will require a considerable amount of space and it may be unfeasible to create these structures in areas that are already developed. Because of this, it has been assumed that future retrofits will be more equitable with equal implementation of ponds and other practices. The load reductions achieved from the stormwater BMPs currently on the ground have been summed into two categories, “Dry Ponds” and “Infiltration Practices.” These values were divided by the total area treated in each category to calculate nutrient reduction rates. For “Dry 81

Ponds,” the reduction rates are 0.31 lbs TN/acre/yr and 0.0.7 lbs TP acre/yr, while the reduction rates for “Infiltration Practices” are 3.10 lbs TN/acre/yr and 0.51bs TP acre/yr. The potential future loading reduction to the stream as a result of retrofitting 1,722 acres of urban lands can thus be determined using the equation below. Nutrient load Reduction Future Acres of reduction = rate X retrofit X percent use (lbs/day) (lbs/acre/yr) of practice EX: TN reduction from future stormwater infiltration Practices: 82

Open Space Calculations I. Grassed Open Space Grassed open space is treated as a land use change from agricultural cropland to grassed open space. Thus, the acres that undergo change will receive a lower loading rate. The loading reduction is calculated as follows. EX: TN reduction due to open space provisions: II. Riparian Buffer It is assumed that for every one acre of land where riparian buffers are employed, that two upland urban acres are treated. This approach is similar to the practice employed by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP, 1998). The efficiencies for nutrient load reductions are an average of the range presented by J.T. Sims and J.L. Campagnini (written communication, 2002). Thus, the agreed efficiencies are as follows: Forested buffers: TN-- 62% and TP-- 62% For these BMPs, the actual acre of the practice will be treated as a land use conversion and the reduction efficiencies will be applied to two acres of affected upland for each acre of practice. EX: TN reduction due to UDC riparian buffer requirements: 83

Agriculture BMP Calculations The following calculations are provided as a result of the Agricultural Pollution Control Strategy Workgroup’s efforts in gathering the best available science for nonpoint source pollution prevention from agricultural sources. The workgroup began meeting in April 2002 to gather the best available data on nutrient efficiencies for various agricultural best management practices. These recommendations and calculations are based on averages over several years from different studies and are dependent on weather conditions, soil type, crop production intensity, excess manure generation, topography and other site specific conditions. In addition, a lag time likely exists between practice implementation and benefit observation, which cannot currently be estimated since all nutrient fate and transport processes are not well understood at this time. I. Cover Crops Nitrogen reduction efficiencies for cover crops were calculated using a weighted average method for each year. The data used in this calculation came from ranges of cover crop TN efficiencies for several plant species presented by J.T Sims and J.L. Campagnini (written communication, 2002). The Workgroup chose a single efficiency, often an average of the range, for the commonly used species in Delaware (Table 8). The United States Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service provided information on each cover crop planted in the 2008-2009 season in the St Jones Watershed (shown in bold). This information was used to calculate a weighted average efficiency of the crops planted, determined to be 54.9% for the 2008-2009 season. It should be noted that with this approach, the efficiency will change from year to year, depending on the acreage of each cover crop species planted. For TP, the Workgroup referred to the best professional judgment presented by Sims and Campagnini, which was “less than 5%,” and will be considered for these purposes as 4.9%. The nutrient load reduction is calculated with the equation shown below. Table 8. Cover Crop Efficiencies for TN Cover Crop Species Work Group BMP Efficiency (%) Barley 70 Hairy Vetch 6 Annual Rye 65 Cereal Rye 54.5 Oats 55 Wheat 55 84

Nutrient load Agricultural Acres of cover Reduction reduction = loading rate X crops X efficiency (%) (lbs/yr) (lbs/acre/yr) EX: TN reduction due to 3,144.80 acres of cover crops: TN load 13,812 lbs TN/yr 8 lbs 3,144.80 reduction = TN/acre/yr X acres X 54.9% = or (lbs/day) 37.8 lbs TN/day II. Ponds, Grassed Waterways, Grassed Filter Strips, Wildlife Habitat The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) practices are treated as a land use change from agricultural cropland to grassed waterways or grassed filter strips, or wildlife habitat. Thus, the acres that undergo change will receive a lower loading rate. Since the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) was implemented, any new grass filter strips created will be treated as a CREP practice and will receive a reduction calculated by the method described later. The loading reduction is calculated as follows. EX: TN reduction due to 1,413.80 acres of wildlife habitat: III. Filter Strips, Forest Buffers, Riparian Buffers, Wetlands The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) practices (CP21-grass filter strips) are assumed to act as grassed buffers. CREP practices (CP22-riparian buffer, CP23-wetland restoration and CP3A-hardwood trees) are all assumed to act as forested buffers. The Workgroup assumed that for every one acre of land where these practices are employed, that two upland acres are treated. This approach is similar to the practice employed by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP, 1998). The efficiencies for nutrient load reductions are an average of the range presented by J.T. Sims and J.L. Campagnini (written communication, 2002). Thus, the agreed efficiencies are as follows: Grassed buffers: TN-- 46% and TP-- 54% Forested buffers: TN-- 62% and TP-- 62% 85

For these BMPs, the actual acre of the practice will be treated as a land use conversion and the reduction efficiencies will be applied to two acres of affected upland for each acre of practice. EX: TN reduction due to 30.8 acres of CREP filter strips: IV. Field Border Nutrient reductions from field borders are treated as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) practices. These practices are treated as a land use change from agricultural cropland to grassland habitat. Thus, the acres that undergo change will receive a lower loading rate. It is important to note that field borders are measured in feet and must be converted to acres. EX: TN reduction due to 18,299 ft of wildlife habitat: 86

V. Critical Area Planting Critical area planting is a BMP that controls soil erosion and results in phosphorus reductions since phosphorus adsorbs to soils. The critical area planting practice is considered a hot spot BMP and is applied to areas in fields where soils are severely eroding. Soil loss is based upon NRCS values. The critical area planting practice decreases soil erosion from these highly erodible areas from 10 tons per acre per year to 0.5 tons per acre per year, or a soil loss reduction of 9.5 tons per acre per year. To calculate the reduction from this practice, the acreage of the practice is multiplied by the soil loss reduction value, the amount of readily desorbed phosphorus (0.23 mg P/kg soil) (Sims et al. 1994), and conversion factors. TP load Reduction in soil Readily desorbed Conversion reduction = Acres X loss X phosphorus X factors (lbs/yr) (9.5 tons/ac/yr) (0.23 mg P/kg soil) EX: TP reduction due to 35.80 acres of critical area planting: 0.16 lb TP load TP/yr 35.8 9.5 tons/ 0.23 mg 2000 lbs/ kg reduction = acres X ac/yr X P/kg soil X ton X 10^6/mg = or (lbs/yr) 0.004 lb TP/day VI. Conservation Tillage Conservation tillage is a BMP that controls soil erosion by modifying tillage practices on a farm field which reduces sediment and hence phosphorus losses from the tilled field. Soil loss is again based upon NRCS values. Conservation tillage practice can lower soil erosion to 1.5 tons per acre per year from approximately 4.1 tons per acre per year for conventional tillage, or a soil loss reduction of 2.6 tons per acre per year. To calculate the reduction from this practice, the acreage of the practice is multiplied by the soil loss reduction value, the amount of readily desorbed phosphorus (0.23 mg P/kg soil) (Sims et al. 1994), and conversion factors. TP load Reduction in soil Readily desorbed Conversion reduction = Acres X loss X phosphorus X factors (lbs/yr) (2.6 tons/ac/yr) (0.23 mg P/kg soil) EX: TP reduction due to 4,182.20 acres of conservation tillage: 5 lb TP/yr TP load 4,182.20 2.6 tons 0.23 mg 2000 lbs/ kg or reduction = acres X ac/yr X P/kg soil X ton X 10^6/mg = 0.01 lb (lbs/yr) TP/day 87

VII. Nutrient Management Plans To reduce agriculture’s impact on water quality, Delaware legislated a nutrient management program in 2002 to oversee nutrient applications within the State. In 2003, 20% of farmers applying nutrients to 10 acres or more or those who manage 8 or more animal units within the state were required by the Nutrient Management Act to create and submit a nutrient management plan (NMP) to the Nutrient Management Commission (NMC). Each year between 2004 and 2007, another 20% of eligible farmers were required to have NMPs, with 100% implementation by January 1, 2007. These plans are routinely updated and modified to meet the nutrient needs of the future cropping rotations and practices. The Delaware Conservation Partnership (DCP) conducted a survey in July 2007, after the deadline requiring all eligible farm operations to have a plan, to evaluate nutrient management planning in the state. The DCP consists of the Delaware Conservation Districts, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and strives to work together to meet the needs of Delaware Farmers by providing cost-share programs, educational opportunities, and nutrient management planning services. The survey was designed to inform those programs by identifying gaps in information and education and opportunities to spend cost-share dollars more effectively. In short, the purpose of the project was to make nutrient management work better for farmers in Delaware. The surveys were sent out to everyone who has been certified by the Nutrient Management Program- 2,034 people in all. The Delaware Conservation Partnership received 698 responses- about a 34% response rate. The following is the breakdown of responses among different sizes of farms: 1-10 acre farms – 9% response rate 11-99 acre farms – 29% response rate 100-499 acre farms – 25% response rate 500 + acre farms – 20% response rate Animal only farms – 10% response rate Responses varied only slightly among different farm sizes and types, with the exception of whether or not nutrient management provided an economic benefit to their farm. Larger farms and those whose plans were written by a private consultant were most likely to agree that nutrient management provides an economic benefit to their operation. Small farms, animal operations and those whose plan was written by someone on staff were least likely to agree. The surveys indicated that fertilizer application rates have decreased the most among farmers who till at least 500 acres, while manure applications have decreased most among farmers who till between 11 and 99 acres. When fertilizer application rates are evaluated by county, Sussex farmers reduced the rate of N and P applications the most, Kent reduced N applications the least, whereas New Castle deceased P applications the least. 88

Table 5. Change in Fertilizer and Manure Application Rates Due to 2002 Nutrient Management Law County Farm Acres % Change in % Change in % Change in nitrogen phosphorus manure fertilizer fertilizer application applications applications Kent 173,808 13.4 26.9 5.4 New Castle 66,981 16.0 20.1 13.6 Sussex 269,464 18.5 37.1 24.2 Weighted 16.4 31.4 19.9 Average The efficiencies based on the DCP survey can be compared to other estimates of nutrient management planning effectiveness. An Agricultural Workgroup was established to gather the best available science on nonpoint source pollution prevention for agricultural sources. The Workgroup operated off the basic assumption that if fewer nutrients are being applied to the land, fewer nutrients will be lost to Delaware’s water bodies. From this premise, the Workgroup determined nutrient efficiencies for various agricultural best management practices including the effectiveness of nutrient management planning. Initially, the Workgroup addressed the impact of nutrient management planning (NMP) in the Inland Bays and Nanticoke watersheds from a study by McGowan and Milliken (1992). This study listed the reductions associated with various management practices observed over a three year period, with a total of 103,736 lbs TN reduced by 2,328 acres under nutrient management planning. To determine a general NMP TN reduction, the Workgroup decided that the reductions and acreage associated with manure allowance and cover crops should be removed from further calculations since reductions for both of these items are determined separately and all NMPs will not include manure relocation. This subtraction gave a total of 1,224 acres of nutrient management planning and a load reduction of 70,136 lbs of TN, resulting in a reduction rate of 57.3 lbs/acre per 3-year planning cycle. McGowan and Milliken (1992) reported that the TN application rate prior to the introduction of NMPs was 280 lbs/acre per 3-year planning cycle, so NMPs produced a 20.5% reduction in TN. This estimate falls in the lower range reported by the State of Maryland (MDNR, 1996), which was 20-39% for nitrogen. The corresponding phosphorus range reported by the Maryland DNR was 9-30%. However, due to the absence of a report similar to the McGowan and Milliken study in Delaware for P, there is not enough information available to determine an appropriate reduction efficiency to apply to NMPs for phosphorus in these two watersheds. In the St Jones watershed, one representative farm within the watershed volunteered to allow the Workgroup to analyze the nutrient data they routinely gather. This particular farm tracks nutrient application rates to each crop field within a database that goes back to 1999, prior to the passing of the Nutrient Management Act. The data were separated into two groups, pre-Nutrient 89

Management Plans (NMPs) (1999-2002) and post-NMPs (2003-2004), and entered into Statgraphics Software for statistical analysis. It was determined that there was a statistically significant difference between the mean application rates at the 95% confidence level for nitrogen. The average nitrogen application rate decreased by 12.4% from the pre-NMP level and this value will be taken as the NMP reduction efficiency; unfortunately, no reduction could be calculated for phosphorus from this data. At the request of the NMC, Sims et al. (2008) conducted extensive nutrient mass balance calculations for the State for the years 1996 through 2006. They calculated both input/output and management–oriented mass balances for nitrogen and phosphorus. The Sims et al. (2008) approach included calculations for manure relocation and estimates of biological fixation of nitrogen by leguminous crop and clearly demonstrated that fewer nutrients are being applied to Delaware’s cropland. DNREC Watershed Assessment Section (WAS) has worked with the NMC and the University of Delaware Cooperative Extension to determine the impact of the Nutrient Management Act on the amount of nutrients applied to Delaware’s agricultural fields. Using an input-output type analysis using fertilizer sales data and crop yields, WAS determined that on a state-wide basis, 47% less nitrogen and 62% less phosphorus has been applied to Delaware’s cropland. Both the WAS and Sims et al. (2008) approach produced similar results. The DCP values, which are based on the reductions in nutrient applications actually reported by Delaware farmers, fall within the range of efficiencies determined by the numerous other methods and data sets discussed above. As a result, DNREC proposes to use the DCP efficiencies to estimate the reduction in nutrient application rates resulting from the promulgation of the Nutrient Management Law. There were 12,583.65 acres of nutrient management planning in the St Jones Watershed in 2008. The Chesapeake Bay Program (2009) has aggressively established nitrogen and phosphorus reductions associated with various urban and agricultural best management practices including nutrient management planning. The Program applies a 13% reduction to nitrogen and a 27% reduction to phosphorus for every acre of cropland that has a nutrient management plan. Those nutrient reductions were applied to every acre of cropland in the St Jones watershed. Using the Bay program reductions TN and TP efficiencies and the agricultural loading rate reported earlier, the annual and daily load reductions due to these acres can be calculated as follows. TN load 21,587 Reduction 22450.5 lbs Agriculture TN/yr reduction = acres under X loading rate X efficiency = or (lbs/yr) NMPs (8 lbs TN/acre/yr) (13%) 61.5 lbs TN/day 90

Appendix E - BMP Cost Calculations This document describes the cost-effectiveness of urban and agricultural best management practices (BMPs) that reduce nutrients. Although the costs for Total Phosphorus (TP) removal appear high, they may be thought of as ancillary benefits of Total Nitrogen (TN) removal. In addition, they show the relative cost effectiveness of TP removal by each practice. On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System (OWTDS) BMP Cost Calculations Connecting OWTDS to Sewer Districts According to DNREC’s Financial Assistance Branch (personal communication, 2007), the average cost of constructing a sewer system is $8,500 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). In the future, this cost is expected to increase to $10,000/EDU. The debt service, or cost of financing these systems, at roughly an average 2% rate is currently $1,867/EDU and will be $2,194/EDU for future septic eliminations and sewer connections. Additionally, system owners must pay for the final septic system pump-out, crushing and filling the tank, and the connection costs associated with building the lateral line running from the building to the right of way. These three expenditures together run approximately $1,000/EDU. Finally, operation and maintenance (O&M), including repair fees, of roughly $200 per EDU per year will also be added to these values for an average 20 year lifespan of a connection (DNREC Financial Assistance Branch, personal communication, 2007) (Table 1). Table 1. OWTDS Elimination Costs Past Conversions Future Conversions Construction of sewer system $8,500/EDU $10,000/EDU Debt service $1,867/EDU $2,194/EDU Additional expenditures $1,000/EDU $1,000/EDU Operation and Maintenance (over $4,000/EDU $4,000/EDU 20 year lifespan) TOTAL $15,367/EDU $17,194/EDU Holding Tank Inspection and Compliance Program The cost of pumping-out a 2,800 gallon holding tank averages around $250 per system per pump-out (DNREC Small Systems Branch, personal communication, 2007). As a result of the holding tank inspection and compliance program, they have been shown to be pumped-out roughly 12 times a year. This information reveals that the owner of a single holding tank will spend $3,000 each year. In addition to this cost, there is an annual inspection fee of $60 per system (DNREC Small Systems Branch, personal communication, 2007), so that the total expenditure for holding tank inspection and compliance is $3,060/system/year and over a 20 year lifespan the cost is $61,200/system. 91

OWTDS Pump-outs The cost of pumping-out OWTDS ranges from $185-200 per system, with an average cost of $192.50 per system (DNREC Small Systems Branch, personal communication, 2007). It is proposed that septic systems be pumped once every three years and inspected during that time period as well. These proposed inspections will be performed by licensed inspectors at an estimated cost that ranges from $200 to $400 with an average cost of $300 at the time of pump- out (DNREC Small Systems Branch, personal communication, 2007). The total cost of the OWTDS inspection and compliance program will cost the system owner $164.17/system/year and over a 20 year lifespan this equals $3,283.33/system. OWTDS Performance Standards Licensed installers and members of DNREC’s Small Systems Branch (personal communication, 2007) revealed that the installation of best available technologies (BATs) to existing small (<2,500 gallon per day (gpd)) OWTDSs for advanced nitrogen removal would cost between $3,500 and $6,000 per system with an average installation of $4,750. These technologies are believed to last for approximately 20 years. These technologies require a service contract by a certified service provider with an estimated annual cost that ranges from $150 to $300, with an average cost of $225/system/year. In addition, the systems will still require pump-outs, which costs $64/system/year (DNREC Small Systems Branch, personal communication, 2007), and they will need periodic mechanical parts repaired, estimated to cost $50/system/year and the electrical cost of running the systems is likely to also cost about $50/system/year (DNREC Financial Assistance Branch, personal communication, 2007). Taking all of this into account, the total cost of this strategy is $12,530/system. 92

Stormwater BMP Cost Calculations Wet and Dry Ponds Typical costs for retention basins were retrieved from Chapter 6.0, “Costs and Benefits of Storm Water BMPs,” of an EPA on-line document (EPA, 1999). In this document, it states that a retention basin treating a 50-acre residential site in 1999 costs about $100,000, such that the cost per unit area was $2,000/acre. All values reported in the document need to be divided by an adjustment factor to account for regional differences. Delaware falls in Region 2, which has a 0.90 adjustment factor (EPA, 1999). Thus, retention basins in Delaware in 1999 cost approximately $2,222.22/acre. Using the average annual federal inflation rate for the time period of 1913-2007 (3.42%), the capital cost of Delaware retention basins in 2009 is $2,982/acre. To this value, the annual operation and maintenance costs over a 25 year lifespan must be added. Operation and maintenance costs for retention basins can range from 3-6% of the construction costs (EPA, 1999). We have used an average value of 4.5% which is $134.19 and applied this to the regionally adjusted construction cost over the 25 year lifespan. The total cost for this strategy is $6,336.75/acre. Infiltration Structures The 1999 construction costs of infiltration trenches and infiltration basins treating 5-acre commercial sites were averaged to represent the range of infiltration structures utilized as stormwater BMPs throughout Delaware. These costs were $45,000 for trenches and $15,000 for basins (EPA, 1999), which equates to $9,000/acre and $3,000/acre, respectively, and averages $6,000/acre. Once adjusted for the regional variability in cost (0.90 factor), and inflated to 2009, this value becomes $8,946.67/acre treated by infiltration structures. Annual O&M costs for infiltration structures range anywhere from 1-20% of the construction cost (EPA, 1999), and average 10.5%. This produces an annual O&M cost of $939.40/acre/yr which when calculated over a 25 year lifespan and added to construction costs equals $32,431.68/acre. Filtering Practices Cost data for filtering practices was obtained from a publication of the Environmental and Water Resources Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE, 2001). Since filtering practices treat runoff from pavement and impervious areas, the construction cost was reported for the early 1990s as $10,117.36 per impervious acre. The 2009 cost can be estimated using the average federal inflation rate and the early 1990s values to be $17,008.41/acre. The O&M costs typically range from 11-13% of the construction costs (EPA, 1999), which on average, is $2,041.01/acre/year. Calculating the O&M costs over a 25 year lifespan and adding to construction costs provides a total cost of $68,033.64/acre. Biofiltration The EPA on-line document reported that the construction costs for biofiltration devices in 1999 were $60,000 for a 5-acre commercial site (EPA, 1999), which equates to $12,000/acre. This value must also be divided by the 0.90 adjustment factor to account for regional cost differences, 93

which yields $13,333.33/acre, and then adjusted to the 2009 value, $17,893.33/acre. The annual O&M costs range from 5-7% of the construction cost (EPA, 1999). When using 6% as the average, annual O&M costs $1,073.60/acre/year and are further calculated over a 25 year lifespan. Thus, total costs for biofiltration equals $44,733.33/acre. Table 2. Stormwater BMP Costs Wet and Infiltration Filtering Practices Biofiltration Dry Ponds Structures Construction/acre $2,982.00 $8,946.67 $17,008.41 $17,893.33 O&M 4.5% 10.5% 12% 6% (% of Construction) Annual O&M per $3,354.75 $23,485.00 $51,025.25 $26,840.00 acre over a 25 year lifespan Total Cost/acre $6,336.75 $32,431.67 $68,033.66 $44,733.33 94

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1 Saint Jones River History ......................................................................................................... 1 Existing Watershed Conditions................................................................................................ 4 Watershed Baseline Assessment............................................................................................. 5 Sub-watershed Delineation ..................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summaries of Watershed Projects ...............................................................................................8 Silver Lake Sub-Watershed .......................................................................................................... 8 Sub-Watershed Implementation Strategy ................................................................................................... 11 Strategy ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 13 Sub-Watershed Management Opportunities.............................................................................................. 25 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 25 Silver Lake sub-watershed projects ........................................................................................... 26 Current Projects..................................................................................................................... 26 Partner Projects ..................................................................................................................... 34 Future outlook of the Silver Lake sub-watershed ..................................................................... 36

INTRODUCTION The St. Jones River is located in Kent County, Delaware and hosts the state capital, the City of Dover. The City of Dover has a large influence on the St. Jones River, its tributaries, and the entire Watershed of which it drains. Silver Lake, a man-made lake formed by a dam in the St. Jones River, is the largest body of water in the City, and has attracted residents and visitors to enjoy its benefits. The growing number of visitors and increasing development of land have taken their toll on the Lake. In 1986, the Silver Lake Commission (Commission) was formed following the recommendation of Dover’s City Council. On August 27, 1990, by request from then-Mayor Jack Richter, the Commission was officially adopted as an advisory committee to the City Council and City staff. Since then, the Commission has worked to improve the condition of the Lake and provide a forum for public involvement on issues related to the Lake. Commission members seek ways to improve the Lake’s water quality, wildlife habitat, open space and park opportunities, and water-related activities through participation and coordination with other government bodies and institutions (Dover, 1990). The purpose of this document is to provide the Silver Lake Commission and its partners with a strategy for implementing water quality-improvement projects that influence the ecological condition of Silver Lake. A prioritized list of potential Best Management Practice (BMP) opportunities with the greatest cost-benefit ratio to Silver Lake shall serve as a resource to the Commission for future project planning. In addition to this document, other resources are available for planning goals outside of this document’s reach, such as wildlife habitat improvement, open space creation, or recreational activity implementation. SAINT JONES RIVER HISTORY The St. Jones River is dammed at Silver Lake and winds down 10mi towards the Delaware Bay passing through commercial, residential, and agricultural areas along the way. The watershed of the St. Jones River drains the upland area of the River in addition to its tributaries including Fork Branch, Maidstone Branch, Cahoon Branch, McKee Run, and Dover Creek. 57,643 acres of land drain into the St. Jones River, ultimately emptying into the Delaware Bay (Rogerson, Jacobs, & Howard, 2010). 1

Figure 1. Location of the St. Jones River Watershed in central Delaware. 2

Land use activities can characterize a particular region, such as a watershed, and provide a snapshot of the area showing how it is being used. Comparisons between land use data from different points in time provide insight into how the landscape has changed and what trends have started to appear. Land use data allows planners and land managers to make informed decisions regarding the future development and protection of a watershed. Historically, the watershed land use characteristics were dominated by agriculture. In today’s landscape, while agriculture is still a dominant land use, it is quickly being replaced by development, more specifically, residential development. The National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) in 2007 shows almost 70% of the watershed as agricultural or developed land. Information from the NLCD in 1997 compared to 2007 shows a 6.5% decrease in farmed land and a 6% increase in developed land (Table 1). This suggests an almost direct conversion of farmland to developed land. As stated in the “Technical Background Report, Silver Lake Watershed” by Earl Shaffer, “urbanization through the conversion of land to permanent impervious surfaces such as streets and houses, represents an irreversible impact on the watershed” (Shaffer, 1989). Proper planning is necessary to prevent costs associated with clean-up efforts downstream of development; it is also necessary to protect ecologically important areas that play an integral part in the health of the watershed. A more detailed description of the history of the St. Jones River and watershed can be found in the DNREC report “Technical Background Report, Silver Lake Watershed.” Table 1. Land use changes for the St. Jones River watershed between 1997 and 2007 (Rogerson, Jacobs, & Howard, 2010). Land Use Category 1997 (%) 2007 (%) 10-year % Change Developed 25.5 31.5 +6.0 Recreational 1.4 1.8 +0.4 Farmed 44.5 38.0 -6.5 Forest 9.8 8.4 -1.4 Wetlands 14.9 15.1 +0.2 Water 2.1 2.7 +0.6 Beaches/Sand <1.0 <1.0 0 Extraction or 1.8 2.4 +0.6 Transitional 3

Figure 2. Land Use in the St. Jones Watershed in 2007 based on NLCD land use categories. EXISTING WATERSHED CONDITIONS Under the Federal Clean Water Act, the State’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) has the responsibility of monitoring the water quality in the St. Jones Watershed and other watersheds in Delaware. DNREC analyzes water samples for impairments that could compromise the integrity of the waterways and the many uses they provide. Impaired waterways that do not meet the specified State and Federal standards are listed on the national 303 (d) list. If a waterway is on the list, under the Federal Clean Water Act, DNREC is required to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to remediate the water quality of the watershed. A TMDL was developed for the St. Jones Watershed to address the impairments found in all of the Watershed segments. The State of Delaware’s 2010 Combined Watershed Assessment Report (305(b)) and Determination for the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Waters Needing TMDLs 4

identifies 8 listed water segments: 2 tidal segments of the St. Jones River, 3 freshwater stream segments, and 3 freshwater lakes or ponds. Reasons for listing include bacteria, dissolved oxygen (DO), PCBs, nutrients, dioxin, mercury, DDT, arsenic, biology, and habitat (DNREC, April 2010). The most probable source of these pollutants is from Non-Point Source (NPS) pollution. TMDLs are currently in place to reduce pollutants and eventually remove water segments off the impairment list (303(d)). TMDLs should be used as a guide for prioritizing water quality improvement projects and incorporated into future land planning and management decisions. WATERSHED BASELINE ASSESSMENT A baseline assessment of the entire St. Jones Watershed (Watershed) was completed by Duffield Associates, Inc. (Duffield) in October 2008. With help from volunteers, Duffield identified and evaluated potential pollution control opportunities in the sub-watersheds and urban areas that would improve water quality and prevent impairment. In total, 158 opportunities were identified, scored, and prioritized, including 26 WMWQ technology opportunities and 132 upland opportunities. An additional five potential corridors for preservation/land management opportunities were also identified. The baseline assessment indicated various sources and types of water quality impairment. Duffield then identified several practices that could reduce pollution in the Watershed and selected sites to evaluate the practices. “Upland target areas included opportunities such as retrofitting existing sites with revised best management practices (e.g. bioswales, bioretention) and select neighborhood and hotspot sites that could increase water quality protection by using different site or land management practices. The upland sites were ranked from high to low priority. The WMWQ sites were evaluated for six technologies, which focused on wetland/floodplain restoration and creation, buffers, infiltration, and preservation. The WMWQ sites were scored and then ranked by Watershed-wide, sub- watershed, technology, and site. Table 5 shows Watershed-wide rankings for total WMWQ scores and individual WMWQ technology scores for each site evaluated” (Duffield Associates, Inc., October 2008). (Christina Tributary Action Team and Water Resources Agency, 2007; F.X. Browne, 1988; DNREC, City of Dover, and Advisory Committee, 1996) Projections for future impervious cover are increasing in all four sub-watersheds (Table 2). The Silver Lake sub-watershed is projected to have the greatest amount of total area of imperviousness (5,122.4 acres), while the Tidbury Creek sub-watershed is projected to have the greatest increase of imperviousness relative to total land area (27.6%). 5

Table 2. Sub-Watershed Potential Future Land Use Statistics and Existing Protected Lands SUB-WATERSHED DELINEATION For the purposes of this report, the four sub-watersheds identified by the Duffield Report (Duffield Associates, Inc., October 2008) will be used and referenced throughout this strategy. The Duffield report created a map that delineates the sub-watersheds of the St. Jones Watershed based on existing geospatial data (Figure 3). The sub-watershed delineation map is used to more accurately report data and recommendations in each sub-watershed. The sub-watershed boundaries reported by Duffield are as consistent as possible with those reported by DNREC. The sub-watersheds include: Isaac Branch, Silver Lake, St. Jones River, and Tidbury Creek. Water bodies within each sub-watershed include: Silver Lake- Fork Branch, Penrose Branch, Maidstone Branch, Cahoon Branch, Puncheon Run, Upper St. Jones River, Silver Lake Isaac Branch- Isaac Branch, Allabands Mill Stream, Almhouse Branch St. Jones- Lower St. Jones River 6

Tidbury Creek- Tidbury Creek, Red House Branch, Newell Branch, Voshell Pond, Derby Pond Figure 3. Sub-watersheds of the St. Jones River Watershed delineated. 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF WATERSHED PROJECTS SILVER LAKE SUB-WATERSHED From its inception, the Silver Lake Commission (Commission) worked towards improving Silver Lake and its associated drainage area, the sub-watershed within the St. Jones Watershed. Through partnerships with state, county, local governments, and non- regulatory organizations, the Commission has completed numerous successful projects. It is also continuously adapting and improving projects to meet the challenges of difficult problems that arise in Silver Lake (Lake). The following lists identify past projects completed or attempted, and the background behind each project. i. Silver Lake. 1. Biological stimulant. A new, proprietary product came recommended to DNREC staff by officials who used it to treat algal growth in stormwater ponds and water treatment facilities in California and Virginia. The product was designed to alter the nutrient ratios of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, and encourage the growth of naturally occurring bacteria that is usually suppressed by overabundant algal blooms. At the time, algal blooms outcompeted natural bacteria for the available nutrients in the Lake. DNREC staff, alongside City of Dover personnel, decided to test this biological formula in Silver Lake and other smaller lakes and ponds in Delaware. It was applied to Silver Lake during the summer of 1996 every two weeks above the causeway. Ideally, the currents move some of the product below the causeway to improve algae conditions throughout the entire Lake. Using this method, the annual cost to the City is approximately $15,000. If an additional application needs to be applied below the causeway to achieve the desired results, the cost can increase to $25,000, plus the cost of additional supplies and personnel time. The results of the application of the biological stimulant were somewhat inconclusive. During the summer of 1996, above average rainfall events occurred in the area of Silver Lake. Silver Lake saw decreased amounts of algal blooms, however, it is uncertain whether that was a result of the stimulant, or the lake’s higher, rain-induced flushing rates. City and DNREC staff had hoped to apply the stimulant the following summer to compare results between separate seasons; however, the company supplying the product had closed before the next round of testing could be completed (Tyler, 2011) (DNREC, City of Dover, and Advisory Committee, 1996). 8

2. Aeration. Aeration of Silver Lake was a recommendation from the report by F.X. Browne Associates and also in a discussion paper by DNREC, the City of Dover, Kent County, and an advisory committee, (“Options for the Protection and Improvement of Silver Lake”) and was considered an option to increase the dissolved oxygen content of the Lake waters and enhance vertical circulation (DNREC, City of Dover, and Advisory Committee, 1996). Ideally, this would improve circulation of the water column, increase habitat for aerobic organisms, reduce or eliminate fish kills, reduce internal nutrient loadings, decrease blue-green algae populations, and improve water column oxygenation. This technique was described as being best suited for shallow lakes where temperature stratification is minimal. However, the costs associated with the amount of materials and equipment necessary for aerators to operate effectively in Silver Lake were high. There were also concerns regarding boat traffic in the lake and whether recreationalists using the lake would damage the aerators and associated components. Later, DNREC scientists advised against the use of aerators because of the determination that it would re-suspend phosphorus into the Lake (Tyler, 2011) (Edgell, 2011). 3. Alum. From the dismissal of the use of aerators grew the interest in using alum to alleviate the nutrient-related problems in the Lake. As suggested by the F.X. Browne report alum would bind phosphorus at the sediment-water interface and prohibit phosphorus from entering back into the water column (F.X. Browne, 1988). At the time, the technique was new and little was known about the lake characteristics needed for the process to be effective. Its use in coastal plain ecoregions, where shallow water ponds and lakes are common, is not feasible due to the short hydrologic residence time and sediment disturbance from physical and biological factors. Boating on the Lake is a popular activity and wave action from the boats would resuspend particulate phosphorus and particulate aluminum. Also, the expense to purchase alum alone is high (Greene, 2011). ii. Silver Lake Sub-watershed 1. Stormwater retrofit at Delaware State University. In both the F.X. Browne study and “Options” report, recommendations for the creation of “forebays” at several inflow points into Silver Lake to try and trap sediment and other pollutants before washing into the Lake. One site where this was completed is located at the intersection of State College Road and N. College Road on the property of Delaware State University in Dover. The constructed forebay treats approximately 150 acres of commercial and industrial land, including 1.2 miles of the nearby 6-lane highway which is 9

one of the most traveled in the state. The project consists of a forebay area designed to capture the majority of the sediment and anything not captured there overflows to a shallow wetland area where additional water treatment can occur. In total, the project area is approximately 3 acres. Funds for the project came from partners including DNREC, City of Dover, Kent County, and Kent Conservation District. Additional monies came from DNREC penalty funds, 21st Century fund, and DelDOT pavement and rehabilitation funds (Division of Soil and Water Conservation). 2. Dredging of Mirror Lake. Mirror Lake is a shallow body of water downstream of the Silver Lake dam and adjacent to the intersection of Loockerman Street and Park Drive in Dover. The lake is tidally influenced by the St. Jones River and has a tidal range of approximately 1.0 foot. Over time a sand bar has developed from sediment build-up that is deposited and is visible at low tide. The City of Dover was interested in the improvement of Mirror Lake for environmental and aesthetic reasons and asked DNREC staff for recommendations. Staff from DNREC’s Division of Soil and Water Conservation performed a bathymetric survey of the Lake in February 1997 and sediment core borings in September 2004 as a preliminary step to investigate the possibility of dredging to remove the accumulated sediment and other potential contaminants. DNREC provided two methods of dredging with cost estimates for each method. Mechanical dredging with truck haul disposal carried a price tag of approximately $427,500 and hydraulic dredging with geotubes had a cost of approximately $538,500 at the time of the estimation in 2007. Insufficient funds for the project halted any further progress for dredging Mirror Lake. DNREC revisited the topic again in 2010 by initiating a comprehensive analysis on the original sediment cores taken in 2004, preparing new cost estimates for dredging, of $1, 500,000, and speaking with the City of Dover and Silver Lake Commission about potential alternatives in preparation of the results of the analysis as the costs for dredging may be too high. DNREC also wishes to explore less expensive and invasive approaches to addressing the sediment sand bar, while maintaining the goal of reducing the impact to human and wildlife health. Additional recommendations were made by F.X. Browne and the “Options” report, however only the items listed here have been acted upon thus far. 10

SUB-WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY STRATEGY The Silver Lake Commission (Commission) re-evaluated their approach to solving Sliver Lake’s water quality problems around 2005-2006, following their attempts at using large, solitary capital improvement project methods. Historically, the water quality problems facing the Lake were compounded due to many non-point sources discharging into the Lake untreated. The new approach focuses on a watershed-based method that addresses pollutant problems before they enter the Lake; in this way, pollutants are captured and filtered before they can degrade water quality in Silver Lake. This proactive approach encourages the completion of Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the watershed to alleviate the compounded effect in the Lake. While the BMPs may not capture all pollutants before entering the Lake, addressing the pollutants before they enter the Lake will significantly improve water quality. To jumpstart the new watershed-based approach, DNREC hired Duffield Associates, Inc. (Duffield) to perform a watershed-wide assessment to identify water quality improvement projects. Duffield performed a baseline assessment in 2007 and published the “St. Jones River Watershed Baseline Assessment Technical Memorandum” (Baseline Assessment), in October 2008, which detailed the results. The information gathered provided the basis for future project recommendations and included information on Watershed and sub- watershed characteristics, as well as current and projected watershed conditions, to determine future issues and impairments. The Baseline Assessment identified potential pollution control opportunities by using information based on current reports, geospatial data, current regulations, and field review of actual stream bodies. During the field review, staff from DNREC, the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP), and Duffield documented visual cues and other watershed conditions that indicate potential water quality impairments such as: lack of riparian buffer area; undersized culverts downstream from development; point source discharge pollutant problems; older developments without stormwater quality best management practices; uncontrolled stormwater runoff - severe channel erosion; lack of infiltration basins; isolated wetland loss due to lack of regulations; and agricultural nutrient loading. These impairments can be addressed and categorized into two categories “upland restoration” and Watershed Management Water Quality technologies (WMWQ), (Tyler, 2011) which include: tree planting; additional native landscaping; stormwater pond maintenance, creation, or bioretention; impervious cover removal; on-site stormwater management (e.g., rain barrels, rain gardens, green rooftops); creation/restoration of upland buffers; wetland/Floodplain Creation and/or Restoration; stormwater Infiltration; stream channel improvements; preservation of streams, wetlands, floodplains, and buffers; and flood control. In the St Jones Watershed, 26 WMWQ technology opportunities and 132 11

upland opportunities (total of 158 opportunities) were identified, screened, scored, and prioritized in the Implementation Plan as potential projects to improve water quality. The initial scoring and ranking of selected sites and technologies were conducted based on a system of weighted factors and scoring parameters established by the project team (DNREC, Duffield Associates, and CWP). For WMWQ sites, six technologies that focused on wetland/floodplain restoration and creation, buffers, infiltration, and preservation were evaluated for each site. The sites were then scored on a scale of 1 to 10 for potential, and ranked based on a watershed-wide scale, sub-watershed, technology-specific, and individual sites (Table 3). Upland sites were ranked into high, medium, or low priority based on screening factors and scoring criteria developed by the project team (Table 4). The list can be organized according to a certain target area, such as a sub-watershed (Table 5). The majority of pollution control opportunities throughout the entire watershed occur within the Silver Lake sub-watershed (Table 6). As part of the final step in the watershed study of the St. Jones River basin, Duffield prepared “St. Jones Watershed Implementation Plan,” in February 2009 to present strategies and potential prioritization to achieve the pollution control goals using the opportunities identified. The Plan examined several methods of implementation strategies for all of the sub-watersheds found in the overlying St. Jones Watershed (Watershed). This provides the option for different organizations, such as municipalities, DNREC, Kent County, or regional groups, to select the strategy that best suits their goals and priorities. The strategies were broken down into three approaches: ranking, technology, and sub- watershed. Duffield identifies the sub-watershed approach as the preferred strategy, citing targeted multi-faceted improvements can have significant impact on water quality improvement. A sub-watershed strategy is also conducive to various funding sources that may become available. As part of the Plan, Duffield recommends initiating the sub- watershed strategy with the Silver Lake sub-watershed, the largest in the entire Watershed. Silver Lake sub-watershed almost fully encompasses the City of Dover, as well as the headwaters to the entire Watershed. Activities that take place in the headwaters of any watershed impact the overall health of the entire watershed. The Silver Lake sub- watershed is approximately 38.4 mi² (24,576 acres) and has the largest percentage of urban/commercial/residential area, approximately 31%, and the smallest portion of protected lands at 3.7% (Duffield Associates, Inc., February 2009). Projections for future impervious surface are expected to exceed all other sub-watersheds (Table 2, Introduction). These statistics support the recommendation to focus initial efforts in the Silver Lake sub- watershed. Additionally, Duffield found this sub-watershed to have the greatest potential for water quality improvement based on the number of high-ranking projects found in the field assessment. Duffield found the top five sites for WMWQ technology opportunities in the entire Watershed within the Silver Lake sub-watershed, as well as twelve upland sites with high ranks (Figure 4). 12

MONITORING A monitoring plan helps determine the effectiveness of projects implemented throughout the watershed by measuring pollutant load reductions and water quality. It also important to track activities for state, federal, and municipalities reporting associated with water quality and restoration projects. In the Plan, Duffield outlines a monitoring plan with several important components for determining success. There are different methods presented in the Plan by Duffield to track progress based on the source of information. Timeframes associated with each method should also be considered when identifying appropriate monitoring techniques. It is important to determine an appropriate measure of success, preferably based on scientific data versus visual or aesthetic indicators, and educate members of the public in the same manner (Tyler, 2011). The Watershed should be reassessed on a regular basis (every 5-7 years) to maintain the most accurate data and determine if current priorities are inline with pre-established priorities. If new issues arise, refocusing the Watershed Plan may be necessary (Duffield Associates, Inc., February 2009). 13

Table 3. Silver Lake sub-watershed total WMWQ technology scores, ranked highest to lowest. Screening Categories for WMWQ Technologies SILVER LAKE SUB-WATERSHED SITE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 12/1 3 18 16 5 8 1 10 7 14 3 6 15 17 19 2 20 9 11 4 Existing Buffer Width 1 4 1 10 4 2 10 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 0 1 Existing Buffer Length 3 3 6 10 6 3 9 6 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 6 Proposed Buffer Width 10 10 10 10 9 10 9 6 9 9 5 6 9 6 9 5 6 5 5 Areal Buffer Protection 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 8 Surrounding Topography Upgradient of Stream 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Proposed Buffer Type 10 10 10 3 7 8 4 10 10 8 8 10 10 3 8 3 6 3 8 CREATION/RESTORATION OF UPLAND BUFFERS 38 40 41 47 40 36 46 37 37 38 29 34 37 27 34 26 37 25 32 Soil Types Within Creation and/or Restoration Areas 8 8 8 3 8 3 3 3 3 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 Approximate Average Depth of Excavation 9 10 10 7 9 7 7 8 4 1 4 6 3 4 1 4 4 1 1 Soil Relocation 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 9 9 10 10 10 9 10 5 10 4 Hydrology 9 9 10 9 9 9 7 9 5 2 5 5 5 5 0 5 7 2 2 Location Within Watershed 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 10 7 10 7 10 8 10 7 7 10 14

Wetland Type/Size 10 10 6 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 10 6 6 6 2 6 6 WETLAND/FLOODPLAIN CREATION AND/OR RESTORATION 56 57 54 49 54 49 44 49 42 38 38 38 36 36 25 36 28 27 24 Soil Types Within Creation Area 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 Appoximate Average Depth of Excavation 9 7 10 6 7 7 7 6 4 1 4 6 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 Soil Relocation 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 5 10 4 Permeability 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 Location Within Watershed 8 8 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 8 7 8 7 8 10 8 7 7 8 Size/Land Use 8 8 3 8 8 8 3 8 8 8 10 4 8 4 4 4 2 4 4 INFILTRATION 44 41 40 40 40 43 36 39 40 36 42 39 39 37 35 37 27 36 31 Access 7 9 7 7 4 7 9 7 7 7 9 7 6 7 7 7 9 7 7 Ownership 5 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 5 Likely Approach 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 5 3 Stream Length 6 6 4 10 6 8 6 4 6 8 4 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 2 Location Within Watershed 6 6 6 5 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 8 6 2 5 6 Level of Impairment 8 7 4 7 10 1 7 10 4 4 10 7 4 4 7 4 4 7 4 STREAM CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 39 37 30 38 35 32 36 36 32 34 37 35 30 32 39 32 29 32 27 Existing Preservation 10 10 10 7 7 7 7 7 10 7 7 10 3 10 7 10 7 7 7 15

Potential Disturbance Risk 10 7 7 5 5 8 5 5 7 8 5 7 0 7 5 7 8 5 5 Potential Preservation 10 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 0 4 5 4 5 4 5 Location Within Watershed 2 4 4 4 7 2 4 7 2 7 6 2 6 4 2 2 8 4 2 PRESERVATION OF STREAMS, WETLANDS & BUFFERS 32 25 26 21 23 21 20 24 23 26 22 23 9 25 19 23 28 20 19 Flood Storage Need 6 4 7 7 2 7 4 0 4 2 4 4 7 2 6 2 1 6 7 Storage Potential 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 2 3 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 Approximate Average Depth of Excavation 4 5 5 3 3 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 1 Location Within Watershed 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 1 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 5 2 3 4 FLOOD CONTROL 18 17 19 17 13 20 13 5 14 9 12 11 16 10 13 10 7 12 13 21 21 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 18 16 16 16 16 15 15 14 TOTAL SCORE 227 7 0 2 5 1 5 0 8 1 0 0 7 7 5 4 6 2 6 16

Table 4. Screening factors and scoring criteria for upland site evaluations. Primary Screening Description Scoring Factor >11.5 lb = 30 Combines total impervious area treated with 4.5 - 11.5 lb = 20 Pounds of TN Removal removal efficiency of proposed retrofit. Will Expected per Year score the drainage area to the retrofit & removal 1.5 - 4.5 lb = 10 efficiency of BMP <1.5 lb = 0 <15K = 25 15 - 35K = 16 Cost Total retrofit cost 35 - 95K = 8 >95K = 0 Capture >= 0.25" during 0.5" storm event of off-site runoff = 10 Capture of off-site Whether any off-site runoff is captured and Capture >= 0.10" during 0.5" storm runoff treated event of off-site runoff = 5 No off-site runoff captured = 0 Practice includes soil absorption (bioretention), infiltration, or retention = 20 Ability of practice to reduce overall volume of Practice includes filtering, runoff Runoff Reduction runoff through infiltration, absorption, runoff dispersion, or other practice that capture & reuse, etc. provides some runoff reduction = 10 Practice does not include these features = 0 Whether property has current funding, planning Good chance for quick implementation process underway where retrofit could fit into = 15 larger project, or located next to a sensitive water Short-term body (e.g., Silver Lake), 319 potential, dry pond Potential chance for quick Implementation conversion, DelDOT projects (less than 6 months) implementation = 7 Retrofit Reconnaissance Inventory (RRI) does No utility conflicts identified = 4 Few Site & Utility Not at this time = 0 not identify utility conflicts at location of Constraints practice Utility conflicts identified = 0 Secondary Description Scoring Screening No Aesthetic,Factor Nuisance, Practice does not include standing water, No issues identified = 1 Safety Issues mosquito habitat, steep drop-offs, unattractive nuisances, etc. Issues identified = Exceptional 0 opportunity =3 Outdoor Learning & Whether practice is strategically located on LID promoted = 3 Moderate opportunity = 2 Promotes innovative Practice promotes the concept of decentralized Community Outreach property and has design features that would be of practices/LID runoff treatment and reduction Opportunities interest to students and community LID not necessarily Marginal promoted oppportunity =1 =0 17 No opportunity = 0 Practice contains features = 2 Promotes Bacteria Practice contains filtering, desiccation, or other Removal processes that can remove bacteria Practice doesn't contain features = 0 Trees planting included = 1

Table 5. Project ranking of Upland sites located in the Silver Lake sub-watershed. Project Sub- Rank Municipality Name ID Watershed R19c Silver Lake Dover Dover High School DE Agricultural R30a Silver Lake Dover Museum Carroll's Corner R48a Silver Lake Dover Shop Cntr R31c Silver Lake Dover Legislative Hall R41a Silver Lake Dover Holy Cross R19e Silver Lake Dover Dover High School DE Tech & Comm R14c Silver Lake Dover College, Terry Campus DE Tech & Comm R14d Silver Lake Dover College, Terry Campus R19b Silver Lake Dover Dover High School Fairview Elementary High R29c Silver Lake Dover School R8a Silver Lake Dover Super Fresh R34a Silver Lake Dover Schutte Park N53 Silver Lake Dover Chatham Cove N56 Silver Lake Dover Silver Mill N49 Silver Lake Dover Capitol Green 1 Rodney/ May/Cross/ N78 Silver Lake Wedge N36 Silver Lake Dover Woodcrest Lake Club N52 Silver Lake Dover Apartments Woodbrook/Sherwo N77 Silver Lake Dover od N38 Silver Lake Dover Fairview N55 Silver Lake Dover Overlook on Silver 18

Lake N54 Silver Lake Dover East Lake Gardens N11 Silver Lake Dover Baltray N66 Silver Lake none Hunter's Pointe State Police H505 Silver Lake Dover Station/Museum Public Works Yard H510 Silver Lake Dover (P2) City Public Works H506 Silver Lake Dover Yard R13a Silver Lake Dover Modern Maturity R26a Silver Lake Dover Target William Henry MS / R22a Silver Lake Dover Booker T Washington ES R8b Silver Lake Dover Super Fresh Med. R19a Silver Lake Dover Dover High School R26b Silver Lake Dover Target R106a Silver Lake ?? Taco Bell R502a Silver Lake Dover Wawa Dover Central R23a Silver Lake Dover Middle School Fairview Elementary R29a Silver Lake Dover School Carrolls Corner R48b Silver Lake Dover Shop. Cntr Blue Hen Corporate R64c Silver Lake Dover Center Women's Health Med. R201a Silver Lake Dover Center Frear Federal R530a Silver Lake Dover Building R501a Silver Lake Dover US Gas R64b Silver Lake Dover Blue Hen Corporate 19

Center R101a Silver Lake Dover City Hall R13b Silver Lake Dover Modern Maturity Edgehill Shopping R25b Silver Lake Dover Center/State Library R41c Silver Lake Dover Holy Cross Blue Hen Corporate R64a Silver Lake Dover Center R108a Silver Lake Dover La Tonalteca State Police R505b Silver Lake Dover Museum R31b Silver Lake Dover Legislative Hall St Andrews R500a Silver Lake Dover Lutheran Church Edgehill Shopping R25c Silver Lake Dover Center/State Library R105a Silver Lake Dover Burger King R510a Silver Lake Dover Harvest House R26c Silver Lake Dover Target State Police R505a Silver Lake Dover Museum R31a Silver Lake Dover Legislative Hall Carrolls Corner R48c Silver Lake Dover Shopping Center R41b Silver Lake Dover Holy Cross McKee Business R16c Silver Lake Dover Park R102a Silver Lake Dover Merrill Lynch South Dover R42a Silver Lake Dover Elementary School R43a Silver Lake Dover Bay Court Plaza N1 Silver Lake Dover Mill Creek 20

N50 Silver Lake Dover Capitol Green 2 Edgehill/Dover N51 Silver Lake Dover Heights N114 Silver Lake none Capitol Park N173 Silver Lake none Quails Nest N4 Silver Lake Dover Maple Dale Retreat N202 Silver Lake None Meadow Ridge N3 Silver Lake Dover The Meadows N60 Silver Lake none Carlisle Village Elm Terrace & State N47 Silver Lake Dover St N48 Silver Lake Dover Kent Ave Division St & N39 Silver Lake Dover Governors N63 Silver Lake None Foxhall H501 Silver Lake Dover US Gas Cheswold Recycle H504 Silver Lake none Center H502 Silver Lake Dover Wawa DE Tech & Comm R14a Silver Lake Dover College, Terry Campus R107a Silver Lake Dover Del Taco R4a Silver Lake Dover Kmart R10a Silver Lake Dover Golden Corral Low Proctor & Gamble R20a Silver Lake Dover North Building R27a Silver Lake Dover Dover Mart DE Tech & Comm R14b Silver Lake Dover College, Terry Campus Proctor & Gamble R21a Silver Lake Dover South Building 21

R19d Silver Lake Dover Dover High School R200a Silver Lake none A & H Uniform R501b Silver Lake Dover US Gas N2 Silver Lake Dover Maple Glen Dr N21 Silver Lake none Zurkow Lots Rt 8 & Sharon Hill N69 Silver Lake None Rd H301 Silver Lake Dover Gas Station/U-Haul H303 Silver Lake Dover Car Zone Poors Energy H503 Silver Lake none Service H507 Silver Lake Dover Jiffy Lube Edgehill Shopping H508 Silver Lake Dover Center H500 Silver Lake Dover Auto Zone H509 Silver Lake Dover Self Wash/Wax *Property owners have not been contacted as part of the preparation of this report. Sub-Watershed Key St. Jones Tidbury Creek Isaac Branch Silver Lake 22

Table 6. Watershed wide WMWQ scores ranked highest to lowest (Duffield 2008). Screening Categories for SITE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS WMWQ Technologies 12/ 18 16 5 8 27 1 10 7 14 26 23 3 6 15 21 22 25 17 19 2 20 9 24 11 4 13 CREATION/RESTORATIO N OF UPLAND BUFFERS 38 40 41 47 40 38 36 46 37 37 37 40 38 29 34 27 28 33 37 27 34 26 37 28 25 32 WETLAND/FLOODPLAIN CREATION AND/OR RESTORATION 56 57 54 49 54 39 49 44 49 42 37 34 38 38 38 38 38 32 36 36 25 36 28 38 27 24 INFILTRATION 44 41 40 40 40 42 43 36 39 40 43 40 36 42 39 40 40 39 39 37 35 37 27 29 36 31 STREAM CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 39 37 30 38 35 33 32 36 36 32 31 33 34 37 35 31 31 31 30 32 39 32 29 22 32 27 PRESERVATION OF STREAMS, WETLANDS & BUFFERS 32 25 26 21 23 32 21 20 24 23 24 30 26 22 23 32 26 26 9 25 19 23 28 25 20 19 FLOOD CONTROL 18 17 19 17 13 19 20 13 5 14 14 6 9 12 11 6 10 12 16 10 13 10 7 13 12 13 22 21 21 21 20 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 TOTAL SCORE 7 7 0 2 5 3 1 5 0 8 6 3 1 0 0 4 3 3 7 7 5 4 6 5 2 146 * Property owners have not been contacted as part of the preparation for this report. Red numbers are highest technology scores. Sub-Watershed Key St. Jones Tidbury Creek Isaac Branch Silver Lake 23

Figure 4. Initial recommendation sites for the Silver Lake sub-watershed (Duffield 2008). 24

SUB-WATERSHED MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES INTRODUCTION With a strategy in place, partners and other organizations have a more focused approach to improving the quality of the St. Jones Watershed. The Silver Lake sub-watershed strategy may not fulfill the priorities of every organization and may be limiting for those with specific objectives. However, the strategy provides direction for future management opportunities. As part of the “St. Jones Watershed Implementation Plan” (Plan) by Duffield , priority lists were developed to target pollution control opportunities within the Silver Lake sub-watershed. These lists use different strategies such as upland sites, Watershed Management for Water Quality (WMWQ) technologies, neighborhoods, hotspots, and preservation to identify target projects. The lists developed by the Plan are a place to begin efforts. It is not meant to be implemented strictly in chronological order, but instead used as a guide for watershed improvement activities that ultimately depend on partner cooperation and funding availability. The lists below provide an overview of the current efforts occurring in the Silver Lake sub- watershed to improve water quality. These projects, identified either before or recently after the Plan was written, were chosen based on landowner and partner cooperation and willingness to collaborate on the proposed improvement projects. The site name and identification code are listed next to those sites identified in the Plan’s list of potential upland sites. The Plan provides useful cost estimates of Best Management Practices (BMP) identified for individual upland projects that may help with decisions with budgets. Another useful tool is the expected pollutant removal by each BMP and the associated costs, therefore providing the cost effectiveness of each project. Common storm water BMP and their associated nutrient removal rate are presented in Table 7. WMWQ technologies are also listed in the Plan and show a great deal of potential. The WMWQ technologies are a reflection of the specific types of pollution control measures identified by the St Jones Tributary Action Team (TAT) in the Pollution Control Strategy (PCS Addendum 1) to improve water quality within the watershed. These projects are typically larger scale and require more land area, space, and most importantly, participation from private landowners. The benefits, however, are just as successful as upland/urban retrofits as they occur mostly in the headwaters of the Watershed and sub-watersheds. Planners and land managers should reference this strategy and the Plan for guidance on future project planning. 25

Table 7. BMP Percent Reduction of Nutrients from Urban Runoff BMP Total Nitrogen (%) Total Phosphorous (%) Stormwater Wet Ponds 40 50 Sand Filter 47 41 Stormwater Dry Ponds 15 25 Stormwater Wetlands 30 49 Infiltration Practices 65 70 Water Quality Swales 25 34 Rain Garden 43 81 SILVER LAKE SUB-WATERSHED PROJECTS CURRENT PROJECTS 1. Dover High School. Located at Walker Road and Patrick Lynn Drive in Dover, DE, the high school campus would benefit from better stormwater infiltration practices. URS Corp. has submitted a proposal for design and conceptual work for the site. Several ideas were proposed, and after site visits, design consultations, and meetings with school personnel, the following projects were designated as the best options:  construction of a rain garden to collect stormwater runoff from the parking lot surface;  restoring function and prevent erosion to the discharge area in the unnamed channel;  increasing water volume entering the wetland/storage area in the existing stormwater wetland to improve nutrient removal. The rain garden alone will prevent 5 pounds of nitrogen, 0.5 pound each of phosphorus and zinc, and 275 lbs of sediment per year from entering Silver Lake. The pollutant load reduction for the stormwater wetland retrofit is yet to be determined, but should be 26

comparable to the previous reductions, if not more. Reference in Duffield: Site Name: R19 – Dover High School. 2. Delaware Agricultural Museum and Village. Located off of Rt. 13 southbound in Dover, DE, the Agricultural Museum and Village (Museum) property was identified in the Duffield report for a conversion of a dry pond to a bioswale. The dry pond conversion, in addition to other enhancements, has recently been completed with funds primarily from the Clean Water Advisory Council’s Community grant. Plans to convert it to a bioswale and re-grade adjacent land to direct water flow away from Museum buildings and towards the bioswale have recently been completed. Two rain gardens, on either side of the Museum entrance, collect almost half of the stormwater runoff from the roof where it previously was discharged onto mowed grass. Additionally, a 10-foot buffer encircling three sides of Mill pond was planted to discourage Canada geese from nesting and traversing between the pond and land. Six floating wetlands, a new technique used to improve the water quality, were launched in Mill pond. Water samples were collected to monitor the effect floating wetlands had on phosphorus, nitrogen, and bacteria removal. Fencing was installed along the Silver Lake shoreline on Museum property to reduce the number of geese entering the property via Silver Lake. The bioswale is estimated to remove 1 pound each of phosphorus and zinc, 7.5 pounds of nitrogen, and 500 pounds of sediment per year. Each rain garden is estimated to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen by 45%, zinc by 80% and sediment by 60%. The removal of nutrients and bacteria from the Mill pond due to the floating wetlands and vegetated buffer are still being monitored through water sample analyses, but are expected to reduce bacteria significantly. Reference in Duffield: Site Name: R30 – DE Agricultural Museum. 27

3. Delaware Technical and Community College. Located at Scarborough Road and Route 13 in Dover, DE. The Technical and Community College’s campus offers an opportunity to work with students and officials to create a stormwater management and sustainability plan that will address the College’s future needs of expansion while maintaining and enhancing stormwater infiltration and bioretention practices. Cost estimates are currently being determined for potential projects including: several rain gardens, converting a tax ditch to a bioswale, step pool conversion, and re-grading areas to collect more water for treatment before entering the storm drain system untreated. All project combined would remove approximately 4.25 pounds of phosphorus, 37 pounds of nitrogen, 3.6 pounds of zinc, and 3,502 pounds of sediment per year from entering Silver Lake. Reference in Duffield: Site Name: R14 - DE Technical & Community College, Terry Campus. 28

4. Fairview Elementary School. Located at the intersection of Walker Rd and Pear St in Dover, DE. The principal at Fairview Elementary school has agreed to disconnect several downspouts to construct a large rain garden near the building where students and faculty pass by regularly. Education on rain gardens and stormwater runoff will be incorporated into lesson plans and will continue even after construction ends. In addition, the rain gardens will remove 0.5 pound of phosphorus, 3.75 pounds of nitrogen, 0.5 pound of zinc, and 250 pounds of sediment per year from stormwater runoff. Reference in Duffield: Site Name: R29 – Fairview Elementary. 5. Silver Lake Park. Located adjacent and south of the Silver Lake dam with parking off of Washington Street and Lewis Mill Drive in Dover, DE. As part of a cooperative effort amongst DNREC’s Watershed Assessment Section, 319 Nonpoint Source Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, DELDOT’s Environmental Program, City of Dover’s 29

Silver Lake Commission, and Polytech High School the Silver Lake Park Revitalization Plan was developed to improve water quality in the St. Jones River while improving the aesthetic value of the river to Dover residents and park visitors. Comments from Dover residents and members of the public were incorporated as much as possible to ensure the park would still serve the needs of its primary stakeholders. Several key projects were identified and broken down into four implementation phases (Figure 5). Each phase included a plan to establish riparian buffer along the river in a tiered system that incorporates grasses and trees and can reduce sediments up to 96%, nitrogen up to 95% and phosphorus up to 79% (www.nrcs.usda.gov/NRCSProg.html). Phase 1 of the Revitalization Plan is almost complete with the northern portion’s riparian buffer complete, but still lacking park benches and educational and interpretive signage. The southern portion of Phase 1 is currently on hold until other phases are closer to completion. DNREC hired Biohabitats Inc. to develop the design of Phase 2, including the discharge received by Washington Street in the drainage ditch adjacent to the park that empties to the St. Jones River. After extensive surveying and planning, Biohabitats created several options to choose from for the stabilization and restoration of the St. Jones River near the dam. Shortly after, a public meeting was held in conjunction with DNREC, City of Dover, Silver Lake Commission and Biohabitats to determine the final design based on public input received during the meeting. The figure below is a detailed sketch of the proposed design of the work to be done along the east side of the River and park. The Mill Race, or wetland slough as identified in the sketch below, was added later to address the excessively wet “island” area (Figure 6). During field review, the required permitting agencies determined the design would need to be revised slightly to meet state and federal standards. Permits for this project were received at the end of February 2011 and bidding for construction is currently underway. Design plans are currently being completed for Phase 3 in conjunction with partners from the City of Dover and Kent County Parks & Recreation and will be planted in the Fall 2011. Portions of Phase 4 have been completed with help from the City of Dover, Kent County Parks & Recreation, Elizabeth Murphey School, and Central Middle School (see “Partner Projects” listed below for more information). Other projects are in development and will address storm water runoff and connect the riparian corridor (see DNREC Richards & Robinson’s property, Figure 7). 30

Figure 5. Silver Lake Park Revitalization Plan with Phases 1-4 identified. 31

Figure 6. Biohabitats rendition of the proposed restoration and stabilization along the St. Jones River. 6. Washington Street. Storm water runoff exiting from Washington Street in Dover, DE, the entrance road to the beach side of Silver Lake Park, is currently discharging untreated directly into the St. Jones River. Plans for a regenerative step pool conveyance system are currently under way and should be completed in conjunction with Phase 2 of the Silver Lake Park Revitalization Plan. The step pool system is projected to reduce Nitrogen and Phosphorus by 45% and sediment by 60% from the stormwater that currently drains from the approximately 17 acres of adjacent land. Using a common loading rate for the Dover area, reductions using this technology for the said acreage of land are estimated to remove 121.7 pounds of Nitrogen, 16.5 pounds of Phosphorus, and 8500 pounds of sediment per year. 32

7. DNREC Richards & Robinson’s property. Located in downtown Dover, DE at 89 Kings Highway. Storm water runoff from this parcel is currently draining to Mirror Lake untreated. As part of DNREC’s environmental improvement plan, storm water runoff will be directed through a series of storm water BMP’s while an increase in riparian buffer width will also help remove pollutants from entering Mirror Lake. This plan will also attempt to address the sediment bar and associated contaminants found in Mirror Lake at low tide. Residents and scientists will work together to develop a solution. See “Mirror Lake: Analysis of Chemical Contaminants in Sediments,” 2011 and the DNREC “Environmental Improvement Plans for Selected DNREC Office Sites,” 2011 for more detailed information. Figure 7. DNREC Richardson & Robbins property and the proposed environmental improvements adjacent to the St. Jones River 33

PARTNER PROJECTS 8. Elizabeth Murphey School. Located on the north side of East Division Street and west of the St. Jones River in Dover, DE. This area is located directly across from the riparian buffer planted in Phase 1 of the Silver Lake Park Revitalization Plan. The low-lying land adjacent to the river was being mowed all the way to the edge of the river and experienced frequent ponding or flooding during heavy rainfall. The shoreline was severely eroded from human and animal traffic as well as water velocity in the river. In the spring and fall of 2010, partners from Kent County Parks and Recreation, City of Dover, and DNREC established a tiered riparian buffer and approximately 120 linear feet of “living shoreline” consisting of biocoir logs and vegetating the backfilled soil medium. 9. Central Middle School. Located on the north side of East Division Street and the Elizabeth Murphey School and west of the St. Jones River in Dover, DE. The area surrounding part of the St. Jones River that flows from the dam on the south side of Silver Lake (Park) to the intersection of Loockerman Street at Mirror Lake is a widely used area. Currently, the grassed area between the school and the River is mowed almost directly to the bank. The partial wooded area of the project has extensive areas of invasive species (Japanese honeysuckle, English ivy, Phragmites, Virginai creeper, Trumpet Crepper, Porcelain berry, Autumn Olive, tree of Heaven, Multiflora rose, and Privet). The invasive plants will be removed and sprayed with the help Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation before the buffer is planted with native species. In addition, an outdoor classroom will be created using recycled tire (semi-permeable) flooring area creating a seating/classroom area. Students, in accordance with 7th grade science curriculum, will test water quality annually in order to determine the health of our local Silver Lake/St. Jones watershed. Additionally, students will use digital photography to meet further Science standards. A tiered riparian buffer system, which incorporates grasses and trees, can reduce sediments up to 96%, nitrogen up to 95% and phosphorus up to 79%. 34

10. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) building. Located off of College Park Drive in Dover, DE. In 2010, partners from the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, NRCS, and Environmental Concern designed and installed a rain garden to collect runoff from the adjacent parking lot and roof. Using help from students of North Dover Elementary school, the rain garden was planted with 600 native plants to treat storm water runoff before it enters the river system untreated. 11. Silver Lake Dam stabilization. The City of Dover’s Emergency Management Division complied with the insurance agency overseeing the Silver Lake dam by making necessary improvements. These improvements included vegetating either side of the dam’s northern portion and fencing it off to prevent damage from waterfowl of park visitors. Large rip rap was also installed to reduce the any additional erosion along the banks due to wave action, foot traffic, and wildlife use. As a result, these improvements will discourage foot traffic to vulnerable areas and improve the safety and environmental integrity of the structure and surrounding area. 35

ii. Education and Outreach i) Rain Gardens for the Bays. EPA Region 3 initiative to reduce storm water runoff entering “our bays” including the Delaware Bay, Delaware’s Inland Bays, and Maryland’s Coastal Bays by installing rain gardens in the Bays’ watersheds. To date, three rain gardens exist in the St. Jones Watershed, including 2 at the Delaware Agricultural Museum, 1 at the Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) office off of College Park Dr. and 1 at Fairview Elementary School with assistance from the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary. ii) Fertilizer Campaign. Marketed as “Livable Lawns,” this campaign targets landscaping companies and homeowners that apply fertilizer to lawns. The campaign aims to educate homeowners and landscape professionals about the consequences of excessive fertilizer use and fertilizer alternatives while ultimately reducing the amount of excess nutrients reaching Delaware waterways. FUTURE OUTLOOK OF THE SILVER LAKE SUB-WATERSHED The St. Jones Tributary Action Team (TAT) developed recommendations to reduce non-point source nutrient and bacteria loads to the St. Jones Watershed in order to meet the 2006 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) as established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Through extensive education and discussion, the St. Jones TAT developed recommendations for open space, stormwater, wastewater, agriculture, and education. These recommendations were submitted in the form of a Pollution Control Strategy (PCS) to then-Secretary of DNREC, John Hughes. The St. Jones PCS is currently being finalized and will be submitted to EPA shortly thereafter. The document is an excellent resource for a citizen perspective of important issues related to improving the water quality of the St. Jones Watershed. Within the storm water section of the St. Jones PCS, the TAT recommends implementing a storm water utility to generate a stable source of funding for storm water management throughout the watershed. Governor Minner’s Task Force on Surface Water Management quantified the statewide financial need for stormwater management. “The Finance Subcommittee identified stormwater capital requirements of $207.3 million over the next five years and projected annual maintenance 36

requirements of $13.73 million” (URS Corporation, 2009). The Task Force thus recommended that a stormwater utility operating at the county or local level should be formed as a funding vehicle for the purpose of providing a simplified and comprehensive approach to drainage and flooding problems. A stormwater utility is an approach that can generate a stable source of funding for stormwater management within the region. The funds are made available by collecting user fees. Stormwater utility fees are generally set by the amount of impervious cover on each resident’s property. The higher the impervious cover the higher the fee. GIS mapping will be utilized to measure impervious surface generated by residential and commercial development, and the utility fee will be charged based on the property’s Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). In fall 2011, members of the City of Dover’s Council will be invited to participate in a tour of existing stormwater structures throughout the City and entire Watershed to examine the costs associated with maintaining quality facilities. There are many benefits of a stormwater utility. According to DNREC, Division of Watershed Stewardship, Watershed Assessment Section, a stormwater utility can generate up to $10 per capita per $1/month/ERU. It is estimated that approximately one-eighth to one-sixth of the annual revenue from a $1/month/ERU stormwater utility results in approximately $30,000--$40,000 for cities and approximately $180,000--$250,000 for counties (Christina Tributary Action Team and Water Resources Agency, 2007). The revenue generated from the utility can be used to fund a variety of stormwater management and water quality programs. This tool can be used in the St. Jones Watershed to contribute to the reduction of nutrients and bacteria reaching the rivers and streams by implementing best management practices with the funds generated from the stormwater utility. Efficient implementation of best management practices and water quality improvement projects depend largely on staff resources. It is suggested that the stormwater utility be used to fund a staff position/Watershed Coordinator dedicated to managing and implementing the projects throughout the St. Jones Watershed. New projects will require researching appropriate funding and attention to detail during design and engineering phases. Stable funding for a Watershed Coordinator becomes more important when completing multi-phased or long-term projects. Also, creating an established position will allow the Watershed Coordinator to create and maintain local contacts, thereby generating support and resources for future projects. The Sediment and Stormwater regulations serve as an enabling structure for the local ordinances needed in order to set up the utility. For example, the City of Wilmington has established a stormwater utility for residential and commercial customers in the municipality where all properties pay a stormwater charge based on their impervious cover. Before funding even becomes available, potential projects should already be identified in a priority list. Once funding does become available the process will move much quicker and smoother if all research and cost-estimates are completed ahead of time. During the course of current project 37

implementation by the St. Jones Watershed Coordinator and partners, a list of potential projects have surfaced through both the Plan and amicable partnerships developed with landowners, businesses, and partners. The following are projects currently being researched for further potential as a stormwater improvement project: Site Location Description of project Landscape Duffield position priority Super Fresh Dover, Silver Convert existing dry Headwaters High Lake Sub- pond to large, passive watershed bioretention. Modern Dover, Silver Convert dry pond to Headwaters Medium Maturity Center Lake Sub- bioretention watershed Behind Dover Dover, Silver Regenerative Adjacent to Unlisted * Pools & Ag Lake Sub- stormwater conveyance Lake Museum watershed system Winding Creek Dover, Silver Potential for Headwaters; Duffield DE, LLC Lake Sub- wetland/floodplain confluence of WMWQ watershed creation and/or Maidstone & Project # restoration, stormwater Penrose 12/13 infiltration, stream Branches channel improvements, preservation, and flood control. Private Dover, Silver Potential for Headwaters; Duffield Landowner Lake Sub- wetland/floodplain adjacent to WMWQ watershed creation and/or Cahoon Project # restoration, stormwater Branch 18 infiltration, stream channel improvements, and flood control. * Untreated stormwater discharge into Silver Lake behind Delaware Agricultural Museum & Village and Dover Pools. Identified while completing BMPs on the Ag Museum property. Developed a positive relationship with staff at the Ag Museum. Outside funding sources may help supplement or extend the life of funds generated by the stormwater utility. Partnering with other organizations (state, county, and municipal agencies, non-profits, etc.) help leverage funds and promote productive and successful partnerships. Funding sources used in the past include: Delaware’s Clean Water Advisory Council’s Community 38

Water Quality Improvement Grant, 319 Non-Point Source grant, Delaware Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund Trail Grant, and Community Environmental Project Fund (penalty funds). New funding sources may arise and should be explored. Also, some funding sources are better suited for certain projects than others. It is important to apply for the grant that most appropriately fits the objectives and goals of each project. 39

WORKS CITED Christina Tributary Action Team and Water Resources Agency. (2007). The Christina Basin Pollution Control Strategy. Dover: DNREC. Division of Soil and Water Conservation. (n.d.). Improving Silver Lake: Forebay Project. Dover, DE, USA: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. DNREC. (April 2010). Combined Watershed Assessment Report (305(b)) and Determination for the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Waters Needing TMDLs. Dover: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. DNREC, City of Dover, and Advisory Committee. (1996). Options for Protection and Improvement of Silver Lake. Dover: DNREC. Dover, C. o. (1990, August 27). Proposed Resolution-Silver Lake Commission. Dover, DE, USA. Duffield Associates, Inc. (February 2009). St. Jones River Watershed Implementation Plan. Wilmington: Duffield Associates, Inc. Duffield Associates, Inc. (October 2008). St. Jones River Watershed Pollution Control Opportunities: Technical Memorandum. Wilmington: Duffield Associates. Edgell, D. (2011, January). Planner, former Silver Lake Commission President. (L. Allison, Interviewer) F.X. Browne. (1988). Phase 1: Diagnostic-Feasability study of Silver Lake. Dover: F.X. Browne. Greene, R. (2011, January). Engineer. (L. Allison, Interviewer) Rogerson, A. B., Jacobs, A. D., & Howard, A. M. (2010). Wetland condition of the St. Jones River Watershed. Dover: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Shaffer, E. (1989). Technical Background Report. Dover: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Tyler, R. (2011, January). Environmental Scientist, DNREC. (L. Allison, Interviewer) URS Corporation. (2009). Kent County Level of Service Analysis of Surface Water Management Needs. URS Corporation. 40

Silver Lake Commission Members Name E-mail Phone # Ok to share with SLC members Anthony Morris Cary Smith Kathy Doyle John DeMarie Michael Lewis Carolyn Courtney One Vacant position exists

2026 thru 2026 Capital Improvement Plan Dover, DE Project# PR2600 Project Name Silver Lake Master Plan Total Project Cost $75,000 Department Parks and Recreation Type Improvement Category General Priority n/a Status Active Time-Line: FY26 Account Number: 101-13-15-12-D00-54031 Expenditures 2026 Total Construction/Maintenance 75,000 75,000 Total 75,000 75,000 Funding Sources 2026 75,000 ----- Total 75,000 General Fund Total --------------75,000 75,000 -- FY2 C pital Improvements Plan: Silver Lake Park Master Plan To promote a more aesthetic, environmentally friendly, welcoming and safe environment at our Silver Lake Park. The Master Plan would include landscape design plan to improve access to existing facilities and parking therein. Master Plan will address the current paved trail offering relief to those who actively use the park for running/jogging, biking, etc. The Master Plan for Silver Lake Park will offer the City the tools needed to appropriately plan Silver Lake Park and its facilities. Assessment & Design must include: • Fitness Stations along Paved Trail • Woodlands Assessment • A plan to preserve the old African American cemetery • Consideration of current and future parks facilities such as: • The Lake, Beach Area, Indoor Bathrooms

IMPORTANT THINGS TO KNOW! Silver Lake adds to Dover’s historical and natural charm. As property owners near this local treasure, knowing and understanding the rules that govern the lake will ensure everyone’s safety and the lake’s continued protection! WHAT CAN I DO TO MY PROPERTY/DOCK WHILE THE DAM VALVE IS OPEN?  IF YOU WANT TO REPAIR OR CHANGE YOUR DOCK AND/OR SHORELINE STABILIZATION: First, if you want to make any repairs or changes to any docks, shoreline stabilization structures, or any other structures that are usually below or near the regular water level line, then you will need to obtain a permit from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control’s Wetlands and Waterways Section before any work is initiated. To contact DNREC’s Wetlands and Waterways Section please call 302-739-9943 or visit: https://dnrec.delaware.gov/water/wetlands/  IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE DEAD OR FALLEN TREES: You will also want to speak with someone from DNREC’s Wetlands and Waterways Section if you would like to remove any fallen trees or tree limbs that are on or near the shoreline. To contact DNREC’s Wetlands and Waterways Section please call 302-739-9943 or visit https://dnrec.delaware.gov/water/wetlands/  IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE WEEDS OR OTHER GRASSES: Make sure what you are removing is actually a weed!! Some native plants and grasses may look “weedy” but are actually beneficial to the lake and local wildlife. Having native grasses and plants on your property will actually help you keep the REAL weeds off your property.  IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE LITTER AND TRASH: Please feel free to remove any litter, trash, garbage, or any other refuse that has no business being in a lake! Examples are: glass bottles, anything made of plastic (such as bags and bottles), paper litter, and old tires. Just make sure to properly dispose or recycle the refuse. WHY DO I NEED A PERMIT TO REPAIR OR REMOVE SOMETHING THAT IS ON MY PROPERTY? The State of Delaware protects certain areas that are critical natural resources and habitats, such as rivers, lakes, and wetlands; Silver Lake is one of those protected places. The Lake is a place where many wildlife species (such as birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians) can nest and feed. Therefore, any changes in Silver Lake can cause disturbances to wildlife habitats and water quality. For example, that old rotting tree that fell over 5 years ago may be home to fish and provide your property with erosion protection! The DNREC Wetlands and Waterways Section authorizes activities in Delaware’s tidal wetlands, bays, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and other waterways. Types of activities that could require permits include constructing, repairing, or changing docks and/or placing objects in or near the water to stabilize the shoreline. Please contact the Wetlands and Waterways Section before you perform any modifications to your property. STILL HAVE QUESTIONS? Contact Andy Howard, Division of Watershed Stewardship at 302-739-9939 or by email at Andrew.Howard@delaware.gov.

July 3, 2025 Dear Silver Lake Licensed Boater: Beginning Monday, October 6, 2025, through Friday, October 17, 2025, the City of Dover plans to open the valve on the Silver Lake Dam. As a result of the valve opening, the water level of Silver Lake may visibly be lower. The City of Dover periodically opens the valve in an effort to allow surrounding property owners the opportunity to remove litter from the lake bank and make any approved necessary repairs along the shoreline. The last time the valve was opened for this reason was in October of 2024. During this time period and until the water level of the lake returns to its normal level, boaters should use extreme caution on the lake, and all boating on the lake will be at the risk of each boater. Also, if your boat is docked on Silver Lake, then you may want to make other arrangements for storage. The City of Dover is not responsible for any damage to boats using the lake or boats docked on Silver Lake during this time period. The valve will only be open until October 17, 2025, to ensure that the fish population of the lake will not be disturbed. During this time water levels will be closely monitored. We apologize for any inconvenience that this may_cause, but the end result will be a cleaner and safer lake to enjoy. If you should need more information or have questions or concerns, please contact Carolyn Courtney of the City of Dover Parks & Recreation Department by calling (302) 736-7050 or email at ccourtney@dover.de.us. Cordially, Roger Ridgeway, Director, City of Dover Parks & Recreation Department Cc: Silver Lake Commission Parks & Recreation Community Enhancement Committee Dave Hugg, City Manager Sharon Duca, Asst City Manager Thomas A. Johnson, Chief of Police Mark Nowak, Public Works Director Dawn Melson-Wilson, Principal Planner Andy Howard, Watershed Div. DNREC P.O. Box 475, Dover DE 19903-0475 Communitu Excellence Through Quality Service

The St. Jones Watershed: #18 on map DNREC’s testing shows that this watershed needs to reduce its nonpoint phosphorous and nitrogen loads and phosphorous loads by 40% and its nonpoint bacterial loads by 90%. (Nonpoint means cannot pinpoint precise location of causes.)