48
Forest Lake Watershed Management Plan December 2003 Prepared by: Forest Lake Association Cumberland County Soil & Water Conservation District Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Forest Lake Watershed Management Plan
December 2003
Prepared by: Forest Lake Association
Cumberland County Soil & Water Conservation District Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 4 Overview of Watershed Characteristics 9 Principle Threats to Water Quality 14 Types and Severity of Polluted Runoff in the Watershed 15 Residential Development and Regulations 20 Local Commitment to Lake Protection 22 Public Input and Support 24 Plan Oversight and Evaluation 26 Plan Funding 26 The Action Plan: Water Quality Goals, Objectives and Strategies 27 Appendices Appendix A: Community Forum Evaluations Appendix B: Survey Results and Spreadsheets Appendix C: Erosion Site Maps
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project was funded by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and sponsored by the Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District . A substantial attempt was made to involve the public in the development of the Forest Lake Watershed Management Plan, the details of which are discussed in the plan. In addition to participants at public meetings and respondents to the surveys (some being anonymous) the following individuals made significant contributions to this project: Project Steering Committee: Brad Rounds-Chairman, Forest Lake Association Representative Bob Heyner-Forest Lake Association Representative Ralph Ludington-Forest Lake Association Representative Ralph Johnston-Town of Windham representative Mitch Berkowitz-Town of Gray representative Wendy Garland-Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection Tamara Lee Pinard-Lakes Program Manager-CCSWCD Betty Williams-Project Manager– CCSWCD The following individuals provided comments, and assistance with the development of the plan: Forest Lake Association Mitch Berkowitz-Town of Gray Tony Plante-Town of Windham Bill Shane-Town of Cumberland Contributing Organizations and Institutions: Forest Lake Association Cumberland County Soil & Water Conservation District Town of Gray Town of Cumberland Town of Windham Maine Department of Environmental Protection This project is funded in part by the Maine DEP through a USEPA Nonpoint Source Grant under Section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act.
4
Executive Summary
Overview of the Watershed Management Plan In the spring of 2003, the Forest Lake Association began the process of developing the Forest Lake Watershed Management Plan as part of a grant project funded by the Maine DEP. The goal of this project was to gather local input and devise specific strategies to protect Forest Lake and its water quality for future generations.
The project was guided by a Steering Committee comprised of interested and concerned volunteers from the lake association and watershed community, town representatives, and staff from the Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District and Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The Forest Lake Management Plan has been developed with significant public participation and was centered around a Community Forum that took place in April 2003. During this daylong forum, approximately 50 watershed residents and town leaders discussed watershed trends, prioritized issues, and brainstormed lake protection strategies. The project steering committee and several Action Teams used this input to further refine a series of Action Strategies that appear in this plan.
As with many lakes in Southern Maine, soil erosion and polluted runoff is the greatest threat to Forest Lake. As such, this plan primarily focuses on these issues. The plan outlines strategies to address sources of polluted runoff, raise public awareness and promote lake stewardship. Since the watershed lies in four different towns, the plan also outlines strategies to improve coordination and communication between the towns.
This formal plan will put lake protection in the public eye with the hope that more extensive, proactive conservation will result. The
Management Plan is presented as a living document with the idea that it will be revised periodically and updated to reflect changes that may occur in the watershed in coming years.
5
Some things this Watershed Management Plan is not specifically designed for: • Use as an ordinance, nor must towns formally adopt the plan in order for it to be effective. However, towns in the watershed may choose to incorporate portions of the plan in existing ordinances for future lake protection. • Not a comprehensive conservation plan for the watershed.
Forest Lake Watershed Forest Lake is located in the Towns of Gray, Cumberland, Windham and a small portion in Falmouth in Cumberland County in Southern Maine. The lake is prized for its important fish and wildlife habitat; exceptional opportunities for swimming, boating and fishing; and peace, tranquility and small community feel.
Watershed development consists of about 380 residential homes and an extensive road network, most of which are located within close proximity to the lake. The upper watershed is primarily forested, although there is some scattered residential development and logging activity. In the past decade, several of the lake’s seasonal cottages have been converted to year round housing. Commercial operations in the watershed include an auto repair shop, a water-skiing school and several businesses at service area 56 of the Maine Turnpike.
Forest Lake has a surface area of 210 acres, a maximum depth of 38 feet and an average depth of 12 feet with a flushing rate of 1.4 flushes per year. The direct watershed covers three square miles and the lake serves as the headwaters to the Piscataqua River, which then flows into the Presumpscot River and ultimately Casco Bay.
A watershed is all the land surrounding a lake or waterbody that drains or sheds its water into the lake through streams, ditches, directly over the ground surface or through ground water.
The Forest Lake Watershed covers 3 square miles or 1913 acres.
Gray
Cumberland
Windham
6
Water Quality Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) biologists and local volunteers have monitored Forest Lake’s water quality for over 27 years. In general, the lake’s water quality is considered to be slightly above average based on secchi disk transparency, total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a measurements. However, data also indicates that the lake may be under stress. According to the DEP, there is moderate potential for nuisance algal blooms, moderate oxygen depletion in deep areas of the lake, and moderate risk of phosphorus recycling problems (MDEP files, 2000).
Forest Lake’s water quality is threatened by polluted runoff that washes into the lake from its surrounding watershed. Phosphorus and eroding soil, in particular, pose the greatest threats to the lake since they essentially “fertilize” the lake and drive a series of events that can lead to lake decline. As a result of these threats and early warning signs, Forest Lake has been placed on the state’s NPS Priority Watershed list and the State’s list of lakes Most at Risk from New Development under the Maine Stormwater Law.
Local Commitment to Lake Protection The Forest Lake Association has undertaken and been involved in several projects in the past 10 to 15 years that were intended to help the public better understand the threats to
Forest Lake’s water quality . The development of the management plan was viewed as the logical next step in the process of long-term protection of the lake.
The quality of life and the value of water quality on Forest Lake has taken on new meaning for residents of the watershed since the Community Watershed Forum was held. The daylong event brought together seasonal and year-round lake residents, town officials, non-resident lake users, and business owners to discuss the future of Forest Lake.
Forest Lake is considered a warm water fishery with a state record sized small mouth bass landed in 1998. Pickerel, golden shiners,
common shiners, creek chubs and pumpkinseed sunfish make up the
Forest Lake fishery.
“The Forest Lake Association endeavors to maintain the quality of the lake water, along with the quality of life within the watershed. The association also endeavors to improve the feeling of community for a lake watershed shared by
four towns.”
7
The watershed management plan consists of a single water quality goal and six objectives, each of which includes several strategies:
Goal To maintain or improve the overall water quality and quality of life in the Forest Lake Watershed.
Objectives 1. Eliminate or reduce existing sources of polluted stormwater
runoff, and prevent future problems from occurring throughout the watershed.
2. Implement long term strategies for raising public awareness, and inform the watershed communities about lake and watershed protection practices. Build consensus to promote sustainable watershed management and stewardship.
3. To improve coordination and communication between the three major towns in the Forest Lake Watershed in an effort to ensure consistent code and law enforcement and uniform watershed regulations.
4. Pursue financial resources necessary to implement the objectives of the watershed management plan.
5. Audit the effectiveness of the watershed management plan and make periodic changes or adjustments as required.
6. Continue to monitor the quality of Forest Lake.
8
Forest Lake Watershed
9
Overview of Watershed Characteristics
The Watershed The direct watershed of Forest Lake encompasses an area of 3 square miles or 1913 acres. The lake serves as the headwaters to the Piscataqua River, which then flows into the Presumpscot River and ultimately Casco Bay. The Towns of Gray, Cumberland and Windham each has frontage on the lake and comprises a significant portion of the watershed. A small portion of the lower watershed is also located in the Town of Falmouth. Land Use Watershed development consists mainly of about 380 residential homes and an extensive road network, most of which are located in close proximity to the lake. The shoreline has been heavily developed and there is also a second tier of homes around much of the lake. The upper watershed is primarily forested, although there is some scattered residential development and logging activity. Commercial operations in the watershed include an auto repair shop, a water skiing school and several businesses at service area 56 of the Maine Turnpike. The land use percentages are shown in the chart below.
Forest Lake Watershed Land Use
Forested85%
Wetlands10%
Residential3%
Commercial & Roads
2%
10
Natural Features Forest Lake features include three feeder streams on the west shore and three islands. The southern end of the lake features a Drumlin glacial feature and the soil is a hardpan layer of marine silts and clays. Forest Lake Watershed sits on the edge of a large aquifer that flows in a southerly direction. This aquifer serves a number of wells in the area and it is important to be sensitive to pollutants that can infiltrate and affect the entire system. The western portion of the watershed has been identified as prime undeveloped habitat blocks that are at least 500 feet away from development and improved roads. Two large wetland areas exist in the western portion of the watershed that incorporate important habitat used by waterfowl and wading birds. Equally important is a significant 200 + acre parcel that is used as a deer wintering area that lies between the wetland areas. Topography The surface elevation of the lake is 276 feet. The watershed topography varies, but the majority of the land is moderately sloped. The lake shoreline is steeply sloped on the southern side of the lake and moderately sloped elsewhere. Steep slopes are associated with Atherton Hill on the western boundary of the watershed and Dutton Hill at the northern edge. Soil Types The soil types and slopes in the watershed have important implications for water quality. Land areas with steep slopes (greater than 15-20%), or poorly drained soils are less likely to absorb or retain polluted runoff from developed or disturbed areas before it reaches the lake. Steep slopes also have a greater potential for soil erosion. The following general soil associations are found in the watershed located in Cumberland County (Source: Soil Survey of Cumberland County Area, Maine; 1995; USDA, SCS). These are general soil associations. Specific soil types and slopes are highly variable throughout the watershed. Planning decisions for development in the watershed should be based on site-specific soil and slope analysis. • Hermon-Hinckley: The most predominant soil type in the watershed is the
Hermon-Hinckley types that are sandy loam soils while excellent for infiltration are poor soils for growing vegetation that needs moist fertile soils. Native plant species should be encouraged in these areas. Deep well drained to excessively drained, gently sloping to very steep soils that are moderately course textured.
11
• Hollis: Shallow to bedrock with outcrops, somewhat excessively drained, gently sloping to steep, moderately coarse textured soils that have few to many outcrops is found in the northernmost part of the watershed.
• Canaan: Steep, dominantly wooded and hilly areas. Depth to bedrock is about 16
inches. Runoff is medium to rapid and available water capacity is low. A small pocket of this soil type exists at the southwestern corner of the lake.
• Deerfield: This soil is found on terraces. Runoff tends to be slow, and available
water capacity is low, though moisture is generally ample for most of growing season due to seasonal high water table. Small area found along the southwest shore of the lake.
• Sebago Mucky Peat: This soil appears in basins of old glacial lakes, old marine
estuaries and in upland depressions throughout the county. Runoff is very slow and is generally saturated throughout the year. Area provides food and shelter for wildlife a few trees have commercial value. These soils are associated with the wetlands that extend from the southeast corner of the lake east to the turnpike and along portions of stream channels.
Most of shoreline has moderate to severe limitations with regard to suitability of septic systems due to high drainage rates from coarse soils and/or steep slopes and high water tables in portions of the western and southern shoreline. Fish & Wildlife Forest Lake supports a warm water fishery that includes pickerel, brown trout, golden shiners, common shiners, creek chubs and pumpkinseed sunfish. A state record sized
small mouth bass was landed in 1998. The watershed also supports a wide diversity of wildlife habitat including pheasant, black duck, woodcock, loon, heron, beaver, mink, otter, muskrat, deer, grouse and red fox. There is approximately 200 + acres in the western portion of the watershed that is prime deer wintering habitat. Waterfowl and wading birds utilize the wetlands also located in the western side of the watershed.
12
The Lake
Physical Characteristics and Principal Uses Forest Lake covers an area of 210 acres. The deepest area of the lake is about 38 feet and is situated at the southeastern side of the lake. The average depth of the lake is approximately 12 feet. The natural flushing rate (how often the water in the entire lake is replaced) is about 1—1.4 flushes per year. The lakes sits on the edge of a major aquifer, with several springs located on the bottom near the south end of the lake. Forest Lake sits in the Towns of Windham, Cumberland and Gray and has no public access. The lake community is a “community within itself” and provides landowners with many opportunities for swimming, boating, fishing and aesthetic enjoyment. The shoreline is moderately developed with approximately 380 homes. Some of these are summer camps but most are now year round homes.
Water Quality
Summary The Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program (VLMP) and the Maine DEP collaborate to collect lake data, evaluate present water quality, track algal blooms, and determine water quality trends. Data has been collected on Forest Lake since 1974 with the exception of several missing years until 1991. Since that time, data has been collected consistently each year by volunteers trained by the Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program. Forest Lake’s water quality meets state standards and is considered to be slightly above average, based on measures of Secchi disk transparency, total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a. However, dissolved oxygen profiles show moderate DO depletion in the deep areas of the lake, which indicates that the lake is under some stress. The potential for total phosphorus to leave the bottom sediments and become available to fertilize algae in the water column (providing fuel for an algal bloom) is moderate. The potential for nuisance algae blooms is also moderate.
13
Monitoring Parameters
Transparency or clarity is measured by using a Secchi disk. The Secchi disk is lowered into the water and slowly raised to the surface and measured at which point the disk is seen. Clarity is the distance one can see down into the water. Transparency is influenced by the amount of algae growing, the natural color and by suspended sediments in the water. Transparency is one of the best indicators of overall lake water quality. Readings are taken in meters with the Forest Lake average being 4.9 meters (16 feet) over a ten year period. As such, Forest Lake lies within the moderately productive range of 4-7 meters. Lakes less than 4 meters are considered productive or rich in nutrients and algae.
Color refers to the concentration of natural dissolved organic acids, such as tannins or lignins which give the water a tea color. On a scale of 0-250, Forest Lake measures around 20, which indicates that it is a non-colored lake.
pH is the measure that determines the acidity or how basic the water is and also helps determine which type of plant and animal species are present. The measure is 1-14, with 7 being neutral. Lower numbers mean more acidity and higher numbers mean more basic. Forest Lake measures 6.2 and the trend over the past few years is more towards being acidic.
Total Phosphorus is one of the major nutrients needed for plant growth. It is a naturally occurring element and can be found in the atmosphere, septic waste, manure and pet waste, fertilizers and soil erosion. If phosphorus increases, then the amount of algae increases and can lead to nuisance algae blooms. The Forest Lake range is 6-12 parts per billion with an average of 8 parts per billion, which is considered average or moderately productive. Levels over 15 ppb can support algal blooms.
Chlorophyll A is the measurement of the green pigment found in all plants including microscopic ones like algae. The higher the amount of Chlorophyll A in the lake the more likelihood of an algal bloom. Readings can average from .3 ppb to 60.0 ppb. Forest Lake has averaged 4.8 ppb over the past several years, which lies again in the moderately productive range of 2-7 ppb.
Alkalinity is a measure of the capacity of the water to neutralize acids. It is due primarily to the presence of naturally available bicarbonate and other ions. It varies
14
from 1-158 milligrams per liter. Total Alkalinity readings of less than 10 open the door to pH swings from rain storms and the like. Forest Lake average reading was between 10-15 mg/l.
Water Quality Trends Historical transparency data indicates a drop in clarity for a brief time period during the mid 1990’s, but recent data indicates that transparency is relatively clearer. The DEP has not detected any statistically significant positive or negative trends over the past decade. At this time, water quality appears to be stable.
Principle Threat to Water Quality
Forest Lake’s water quality is threatened primarily by nonpoint source pollution or pol-luted runoff that washes into the lake from its surrounding watershed. Phosphorus and eroding soil pose the greatest threats to the lake. As a result of this, Forest Lake has been placed on the state’s NPS Priority Watersheds list and the State’s list of lakes Most at Risk from New Development under the Maine Stormwater Law. The shoreline has been heavily developed and a second tier of homes already exists as well. Many of the lake’s seasonal camps have been converted to year round homes, and new homes continue to be built in the watershed each year.
Depth 1974 1977 1981 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
1 m 2 m 3 m 4 m XXXX XXXX XXXX 5 m XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 6 m XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 7 m 8 m
SURFACE
A Historical Look at Transparency
= Average reading for year = Entire year range
XXXX
15
Types and Severity of Polluted Runoff in the Watershed
Soil Erosion Soil erosion is the primary source of pollution to our streams and lakes. Soil is carried into lakes by rainwater and snowmelt. When houses, roads and lawns replace trees, shrubs and natural terrain, the quantity of water traveling over the landscape increases. This leads to soil erosion from roads, driveways and residential areas. The nutrient, phosphorus, is naturally attached to soil particles. Phosphorus “fertilizes” lakes, and can lead to declines in water clarity, nuisance algae blooms and loss of coldwater fish habitat.
In 2002, the Forest Lake Association conducted a survey with help from local volunteers and technical staff to identify, document and prioritize existing erosion sources in the watershed. The project was funded in part by the Maine DEP through a USEPA Nonpoint Source Grant under Section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act.
Erosion problems are present in all types of land uses, including residential property, private roads, beach and boat access and driveways alike. The survey looked at all disturbed areas in the watershed. Most problems were near the shoreline and on roads. There is a history of logging in the upper watershed, but no active erosion issues were found.
In total, 112 erosion sites were identified. Over half of the problems identified were found on residential properties (61 sites) and most could be fixed with relatively little expense and technical expertise. Private roads (25 sites) and driveways (19 sites) were also significant contributors. About 2/3 of the problems may be causing significant impact to the lake, meaning that they were rated as having moderate or high impact to the lake.
2002 Watershed Survey Land Uses Associated with Identified Problems
Boat Access
1%
Driveway17%
Private Road 22%
Beach Access
5%
Residential55%
16
17
Residential Areas Common residential problems included moderate surface erosion, lack of vegetated buffers, direct flow of runoff to lake, roof runoff causing erosion and no erosion controls at construction sites. Most problems would be easily addressed with little cost or technical expertise. A total of 61 residential sites were identified and over half were medium to low impact. Private Roads Private, unpaved roads are well known in and around the state for their contribution of sediment to lakes and streams. It is estimated that approximately 85% of all erosion and sedimentation problems in lake watersheds come from improperly constructed and maintained roads. The Forest Lake Watershed Survey identified 25 private road sites that are either old, poorly constructed, or minimally maintained. Unstable road surfaces, eroding ditches and culverts that are too small and not reinforced have the potential to deposit polluted runoff that contains phosphorus, salt, sediment, oil and gas residue into the lake. Maintenance of private roads is key to reducing polluted runoff. A well organized Road Association that participates in routine maintenance procedures can enhance the life of the road and save money. Unfortunately, there are many roads that do not have organized associations and rely on a few local residents to do a short term, band-aid fix of the problems.
Lack of vegetated buffer, shoreline degradation.
Lack of erosion controls and vegetated buffer at construction site.
18
Driveways Nineteen driveways were identified in the Watershed Survey with two identified as a high impact to the lake. Most sites could be repaired for little cost and technical expertise. Poor surface material and shaping were the cause of many problems.
Proper crowning and water diverters such as waterbars, open top culverts or rubber razor blades can get water off the driveway quickly and minimize erosion.
Beach and Boat Access The lake has several private beach and boat access, which are used year round by recreational boaters, fishermen and residents. Six beach sites and one boat site were identified as having medium to high impact on the lake. Possible solutions include: re-grading, shaping road, install turnouts, ditches, runoff diverters and planting vegetated buffers.
Left: Poor driveway shaping; water has caused ruts to concentrate and erode the surface. Solution: Add new surface material, shape and crown driveway so water moves quickly from the surface off to the sides. Waterbars can be installed to divert water into vegetated buffers.
Above: Eroding sand and sediments are washing down boat access.
Solution: Install waterbars and divert water into vegetated area.
The huge delta pictured at left is the result of erosion from a private road. This is a perfect example of the large impact private roads can have on lake water quality.
19
Septic Systems Failing septic systems are known contributors of polluted runoff in watersheds throughout the State. As in many watersheds, citizens believed it could be a significant contributor to Forest Lake. A septic system survey was conducted in 2002 to assess the functionality of the sewage disposal systems in the watershed. The survey was sent to all watershed property owners asking about how they disposed of wastes, what the age of the system was, how often the system is pumped out to name just a few. 152 surveys were returned of the 421 mailed out. The older the system is, the more prone it is to failure. The survey indicated that 17% of the households responding to the survey have systems over 20 and 30 years old, and 20% of the systems were of unknown age to the owners. The issue should be addressed through continued education about septic maintenance practices and the availability of State grants to replace inadequate systems through the Small Community Grants Program.
Conclusions Regarding Old Septic Systems
• Of the 30 systems that were >20 years old, 23 were in close proximity to the shoreline.
• Of these 23 near-lake systems: • Half are seasonal & half are year-round • Average number of occupants = 2.6 • Average system installation date = 1970 • Average distance of leach field to lake = 140 feet • Average date of last pumpout = 1998 (over 5 years) • Most importantly—all of these systems have soils with moderate
to very severe limitations for septic system suitability.
• 35 additional surveys had systems of unknown age
Overall Septic System Conclusions
• Aging systems are a major issue—especially due to soil limitations.
• Maintenance doesn’t seem to be a major issue. 69% of respondents had pumped within the last 5 years.
20
Shoreline Development Buffers of shrubs and trees are important for keeping polluted runoff from entering lakes. Deep shrub and tree roots also help hold the shoreline soils in place. The groundcover plants and duff layer (leaves, pine needles, etc.) help slow runoff, trap sediments and recycle nutrients.
Due to these important water quality benefits, a shoreline buffer survey was conducted in September 2002. Five volunteers on a boat assessed the length, width and composition of vegetated buffers on the shoreline. Of the 176 lots surveyed, only 18 lots were undeveloped and or in natural growth state. Well over half the properties (62.5%) had inadequate shoreline buffers, and numerous lakeshore properties had little or no vegetation at the water’s edge.
Total Number of lots surveyed 176 Developed lots 158 89.8% Lots on steep slope>15% 31 17.6% Inadequate Shoreline buffer 110 62.5% bare soil evident 38 21.6% riprap evident 33 18.8% good vegetation present 68 38.6%
• Buffers can be installed inexpensively.
• You can either stop mowing and raking to the water’s edge and let plants grow up naturally—or you can plant the area with native trees and shrubs.
• Buffers enhance the appearance of shorefront property and attract birds and other wildlife, without ruining the landowner’s view.
21
Residential Development and Regulations Existing Laws There are several laws and ordinances in place to protect water quality. They include the following. Natural Resource Protection Act (NRPA) The Natural Resource Protection Act is administered by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The law: • Regulates activities within 75 feet of lakes and streams. • Prohibits activities such as adding sand to beaches and provides specific
standards for allowable activities to limit erosion.
Shortcomings: • Due to inadequate staffing at MDEP, this law is not proactively enforced.
Most often, MDEP is involved only when a citizen complaint has been filed. Erosion and Sedimentation Control The Erosion and Sediment Control Law is administered by MDEP and can be enforced by both MDEP and the towns.
The law: • Requires erosion controls (such as silt fence and mulch) at new construction
sites to prohibit any soil or sediment from moving off site (and subsequently into water resources).
• Intended to protect water quality protection.
Shortcomings: • A 2003 statewide study found that 43% of the surveyed construction sites had
no erosion controls in place and 56% of all surveyed sites were not in compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control law.
• Due to inadequate staffing at MDEP, this law is not proactively enforced. Most often, MDEP is involved only when a citizen complaint has been filed.
• Since MDEP prioritizes the sites for enforcement action based on a field assessment of potential impact to a water resource, enforcement to the full extent of this law is not being realized. Therefore, water quality protection, as provided for under this law, is not being realized.
22
Shoreland Zoning The Shoreland Zoning Law has minimum statewide standards that have been established by MDEP. The law is administered at the municipal level and MDEP provides technical support. As such, the Towns of Windham, Gray and Cumberland all have Shoreland Zoning Ordinances.
The ordinance: • The shoreland zone includes land within 250 feet of the edge of the lake and
75 feet from the edge of streams that drain to the lake. • The Shoreland Zoning law is meant to help protect water quality, fish
spawning grounds, bird and wildlife habitat. • The law also regulates the type and extent of development in land areas
situated closely to the lake so water quality is not degraded and natural areas are preserved.
Shortcomings: • With so much development occurring and so many ordinances that Municipal
Code Enforcement Officers are responsible for, shoreland zoning is not enforced at the level necessary to protect water quality.
• One of the areas addressed in the original Shoreland Zoning Ordinance was Erosion and Sediment Control (E&S). However, few towns ever required E & S plans until Windham initiated such a program in 1998. Property owners and/or their contractors must now submit plans that demonstrate where measures will be used to minimize or eliminate soil erosion during construction.
Surface Water Quality Protection The Town of Windham passed and adopted a Surface Water Quality Protection Ordinance in 2002. This ordinance will help minimize soil erosion from small projects that are the most prevalent type of construction around Forest Lake.
The ordinance applies to: • All activities involving filling, grading, excavating and other soil disturbance
that requires a town permit and a written Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. It applies to most projects with >500 sf net impervious area.
Shortcomings: • Only the Town of Windham has this ordinance. Therefore, there is no
consistency between the town standards for the Forest Lake Watershed. The Towns of Cumberland and Gray are both working to adopt a similar ordinance.
23
Future Development Potential exists for future development in the Forest Lake Watershed. There is high projected growth in the watershed towns for the next 25 years: Cumberland—29%, Windham—24%, and Gray—5%. Assuming 20% growth in watershed, this would mean an additional 76 homes over the next 25 years—a minimum of three new homes each year. Based on current trends, much of this development would likely take place near shoreline areas. Comprehensive plans for each shoreline town have been updated in the past year. All contain an understanding of water quality threats and action items such as inter-municipal coordination on shared lakes. The following is the breakdown of watershed zoning per shoreline town:
Windham-All watershed is zoned rural with minimum lot size of 80,000 sq. ft.
Gray-All watershed is zoned Lake District with minimum lot size of 80,000 sq. ft.
Cumberland-All watershed is zoned Medium Density Residential with minimum lot size of 2 acres (87,120 sq ft ).
Local Government Support
The three major Forest Lake watershed municipalities have all assured support for the health and protection of Forest Lake. The Town of Windham has instituted a Surface Water Quality Protection Ordinance that regulates surface water pollution from construction sites. The Towns of Cumberland and Gray are committed to adopting a similar ordinance within their towns. The three towns will formally come together in the spring of 2004 to regionalize a surface water quality protection ordinance for the Forest Lake Watershed. These three towns have supported numerous community water quality protection projects through in-kind and cash match. The Town of Gray includes a line item in their budget for lake protection while the Town of Windham continues to support the Youth Conservation Corps with interest in expanding the program to other lakes in the community.
Local Commitment to Lake Protection
As early as the 1940’s, summer residents formed a loosely organized group to address issues concerning Forest Lake (formerly known as Goose Pond). In 1963 the Forest Lake Association was formed in response to the failure of the wooden dam on the lake in 1961.
The Association was formed for the purpose of promoting social and civic activities and assisting in neighborhood improvements. The lake association became inactive from 1985-1990. In 1991, the lake association was revived and became an active
24
force again with the help of lake residents. Three residents became certified for lake testing at this time and monitoring has continued ever since. The Forest Lake Association now has 88 members and is guided by a volunteer Board of Directors.
In 1979 the Forest Lake Association and the Towns of Windham, Gray and Cumberland spearheaded a $25,000 grant aimed at making septic corrections starting with dye testing through Peoples Regional Opportunity Program. The first watershed survey was conducted in 1994, funded by Maine Department of Environmental Protection and followed by a Septic survey to assess if septic systems pose a risk to the lake.
The Forest Lake Association has produced and published the Forest Lake News, an informative biannual newsletter for the past 15 years. The newsletter has been an effective educational tool for serving the public and helping them understand issues and concerns pertaining to the lake. The Forest Lake Association also works with the Maine Congress of Lake Associations and other grassroots organizations to support statewide legislation to protect lake water quality.
Forest Lake Association has undertaken and been involved in several projects in the past 10 to 15 years that were intended to help the public better understand the primary threat to water quality of Forest Lake. The development of this management plan was viewed as the logical next step in the process of long-term protection of the lake.
1971 Water quality monitoring began on Forest Lake Sponsored by: Forest Lake Association
1991 Three lake residents become certified lake monitors and water quality monitoring resumed after a brief cessation.
Sponsored by: Forest Lake Association
1994 Forest Lake Watershed Survey Sponsored by: Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection, FLA
1994 Camp Road Workshops, Vegetated Buffer Workshop and Septic Management Workshop held
Sponsored by: Casco Bay Estuary Project, FLA
1996 Forest Lake Association conducts and funds bacterial testing on annual basis
Forest Lake Association
2002 Start of Watershed Management Plan Project Sponsored by: CCSWCD, FLA and MDEP
2002 Watershed Survey, Shoreline Survey, Septic Survey completed
Sponsored by: CCSWCD, FLA and MDEP
2003 Community Watershed Forum held Sponsored by: CCSWCD, FLA and MDEP
“The Forest Lake Association endeavors to maintain the quality of the lake water, along with the
quality of life within the watershed. The association also endeavors to improve the feeling
of community for a lake watershed shared by four towns.”
Events Leading to the Development of the Watershed Management Plan
25
Public Input and Support The following approaches were used to solicit public involvement in the development of the watershed management plan.
Steering Committee The Forest Lake Project Steering Committee was formed consisting of members from the Forest Lake Association, the Cumberland County Soil & Water Conservation District and the Maine DEP. The committee met several times throughout the project to help guide and develop the Management Plan. The Steering Committee’s commitment was evident throughout the entire process. From the survey, to the Community Forum, to writing of the Management Plan, itself, the committee volunteered countless hours to ensure success of each project element.
Community Watershed Forum A highly successful Community Watershed Forum1 was held at the Val Halla Country Club in Cumberland on April 12, 2003 with 48 community participants in attendance including municipal representation from Gray, Cumberland and Windham. The daylong event brought together seasonal and year-round lake residents, town officials, non-resident lake users, and business owners to discuss the future of Forest Lake. The goals of the Community Forum were to:
• Inform participants of watershed work to date.
• Increase participants understanding
of issues and trends in the watershed.
• Form Action Groups to flesh out the
ideas generated at the forum and integrate them into the Watershed Management Plan.
Forum participants brainstorm ideas.
“Hold a forum like this every couple of years. Keep the watershed residents up to date and informed about this information and any new information.”
Jen Hughes, Forum Participant and Watershed Resident
26
Action Groups Action Groups were formed to further develop the outcomes of the forum. 18 community members volunteered to participate in the Action Groups. Four groups were created to focus on the following topics:
• Group #1 – Water Quality/Erosion/Septics/Roads • Group #2 – Code Compliance/Enforcement/Reporting violators • Group #3 – Boating/Wildlife/Invasive Aquatic Plants/Quality of Life • Group #4 – Education/Lake Association
The goals and objectives of this management plan are the direct result of the hard work of community forum and action group participants.
Public Comment The draft plan was available for public viewing and comment at the Town of Cumberland’s website, and by request via email. Steering Committee members and watershed Town Managers were provided a draft copy for review.
When forum participants looked at what they valued about the lake, some thought about the present, and some thought about what they want to pass on to the next generation of lake residents. The top values, in order of importance:
1. Clear, clean water 2. Wildlife 3. Property values 4. Peace, tranquility and quiet 5. Lake Associations’ leadership
Youngest forum participant
27
Plan Oversight and Evaluation
If efforts are not taken to reduce existing polluted runoff sources and to minimize the development of future sources, Forest Lake’s water quality could decline. Steps have been identified in this Management Plan to tackle erosion problems. The strong community commitment already in place will help to address numerous issues in the watershed. A Forest Lake Watershed Council will be formed to guide and oversee the implementation of the Watershed Management Plan. The council will consist of representatives from the Forest Lake Association, the three municipalities and local watershed residents.
• The Council will gather the stakeholders semi-annually to review the success of the Plan and on-the-ground efforts to date and develop an annual workplan.
• Workplan tasks will be conducted by Forest Lake Association, committees,
volunteers and town municipal workgroup. Staff from the Cumberland Co. Soil & Water Conservation District will provide technical assistance and take the lead on several items under the 319 grant starting in April 2004.
Plan Funding
The Towns of Windham, Gray and Cumberland, the Forest Lake Association and local residents will all contribute financial and in-kind contributions toward the implementation of the Watershed Management Plan. A detailed funding plan has already been outlined through 2008. The Watershed Council will revisit and update as needed.
The Forest Lake Association and the Watershed Council are committed to funding the efforts outlined in the plan. Forest Lake Association realizes that this is not feasible at current membership and income levels. As such, they plan to approach their membership at their 2004 annual meeting to get input on fund raising strategies including; • raising lake association dues, • recruiting additional members, • conducting a capital campaign and • seeking Federal tax exempt status and applying for additional grants. In addition to local funding sources, a Clean Water Act, Section 319 grant has been awarded to the Forest Lake Watershed to carry out several items in the Plan. This grant will extend two years beginning in April of 2004.
28
The Action Plan: Water Quality Goal, Objectives and Strategies
The action plan consists of a single goal for protecting water quality, several objectives and specific strategies or plans for each objective. The time frame in which each are carried out, responsible entities and approximate costs to implement each strategy are also outlined for each strategy. Resources will also be shown as available help to implement some of the strategies.
Water Quality Goal
To maintain or improve the overall water quality and quality of life in the Forest Lake Watershed.
Objectives:
1. Eliminate or reduce existing sources of polluted stormwater runoff,
and prevent future problems from occurring throughout the watershed.
2. Implement long term strategies for raising public awareness, and inform the watershed communities about lake and watershed protection practices. Build consensus to promote sustainable watershed management and stewardship.
3. To improve coordination and communication between the three towns in the Forest Lake Watershed in an effort to ensure consistent code and law enforcement and uniform watershed-regional regulations.
4. Pursue financial resources necessary to implement the objectives of the watershed management plan.
5. Audit the effectiveness of the watershed management plan and make periodic changes or adjustments as required.
6. Continue to monitor the water quality of Forest Lake.
29
Action Plan Strategies Objective #1: Eliminate or reduce existing sources of pol-
luted stormwater runoff, and prevent future problems from occurring throughout the watershed.
Action Schedule Partners Cost Priority: HIGHEST
1. Initiate Watershed Stewards Pro-gram. 20 residents will receive training in establishing buffers, installing conservation practices and general lake stewardship and then do volunteer service in the watershed.
2004 Implemen-tation Grant
2004-06
CCSWCD, FLA and University of
Maine Cooperative Extension
$1,081 Grant $4,500 Match $5,581 Total
2. Provide technical assistance vis-its for 10 landowners and road associations.
2004 Implemen-tation Grant
2004-06
CCSWCD & DEP $5,502 Grant $3,525 Match $9,027 Total
3. Prioritize and fix 11 identified
high or medium erosion sites in the watershed through the grant.
Fix an additional 2 sites per year after the grant.
2004 Implemen-tation Grant
2004-06
FLA
CCSWCD
FLA
$29,142 Grant $16,510 Match $45,652 Total
$1,500 Total
4. Distribute Watershed Survey in-formation back to residents with identified erosion problem sites.
2004 FLA and Volunteers
$150 Total
5. Encourage and develop Camp Road Network and hold annual in-formation/networking meetings.
2004 and yearly Volunteers and CCSWCD
$3,600
6. Develop road improvement and maintenance plans for each private road.
2004 Implemen-tation Grant
2004-06
Volunteers and CCSWCD
$2,400
7. Establish a buffer cost sharing program.
2004 Implemen-tation Grant
2004-06
CCSWCD and vol-unteers
$3,754 Grant $6,550 Match $10,304 Total
Priority: HIGH
1. Update and groundtruth Water-shed Survey every three years
2006 Volunteers $750 worth of vol-unteer hours
30
Action Schedule Partners Cost Priority: HIGHEST 1. Host Forest Lake Association Annual Meeting.
Yearly FLA $170 Total
2. Publish Forest Lake Association news-letter (3 times per year) to help keep com-munity informed about lake issues and grant project and opportunities.
Two times/year FLA $900 match
Priority: HIGH 1. Conduct “Dock to Dock” Survey and dis-tribute educational information on a Forest Lake Ice Cream Boat.
2004 & yearly Volunteer Service & FLA
$2,800 Total
Priority: MEDIUM 1. Post Watershed Boundary Signs. 2007 FLA $500 Total
Objective 2: Implement long term strategies for raising public awareness and inform the watershed communities about lake and
watershed protection practices. Build consensus to promote sustain-able watershed management and stewardship.
2. Post a Forest Lake Association Web-site. Update and maintain with survey, For-est Lake Association and Management Plan information.
2004 & yearly FLA $3,870 Total
3. Create Forest Lake Association Logo 2004 FLA $100 Total 4. Create Shoreline Handbook based on Highland Lake Living Guide.
2006 FLA $1,500 Total
5. Develop list of suggested native buffer plants and sources.
2004 Volunteers $250 Total
6. Promote more wildlife by building a loon platform.
2005 Volunteers $600 Total
7. Develop a boat cleaning station in the Town of Cumberland to prevent infestation of invasive aquatic plants.
2005 Volunteers & FLA $1,250 Total
2. Create refrigerator magnets listing key contact numbers.
2007 Volunteers & FLA $650 Total
3. Assemble and distribute Shoreline Handbook with FLA logo, magnet, native buffer list in a Welcome Packet for new resi-dents.
2007& yearly Volunteers & FLA $2,325 Total
Priority: Low 1. Host area Lake Association Meeting 2006 FLA $2000 Total
4. Promote a sense of community and quality of life awareness with a “Lake Fair”.
2007 & yearly Volunteers & FLA Action Group
$2,500 Total
5. Develop signage around watershed to enhance awareness of wildlife, invasive plants and lake stewardship.
2007 Volunteers & FLA Action Group
$1,400 Total
31
Objective 3: To improve coordination and communication between the three towns in the Forest Lake Watershed in an effort to ensure
consistent code and law enforcement and uniform watershed re-gional regulations.
Action Schedule Partners Cost
Priority: HIGHEST
1. Form tri-town municipal work-group with watershed residents and municipal officials, code enforcement staff with the intent to meet on a twice yearly basis.
2004 Imple-mentation
Grant
CCSWCD, Towns of Gray, Windham and Cumberland,
FLA, residents
$2,125 Grant $2,820 Match $4,945 Total
2. Analyze existing town ordinances and develop specific recommenda-tions to improve water quality protec-tion and promote uniformity between towns.
2004 Imple-mentation
Grant
CCSWCD, The Towns of Gray, Windham and Cum-
berland, FLA, residents
$2,125 Grant $2,820 Match $4,945 Total
Objective 4: Pursue the financial resources necessary to implement the objectives of the watershed management
plan.
Action Schedule Partners Cost
Priority: HIGHEST
1. Forest Lake Association will de-velop strategies to raise funds and seek funding to support specific ele-ments of the Watershed Manage-ment Plan objectives. Strategies to include raising membership num-bers, and seeking outside grants while pursuing their 501c 3 status.
2004 & yearly FLA $1,500 Total
2. Forest Lake Association will col-laborate with three towns to secure long term funding for the support of the Watershed Management Plan.
2005 FLA $300 Total
32
Objective 5: Audit the effectiveness of the watershed man-agement plan and make periodic changes or adjustments
as required. Priority: Highest Schedule Partners Cost
1. The Watershed Council representa-tives will meet twice yearly to review and evaluate the plan and activities taking place and develop annual workplans.
2004 & bi-annually
FLA $250 Total
Objective 6: Continue to monitor the water quality of Forest Lake
Action Schedule Partners Cost
Priority: HIGHEST
1. Forest Lake will continue to be moni-tored to assess current conditions and long-term trends in water quality, in ac-cordance with procedures and methods that have been historically used to as-sess the lake trophic state (Secchi trans-parency, total phosphorus, pH, Alkalin-ity, Chlorophyll A and bacteria).
2004 & yearly FLA, DEP $4000 Total
33
Community Watershed Forum Evaluations
To conclude the Community Forum, participants were asked to complete forum evaluations. Of the 32 participants that
completed evaluations, overall comments were positive. Questions included what they liked/disliked, what and how will they use what they have learned, how they rated the forum proceedings, and what did we need to do to continue the momentum. Participants thought the forum was well organized, informational and worth attending. Many thought this was an excellent way to keep the community informed on watershed issues, while some felt it was a way for them to become involved in their community. Several evaluations reflected the idea of “Annual Community Watershed Forums” as a way to keep momentum going. The majority of participants agreed that follow-up Action Groups would be instrumental in keeping momentum alive. The resulting Action Groups met independently throughout the
summer months to further develop objectives and strategies to help protect the water quality of Forest Lake.
Appendix A
34
Survey Results and Spreadsheets
Key Findings: • Most of the problems were
found on residential • Most of the problems can
be fixed with little expense or technical expertise. Plants, mulch and other simple solutions can go a long way towards protect-ing the lake.
• About 2/3 of the problems may be causing significant impact to the lake
Potential Impact of Problems There were similar numbers of sites with low, medium and high impacts. Attention should be paid to all of the sites, since it’s the cumulative impact of all the sites that causes water quality to decline.
Low– eroding site with limited transport off site, or small site with no evidence of rills or gullies Medium—sediment transported off site but does not reach high magnitude High– Large area with significant erosion and direct flow to stream, ditch or lake
Cost to Implement Recommendations • Low—less than $500
• Medium—$500 to $2,500
• High—more than $2,500
Survey Land Use Types
Residential55%
Beach Access
5%Private Road 22%
Driveway17%
Boat Access
1%
Low
High
Medium
Cost to Install
High
Low
Medium
Appendix B
35 Map
ID D
B ID
#
Sect
or &
Si
te #
La
nd U
se
Type
of p
robl
em
Are
a
Affe
cted
R
ecom
men
datio
ns
Impa
ct o
f Pr
oble
ms
Tech
nica
l Le
vel t
o In
stal
l
Cos
t to
In-
stal
l
1PR
34
9 1
#1
Priv
ate
Roa
d M
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on,
dire
ct fl
ow to
lake
75
x 4
B
uild
up
road
and
cro
wn;
inst
all
turn
outs
Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
15R
36
1 1
#10
Res
iden
tial
Mod
erat
e su
rface
ero
sion
an
d di
rect
flow
to la
ke
in
stal
l ser
ies
of c
heck
dam
s;
seed
and
mul
ch
Med
ium
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
2PR
36
3 1
#10a
P
rivat
e R
oad
Mod
erat
e su
rface
ero
sion
w
ith d
irect
flow
to la
ke
70 x
5
Inst
all t
urno
uts
and
dete
ntio
n ba
sin
Low
M
ediu
m
Low
16R
36
4 1
#11
Res
iden
tial
Bar
e so
il w
ith la
ck o
f buf
fer
at s
hore
line;
mod
erat
e su
r-fa
ce e
rosi
on
20 x
50
buffe
r bel
ow d
eck
to w
ater
; m
ulch
und
er d
eck;
inst
all d
ry
wel
ls, 1
by
new
dec
k w
alkw
ay
and
the
othe
r at f
ront
left
corn
er.
Med
ium
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
18R
36
5 1
#12
Res
iden
tial
Shor
elin
e er
osio
n w
ith s
e-ve
re s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on; f
aile
d re
tain
ing
wal
l
10 x
40
Rep
lace
faile
d re
tain
ing
wal
l and
in
stal
l ero
sion
con
trols
; ins
tall
drip
line
trenc
h
Hig
h H
igh
Hig
h
17R
36
6 1
#13
Res
iden
tial
Lack
of b
uffe
r at s
hore
line
with
mod
erat
e su
rface
ero
-si
on
50 x
50
Est
ablis
h bu
ffer ;
see
d an
d m
ulch
; def
ine
path
for f
oot t
raffi
c w
ith in
filtra
tion
step
s
Low
M
ediu
m
Low
19R
36
7 1
#13a
R
esid
entia
l S
ide
hous
e-ro
of ru
noff;
ba
reso
il; la
ck o
f buf
fer a
t sh
orel
ine
with
mod
erat
e su
r-fa
ce e
rosi
on
40 x
10
Inst
all s
tone
fille
d dr
iplin
e tre
nch
and
dryw
ell a
t gut
ter d
owns
pout
; es
tabl
ish
buffe
r and
inst
all r
unof
f di
verte
rs
Low
Lo
w
Low
3PR
36
8 1
#13b
P
rivat
e R
oad
Mod
erat
e di
tch
eros
ion
and
slig
ht s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on
160
x 3
Res
hape
/rede
fine
ditc
h, s
tall
turn
out a
nd re
mov
e w
inte
r san
d;
inst
all d
eten
tion
basi
n
Low
M
ediu
m
Low
4D
369
1 #1
4 D
rivew
ay
Dire
ct fl
ow to
stre
am w
ith
seve
re s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on
55 x
10
Dis
cont
inue
use
of a
s dr
ivew
ay,
can
utiliz
e H
arris
on R
oad;
inst
all
Rub
ber R
azor
Bla
de
Low
Lo
w
Low
3B
370
1 #1
5 B
each
Acc
ess
Sev
ere
shor
elin
e an
d su
r-fa
ce e
rosi
on w
ith d
irect
flow
to
lake
10 x
10
Rec
omm
end
inst
allin
g tri
-lock
bl
ocks
to c
reat
e sw
ale
Med
ium
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
4PR
37
1 1
#16
Priv
ate
Roa
d M
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
with
dire
ct fl
ow to
lake
17
0' x
12
Add
new
sur
face
mat
eria
l; bu
ild
up a
nd c
row
n ro
ad a
nd in
stal
l tu
rnou
ts n
ear a
band
on b
uild
ing
Med
ium
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
36
4B
373
1#17
Be
ach
Acc
ess
Sho
relin
e er
osio
n w
ith s
e-ve
re s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on w
ith
dire
ct fl
ow to
lake
12 x
4
Nee
d en
gine
ered
sol
utio
n-er
osio
n se
ems
to b
e du
e to
un-
derla
y of
cla
y so
ils
Med
ium
H
igh
Hig
h
20R
37
4 1#
18
Res
iden
tial
Bar
e so
il/fie
lds
with
slig
ht
surfa
ce e
rosi
on w
ith d
irect
flo
w to
lake
35 x
12
In
stal
l sto
ne fi
lled
drip
line
tre
nch;
est
ablis
h bu
ffer;
seed
&
mul
ch
Low
Lo
w
Low
8R
350
1#2
Res
iden
tial
Bar
e so
il w
ith s
light
sur
face
er
osio
n w
ith d
irect
flow
to
lake
10 x
4
Inst
all w
ater
bar,
catc
h ba
sin
and
dire
ct g
utte
r dow
nspo
ut in
to
dryw
ell
Low
Lo
w
Low
1D
351
1#3
Driv
eway
M
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on a
t bo
ttom
of d
rivew
ay a
nd ro
of
runo
ff
175
x 10
In
stal
l cat
ch p
ool/b
asin
at b
ot-
tom
of d
rivew
ay, i
nsta
ll dr
y w
ell
at g
utte
r dow
nspo
ut
Med
ium
Med
ium
M
ediu
m
2D
352
1#4
Driv
eway
S
light
sur
face
ero
sion
with
di
rect
flow
to la
ke
15 x
40
Enha
nce
depr
essi
on a
t bot
tom
of
driv
eway
, res
hape
driv
eway
an
d su
rface
mat
eria
l, in
stal
l wa-
terb
ar/ru
noff
dive
rter
Low
Lo
w
Low
9R
353
1#6
Res
iden
tial
Slig
ht d
itch
eros
ion,
dire
ct
flow
to la
ke
30 x
15
In
stal
l dry
wel
l at b
ase
of h
ouse
cl
oses
t to
lake
and
repl
ace
step
s; e
nhan
ce b
uffe
r.
Low
Lo
w
Low
1B
376
2#2
Beac
h A
cces
s U
nsta
ble
beac
h ac
cess
, sl
ight
sur
face
ero
sion
, dire
ct
flow
to la
ke
90 x
90
Inst
all l
og b
arrie
r and
terr
acin
g Lo
w
Med
ium
Lo
w
2R
377
2#3
Res
iden
tial
Lack
of b
uffe
r at s
hore
line—
all l
awn
90 x
60
In
stal
l and
est
ablis
h bu
ffer
Low
M
ediu
m
Low
3R
378
2#4
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off,
bare
soi
l w
ith
slig
ht s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on
6 x
15
Inst
all s
tone
fille
d dr
ip li
ne
trenc
h an
d m
ulch
Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
20P
R
392
3#7
Priv
ate
Roa
d M
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
with
dire
ct fl
ow to
lake
20
3 x
12
Will
need
eng
inee
red
solu
tion
Med
ium
H
igh
Hig
h
21P
R
393
3#8
Priv
ate
Roa
d S
light
sur
face
ero
sion
with
di
rect
flow
to la
ke
220
x 12
In
stal
l ditc
h an
d tu
rnou
t; ad
d ne
w s
urfa
ce m
ater
ial
Low
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
37
10R
35
4 1
#7
Res
iden
tial
Dire
st fl
ow to
lake
; sto
ck-
pile
d so
il; s
hore
line
eros
ion
and
slig
ht s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on
4 x
20
Rep
lace
ripr
ap a
long
sho
relin
e an
d re
plac
e st
eps
with
infil
tra-
tion
step
s. S
eed
and
mul
ch
ditc
h.
Hig
h Lo
w
Low
11R
35
5 1
#8
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off;
bare
soil
with
m
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
50 x
8
use
stai
rs, n
ot s
teep
ban
k ne
xt
to s
tairs
; lar
ge in
filtra
tion
step
at
bas
e of
ste
ps b
efor
e lo
wer
de
ck.
Med
ium
Lo
w
Low
12R
35
6 1
#8a
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f sun
off w
ith s
ever
e sh
orel
ine
eros
ion
75 x
20
repl
ace/
inst
all r
etai
ning
wal
l; de
fine
path
for f
oot t
raffi
c; e
x-te
nd b
uffe
r and
inst
all s
tone
fil
led
drip
line
trenc
h
Hig
h M
ediu
m
Low
3D
357
1 #8
b D
rivew
ay
Mod
erat
e su
rface
ero
sion
30
x 1
5 A
dd n
ew s
urfa
ce m
ater
ial a
nd
resh
ape
& c
row
n dr
ivew
ay
Low
Lo
w
Low
13R
35
8 1
#8c
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off;
bare
soil
; no
buffe
r at s
hore
line
mod
er-
ate
to s
light
sur
face
ero
sion
50 x
50
Esta
blis
h bu
ffer a
t sho
relin
e;
seed
and
mul
ch, n
o ra
king
de-
fine
path
for f
oot t
raffi
c; in
stal
l st
one
fille
d dr
iplin
e tre
nch
Med
ium
Lo
w
Low
2B
359
1 #9
B
each
Acc
ess
Dire
ct fl
ow to
lake
; bar
esoi
l w
ith m
oder
ate
to s
ever
e su
rface
ero
sion
125
x 4
Con
stru
ct in
filtra
tion
step
s an
d m
ulch
alo
ng s
teps
to s
hore
ne
ar d
eck;
det
entio
n ba
sin;
pl
ant t
rees
and
shr
ubs
Hig
h M
ediu
m
Med
ium
14R
36
0 1
#9a
Res
iden
tial
Dire
ct fl
ow to
lake
; bar
esoi
l w
ith s
light
sur
face
ero
sion
(n
ice
shru
b pl
antin
gs)
20 x
10
Cov
er a
rea
with
cur
lex
and
seed
Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
1R
375
2 #1
R
esid
entia
l D
irect
flow
to w
etla
nd,
bare
soil
and
slig
ht s
urfa
ce
eros
ion
10 X
90
Pla
nt tr
ees
and
shru
bs; s
eed
and
mul
ch
Low
Lo
w
Low
38
4R
379
2 #5
R
esid
entia
l R
oof r
unof
f with
slig
ht s
ur-
face
ero
sion
60
X 6
Pl
ant t
rees
and
shr
ubs
on te
r-ra
ced
slop
e; in
stal
l inf
iltra
tion
trenc
h @
edg
e of
pat
io a
nd e
x-te
nd e
xist
ing
dryw
ell a
nd n
o ra
king
Low
Lo
w
Low
5R
380
2 #6
R
esid
entia
l ba
re s
oil d
ue to
con
stru
ctio
n pr
ojec
ts; l
ack
of b
uffe
r and
sl
ight
sur
face
ero
sion
20 x
10
Est
ablis
h bu
ffer;
inst
all w
ater
bar
and
defin
e pa
th fo
r foo
t tra
ffic
and
rest
rict f
oot t
raffi
c fro
m
bank
Low
Lo
w
Low
6R
381
2 #7
R
esid
entia
l R
oof r
unof
f;bar
esoi
l; st
ock-
pile
d so
il an
d la
ck o
f buf
fer
35 x
10
Esta
blis
h bu
ffer;
seed
and
m
ulch
; no
raki
ng a
ndf e
stab
lish
step
s to
wat
er; r
efill
tren
ch w
ith
stoc
kpile
soi
l and
rese
t lan
d-sc
ape
timbe
rs to
hol
d so
il
Med
ium
Lo
w
Low
7R
382
2 #8
R
esid
entia
l R
oof r
unof
f with
slig
ht s
ur-
face
ero
sion
and
bar
e so
il 6
x 15
E
xten
d bu
ffer a
nd in
stal
l inf
iltra
-tio
n st
eps
to la
ke; i
nsta
ll st
one
fille
d dr
iplin
e tre
nch
Low
Lo
w
Low
24P
R
383
3 #1
P
rivat
e R
oad
Slig
ht s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on o
f ro
ad w
ith d
irect
flow
to la
ke
67 x
11.
4 A
dd n
ew s
urfa
ce m
ater
ial;
build
up
and
cro
wn
road
Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
54R
39
5 3
#10
Res
iden
tial
Com
pact
ed b
are
soil
and
lack
of s
hore
line
buffe
r 30
x 1
0 E
stab
lish
buffe
r; m
ulch
and
de-
fine
path
for f
oot t
raffi
c Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
59R
38
4 3
#2
Res
iden
tial
Bar
e so
il on
ban
king
with
di
rect
flow
to la
ke
39 x
12
See
d an
d m
ulch
Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
23P
R
385
3 #3
P
rivat
e R
oad
Mod
erat
e su
rface
ero
sion
w
ith d
irect
flow
to la
ke
200
x 11
A
dd n
ew s
urfa
ce m
ater
ial a
nd
exte
nd b
uffe
r Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
58R
38
6 3
#3a
Res
iden
tial
Bar
e so
il an
d un
stab
le
cont
ruct
ion
site
40
x 1
0 In
stal
l ero
sion
con
trols
; see
d an
d m
ulch
Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
22P
R
387
3 #4
P
rivat
e R
oad
Slig
ht s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on w
ith
dire
ct fl
ow to
lake
12
7 x
10
Add
new
sur
face
mat
eria
l; re
-sh
ape
and
crow
n ro
ad; i
nsta
ll w
ater
bar a
nd e
stab
lish
buffe
r
Low
Lo
w
Med
ium
57R
38
9 3
#5
Res
iden
tial
bare
soi
l with
slig
ht s
urfa
ce
eros
ion
with
dire
ct fl
ow to
la
ke
15' x
35'
Es
tabl
ish
buffe
r an
d se
ed
mul
ch
Low
Lo
w
Low
55R
39
1 3
#6
Res
iden
tial
Bar
e so
il w
ith m
oder
ate
sur-
face
ero
sion
71
x 3
2 P
lant
tree
s an
d sh
rubs
and
ter-
race
Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
39 6B
411
4 #1
1 Be
ach
Acce
ss U
nsta
ble
beac
h ac
cess
with
se
vere
sur
face
ero
sion
; la
ck
of b
uffe
r and
sho
relin
e er
o-si
on
15 x
200
In
stal
l run
off d
iver
ter;
rubb
er ra
-zo
r bla
de; e
stab
lish
buffe
r; in
fil-
tratio
n st
eps;
def
ine
path
for f
oot
traffi
c
Hig
h M
ediu
m
Med
ium
48R
41
2 4
#11a
R
esid
entia
l R
oof r
unof
f with
slig
ht s
ur-
face
ero
sion
and
lack
of
buffe
r
80 x
8
Est
ablis
h bu
ffer;
mul
ch, d
efin
e pa
th fo
r foo
t tra
ffic;
inst
all w
ater
-ba
r and
inst
all s
tone
fille
d dr
ip-
line
trenc
h
Low
Lo
w
Low
49R
41
3 4
#12
Res
iden
tial
Uns
tabl
e be
ach
acce
ss w
ith
slig
ht s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on a
nd
lack
of b
uffe
r; un
stab
le c
ul-
vert
6 x
1 A
rmor
cul
vert
inle
t/out
let w
ith
ston
e; e
stab
lish
buffe
r Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
14PR
41
4 4
#13
Priv
ate
Roa
d C
logg
ed c
luve
rt w
ith m
oder
-at
e di
tch
eros
ion
80 x
4
Cle
an o
ut c
ulve
rt, s
tabi
lize
inle
t an
d ou
tlet;
inst
all d
itch;
bui
ld u
p ro
ad; r
esha
pe a
nd v
eget
ate
shou
lder
; pla
nt tr
ees
and
shru
bs
Low
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
50R
41
5 4
#13a
R
esid
entia
l B
are
soil
with
dire
ct fl
ow to
la
ke
E
xten
d bu
ffer;
no ra
king
; see
d an
d m
ulch
M
ediu
m
Low
Lo
w
51R
41
6 4
#14
Res
iden
tial
Bar
e so
il an
d st
ockp
iled
soil
on c
onst
ruct
ion
site
20
x 2
0 in
stal
l ero
sion
con
trols
(c
onst
ruct
ion
finis
hed)
Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
15PR
41
7 4
#15
Priv
ate
Roa
d U
nsta
ble
culv
ert i
nlet
/out
let
with
sto
ckpi
led
soil,
slig
ht
ditc
h er
osio
n an
d di
tch
capa
-bi
lity
exce
eded
75 x
8
Cle
an o
ut c
ulve
rt; s
tabi
lize
inle
t an
d ou
tlet;
inst
all a
nd re
shap
e di
tch
Low
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
52R
41
8 4
#16
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off;
bare
soi
l; sh
ore-
line
eros
ion;
lack
of b
uffe
r w
ith s
light
sur
face
ero
sion
60 x
100
In
stal
l dry
wel
l at g
utte
r spo
ut a
t ba
se o
f gar
age;
no
raki
ng; e
s-ta
blis
h bu
ffer;
seed
and
mul
ch
Med
ium
Lo
w
Low
53R
41
9 4
#17
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off w
ith m
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
45 x
10
Est
ablis
h bu
ffer;
mul
ch; n
o ra
k-in
g; d
efin
e pa
th fo
r foo
t tra
ffic
and
inst
all s
tone
fille
d dr
iplin
e tre
nch
Low
Lo
w
Low
19PR
42
0 4
#18
Priv
ate
Roa
d U
nsta
ble
culv
ert i
nlet
and
ou
tlet;
slig
ht d
itch
eros
ion
with
dire
ct fl
ow to
lake
5 x
20
Cle
an o
ut c
ulve
rt; s
tabi
lize
inle
t an
d ou
tlet;
arm
or d
itch
with
st
one
or c
urle
x; s
eed
and
mul
ch
Low
Lo
w
Low
19D
42
1 4
#18a
D
rivew
ay
Mod
erat
e su
rface
ero
sion
Add
new
sur
face
mat
eria
l; re
-m
ove
win
ter s
and;
resh
ape
and
crow
n; in
stal
l dry
wel
l at g
utte
r sp
out.
Low
Lo
w
Low
40 56R
39
4 3#
9 R
esid
entia
l B
are
soil
with
lack
of b
uffe
r at
sho
relin
e 10
0 x
40
Est
ablis
h bu
ffer;
seed
mul
ch; n
o ra
king
; def
ine
foot
pat
h
Low
Lo
w
Low
47R
41
0 4#
10
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off w
ith b
ares
oil;
lack
of b
uffe
r 1
x 20
E
stab
lish
buffe
r and
inst
all d
ry
wel
l at g
utte
r dow
n sp
out
Low
Lo
w
Low
11PR
42
6 4
#21
Priv
ate
Roa
d U
nsta
ble
culv
ert i
nlet
and
ou
tlet
4
x 5
Cle
n ou
t cul
vert
inst
all p
lung
e po
ol a
nd s
tabi
lize
inle
t & o
utle
t Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
10D
42
7 4
#22
Driv
eway
M
oder
ate
road
sho
ulde
r ero
-si
on w
ith s
ever
e su
rface
ero
-si
on
10 x
80
Add
new
sur
face
mat
eria
l; bu
ild
up ro
ad a
nd re
shap
e an
d cr
own
road
; run
off d
iver
ter
Med
ium
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
41R
42
8 4
#24
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off;
lack
of b
uffe
r 3
x 65
Ex
tend
buf
fer,
mul
chin
g on
hig
h us
e ar
eas;
bui
ld u
p ro
ad a
nd in
-st
all s
tone
fille
d dr
iplin
e tre
nch
Low
Lo
w
Med
ium
17D
39
8 4
#2a
Driv
eway
D
irect
flow
to d
itch
with
mod
-er
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
40 x
15
Add
new
sur
face
mat
eria
l and
re
shap
e or
cro
wn
road
Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
18D
39
9 4
#2b
Driv
eway
D
irect
flow
to d
itch
with
mod
-er
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
50 x
3
Add
new
sur
face
mat
eria
l and
re
shap
e or
cro
wn
road
; ins
tall
wat
erba
r
Low
Lo
w
Low
17PR
40
0 4
#3
Priv
ate
Roa
d U
nsta
ble
culv
ert i
nlet
/out
let
with
dire
ct fl
ow to
ditc
h an
d sl
ight
sur
face
ero
sion
and
m
oder
ate
shou
lder
ero
sion
600
x 15
C
lean
out
cul
vert;
inst
all p
lung
e po
ol le
ngth
en a
nd s
tabi
lize
inle
t &
out
let;
inst
all t
urno
ut; b
uild
up
road
and
cro
wn;
inst
all d
eten
tion
basi
n
Low
H
igh
Hig
h
16D
40
1 4
#4
Driv
eway
M
oder
ate
shou
lder
ero
sion
w
ith s
ever
e su
rface
ero
sion
15
x 5
0 W
ater
bar o
r fre
nch
drai
n or
cl
ose
off a
nd re
vege
tate
firs
t se
ctio
n
Hig
h Lo
w
Low
16PR
40
2 4
#5
Priv
ate
Roa
d M
oder
ate
ditc
h er
osio
n an
d di
tch
capa
bilit
y ex
ceed
ed
200
x 5
Inst
all d
itch;
bui
ld u
p ro
ad; i
nsta
ll tu
rnou
ts a
nd re
mov
e gr
ader
be
rms
Low
Lo
w
Med
ium
15D
40
3 4
#5a
Driv
eway
S
ever
e su
rface
ero
sion
30
x 1
5 A
dd n
ew s
urfa
ce m
ater
ial a
nd
resh
ape
road
; tak
e ca
re o
f roa
d pr
oble
ms
4#5
Low
Lo
w
Low
12PR
42
2 4
#19
Priv
ate
Roa
d S
light
Roa
d sh
ould
er e
rosi
on
with
mod
erat
e su
rface
ero
-si
on o
n si
de s
lope
s
3 x
250
Add
new
sur
face
mat
eria
l; in
stal
l di
tch;
bui
ld u
p ro
ad a
nd e
nhan
ce
turn
out a
nd le
vel s
prea
der
Med
ium
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
18PR
39
7 4
#2
Priv
ate
Roa
d D
irect
flow
to d
itch;
sto
ck-
pile
d so
il an
d m
oder
ate
sur-
face
ero
sion
100
X 6
B
uild
up,
and
cro
wn
road
; ins
tall
turn
outs
, res
hape
and
veg
etat
e sh
ould
er; s
eed
& m
ulch
soi
l pile
Low
Lo
w
Med
ium
41
12D
42
3 4#
20
Driv
eway
M
oder
ate
Sur
face
ero
sion
12
x 3
0 A
dd n
ew s
urfa
ce m
ater
ial a
nd
clos
e of
f and
veg
etat
e st
eep
sect
ion
Low
Lo
w
Low
5D
447
5#17
D
rivew
ay
Mod
erat
e su
rface
ero
sion
30
x 3
0 N
atur
al d
epre
ssio
n ex
ists
at l
eft
of d
rive
entra
nce
and
coul
d se
nd w
ater
-run
off t
here
.
Low
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
29R
44
8 5#
18
Res
iden
tial
Bar
e so
il w
ith s
light
sur
face
er
osio
n 40
x 1
0
Pla
nt tr
ees
and
shru
bs o
n ba
nk, m
ulch
, def
ine
path
for
foot
traf
fic a
nd in
stal
l wat
erba
r
Low
Lo
w
Low
21R
43
1 5#
2 R
esid
entia
l U
nsta
ble
stre
am-d
itch
bank
w
ith m
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
ro-
sion
3 x
15
Res
hape
and
arm
or d
itch
with
st
one
or c
urle
x, s
eed
and
mul
ch
Med
ium
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
34R
44
9 5#
21
Res
iden
tial
Lack
of b
uffe
r with
sev
ere
surfa
ce e
rosi
on m
ay b
e du
e to
nat
ural
spr
ing
10 x
10
Add
wet
land
pla
nts
to s
uck
up
wat
er.
Gul
lied
area
see
ms
like
poor
acc
ess
to la
ke.
Cha
nge
foot
traf
fic a
rea.
Low
Lo
w
Low
7D
450
5#23
D
rivew
ay
Clo
gged
cul
vert
with
sev
ere
ditc
h er
osio
n 80
x 2
0 C
lean
out
cul
vert
or re
plac
e,
add
new
sur
face
mat
eria
l, ex
-te
nd b
roke
n pa
vem
ent
Med
ium
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
9PR
45
1 5#
23a
Priv
ate
Roa
d D
itch
capa
bilit
y ex
ceed
ed
at to
p of
road
with
slig
ht
surfa
ce e
rosi
on a
nd d
irect
flo
w to
stre
am
25 x
4
Top
porti
on o
f roa
d to
lake
(in
stal
l ditc
h) In
stal
l pav
ed
spee
d bu
mp
to d
iver
t wat
er
Low
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
24D
43
5 5#
6 D
rivew
ay
Mod
erat
e su
rface
ero
sion
80
x 1
2 Ad
d ne
w s
urfa
ce m
ater
ial
Low
Lo
w
Med
ium
26R
43
6 5#
7 R
esid
entia
l R
oof r
unof
f, sl
ight
sur
face
er
osio
n w
ith b
are
soil
500
sq ft
In
stal
l sto
ne fi
lled
drip
line
tre
nch,
est
ablis
h bu
ffer,
seed
an
d m
ulch
Low
Lo
w
Low
25R
43
7 5#
8 R
esid
entia
l S
light
sur
face
ero
sion
12
x80
A
dd n
ew s
urfa
ce m
ater
ial a
nd
resh
ape
and
veg
etat
e sh
oul-
der
Low
Lo
w
Med
ium
27R
43
8 5#
9 R
esid
entia
l S
light
sur
face
ero
sion
80
x 4
5 E
stab
lish
buffe
r, se
ed a
nd
mul
ch a
nd a
rmor
sid
e di
tch
with
sto
ne
Low
Lo
w
Low
42 43R
42
4 4#
20a
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off w
ith s
light
sur
-fa
ce e
rosi
on
5 x
26
5 x
30
Inst
all s
tone
fille
d dr
iplin
e tre
nch;
est
ablis
h bu
ffer;
defin
e pa
th fo
r foo
t tra
ffic
Low
Lo
w
Low
11D
42
5 4#
20b
Driv
eway
R
oof r
unof
f with
slig
ht s
ur-
face
ero
sion
12
x 2
0 In
stal
l dry
wel
l at g
utte
r spo
ut;
inst
all r
ubbe
r raz
or b
lade
; in-
stal
l buf
fer o
n ba
nk
Low
Lo
w
Low
6PR
43
0 5
#1
Priv
ate
Roa
d D
irect
flow
to s
tream
; mod
-er
ate
to s
ever
e su
rface
ero
-si
on
30 x
62
Inst
all p
lung
e po
ol a
nd c
ulve
rt;
inst
all d
itch
and
rubb
er ra
zor
bald
e in
clud
ing
dete
ntio
n ba
sin
Hig
h H
igh
Hig
h
28R
43
9 5
#10
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off;
bare
soi
l with
m
oder
ate
sruf
ace
eros
ion
120
x 20
In
stal
l dry
wel
l at g
utte
r dow
n sp
out;
seed
and
mul
ch; i
nsta
ll st
one
fille
d dr
iplin
e tre
nch
Low
Lo
w
Low
8PR
44
0 5
#11
Priv
ate
Roa
d M
oder
ate
to s
ever
e su
rface
er
osio
n 20
x60
0 In
stal
l cul
vert;
inst
all d
itchi
ng,
cut b
ack
bank
to e
ase
slop
e;
rem
ove
berm
s; in
stal
l bas
in
with
che
ck d
ams
Hig
h M
ediu
m
Hig
h
5B
441
5 #1
2 Be
ach
Acce
ss M
oder
ate
to s
ever
e sr
ufac
e er
osio
n 5
x 5
Add
bed
of c
rush
ed s
tone
and
pe
rfora
ted
pipe
to s
prin
g ar
ea;
stab
ilize
bank
and
bas
e of
tree
Med
ium
Lo
w
Low
33R
44
2 5
#13
Res
iden
tial
Shor
elin
e er
osio
n; la
ck o
f bu
ffer
80
x 5
E
stab
lish
and
exte
nd b
uffe
r; in
stal
l rip
rap;
pos
sibl
e no
mow
zo
ne
Low
Lo
w
Low
32R
44
3 5
#14
Res
iden
tial
Slig
ht s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on
20 x
10
inst
all e
nd o
f driv
eway
bar
rier/
wat
erba
r; re
mov
e be
rm
Low
Lo
w
Low
31R
44
4 5
#15
Res
iden
tial
Lack
of b
uffe
r with
mod
er-
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
5 x
4 tu
rnou
t bef
ore
driv
eway
, pla
nt
bear
berr
y an
d fra
gran
t sum
ac
Low
Lo
w
Low
30R
44
5 5
#16
Res
iden
tial
Lack
of b
uffe
r with
mod
er-
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on a
t sh
orel
ine;
driv
eway
has
m
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
140
x 30
60
x 1
2 E
stab
lish
buffe
r; se
ed a
nd
mul
ch; n
o ra
king
; ins
tall
rubb
er
razo
r bla
de in
driv
eway
and
m
ulch
hig
h us
e ar
eas
Med
ium
Lo
w
Low
6D
446
5 #1
6a
Driv
eway
60 x
12
bette
r def
ine
low
are
a fo
r poo
l-in
g M
ediu
m
Med
ium
Lo
w
43
8D
452
5 #2
3b
Driv
eway
M
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
50 x
10
clos
e of
f & v
eget
ate
uppe
r dr
ivew
ay; i
nsta
ll w
ater
bar
Low
Lo
w
Low
35R
45
3 5
#25
Res
iden
tial
Bar
e so
il; la
ck o
f buf
fer a
nd
shor
elin
e er
osio
n 8
x 5
Ext
end
buffe
r, es
tabl
ish
new
sl
ope
and
defin
e pa
th fo
r foo
t tra
ffic
Low
Lo
w
Low
36R
45
4 5
#26
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off w
ith s
hore
line
eros
in u
nder
sta
irs; l
ack
of
buffe
r with
mod
erat
e su
r-fa
ce e
rosi
on
65 x
6
Est
ablis
h ne
w s
lope
; mul
ch; n
o ra
king
; han
d pl
ace
ripra
p un
der
stai
rs a
nd d
efin
e pa
th fo
r foo
t tra
ffic
Med
ium
Lo
w
Low
37R
45
5 5
#28
Res
iden
tial
Lack
of b
uffe
r with
slig
ht
surfa
ce e
rosi
on; o
dd c
rib
wal
l beh
ind
beac
h ha
s w
ashe
d ou
t
15 x
15
Est
ablis
h bu
ffer;
rem
ove
sand
; re
mov
e cr
ib w
all a
nd e
stab
lish
vege
tatio
n on
ban
k of
inte
rmit-
tent
stre
am
Low
Lo
w
Low
7PR
5 #3
P
rivat
e R
oad
Dire
ct fl
ow to
stre
am w
ith
slig
ht s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on a
nd
mod
erat
e ro
ad s
houl
der
eros
ion
210
x 20
In
stal
l ditc
h; b
uild
up
road
; re-
shap
e an
d cr
own
road
and
in-
stal
l det
entio
n ba
sin
Med
ium
H
igh
Hig
h
10P
R
457
5 #3
0 P
rivat
e R
oad
Ditc
h ca
pabi
lity
exce
eded
30
0 x
6 re
mov
e la
rge
rock
in d
itch
and
inst
all d
itch;
rem
ove
grad
er
berm
s
Low
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
1BA
45
8 5
#31
Boa
t Acc
ess
Lack
of b
uffe
r with
slig
ht to
m
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on ;
slig
htly
uns
tabl
e bo
at a
c-ce
ss
50 x
10
Inst
all r
unof
f div
erte
r at t
op o
f bo
at la
unch
- re
shap
e bo
at
laun
ch a
rea.
Clo
se b
oat a
c-ce
ss a
nd d
iver
ter a
t top
and
es
tabl
ish
buffe
r at l
eft o
f ac-
cess
.
Low
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
38R
45
9 5
#32
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off w
ith s
light
sur
-fa
ce e
rosi
on
35 x
100
E
stab
lish
buffe
r; in
stal
l dry
wel
l at
gut
ter s
pout
Lo
w
Med
ium
M
ediu
m
39R
46
0 5
#33
Res
iden
tial
Bar
e so
il; L
ack
of b
uffe
r w
ith s
light
sru
face
ero
sion
50
x 1
5 E
stab
lish
buffe
r and
mul
ch p
lay
area
; def
ine
path
for f
oot t
raffi
c;
need
to d
eter
min
e w
here
to d
i-re
ct w
ater
Low
Lo
w
Low
40R
46
1 5
#33a
R
esid
entia
l B
are
soil
with
dire
ct fl
ow to
la
ke
50 x
30
Est
ablis
h bu
ffer;
seed
mul
ch;
no ra
king
; def
ine
path
for f
oot
traffi
c
Med
ium
Lo
w
Low
44
9D
462
5#33
b D
rivew
ay
Bar
e so
il w
ith m
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
150
x 60
A
dd n
ew s
urfa
ce m
ater
ial;
no ra
king
; mul
ch; r
estri
ct c
ars
to d
efin
ed a
rea
Med
ium
Lo
w
Low
41R
46
3 5#
34
Res
iden
tial
Bar
e so
il w
ith s
hore
line
ero-
sion
and
slig
ht s
urfa
ce e
ro-
sion
40 x
15
Rep
lace
land
scap
e tim
bers
; es
tabl
ish
buffe
r; se
ed a
nd
mul
ch
Low
Lo
w
Low
23R
43
3 5#
4 R
esid
entia
l M
oder
ate
to s
ever
e su
rface
er
osio
n w
ith d
irect
flow
to
stre
am
90 x
5
Esta
blis
h bu
ffer;
seed
and
m
ulch
Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
22R
43
4 5#
5 R
esid
entia
l M
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
5 x
10
Pla
nt tr
ees
and
shru
bs
Low
Lo
w
Low
13P
R
404
4 #6
P
rivat
e R
oad
Slig
ht s
urfa
ce e
rosi
on w
ith
dire
ct fl
ow to
lake
10
0 x
15
Res
hape
ditc
h; a
nd in
stal
l tur
n-ou
t; re
hsap
e an
d ve
geta
te
shou
lder
Med
ium
M
ediu
m
Med
ium
13D
40
5 4
#6a
Driv
eway
Sh
orel
ine
eros
ion;
lack
of
buffe
r with
mod
erat
e su
r-fa
ce e
rosi
on
In
stal
l tur
nout
; est
ablis
h bu
ffer;
inst
all r
ubbe
r raz
or b
lade
and
w
ater
bar a
t top
of d
rivew
ay a
nd
seed
& m
ulch
Hig
h Lo
w
Low
44R
40
6 4
#7
Res
iden
tial
Lack
of b
uffe
r with
slig
ht
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
E
stab
lish
buffe
r and
no
raki
ng
Low
Lo
w
Low
45R
40
7 4
#8
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off w
ith s
hore
line
eros
ion;
lack
of b
uffe
r at
shor
elin
e w
ith m
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
20 x
20
Inst
all d
ryw
ell a
t gut
ter s
pout
; ad
d ne
w s
urfa
ce m
ater
ial;
es-
tabl
ish
buffe
r and
see
d an
d m
ulch
Low
Lo
w
Low
14D
40
8 4
#8a
Driv
eway
M
oder
ate
surfa
ce e
rosi
on
30 x
15
Add
new
sur
face
mat
eria
l or
pave
driv
eway
Lo
w
Low
M
ediu
m
46R
40
9 4
#9
Res
iden
tial
Roo
f run
off w
ith b
ares
oil;
lack
of b
uffe
r and
mod
erat
e su
rface
ero
sion
65 x
3
Est
ablis
h bu
ffer;
inst
all s
tone
fil
led
drip
line
trenc
h an
d dr
ywel
l at
gut
ter s
pout
; no
raki
ng; d
e-fin
e pa
th fo
r foo
t tra
ffic
Med
ium
Lo
w
Low
5PR
42
9 5
#0
Priv
ate
Roa
d D
irect
flow
to s
tream
with
sl
ight
road
sho
ulde
r ero
-si
on; l
arge
sed
imen
t del
ta
in s
tream
300
x 8
Inst
all s
ever
al tu
rnou
ts e
ither
si
de o
f stre
am b
ridge
H
igh
Low
Lo
w
45
Appendix C: Forest Lake Erosion Sites
46
47
48
References
Soil Survey of Cumberland County Area, Maine Untied States De-partment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services, In cooperation with Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, August 1974 Forest Lake Watershed Survey Report, Cumberland County Soil & Water Conservation District, Forest Lake Association and MDEP, April 2003 Forest Lake Water Quality Report, Brad Rounds, Bob Heyner, Forest Lake Association, April 2003 A History of Forest Lake, Brad Rounds, Kirsten Read Boettcher, Bob Tellefsen, Dave Randall, Philip Broad and Greg Schultz, March 2003
