| A Watershed Analysis of Long Pond North, Part II |
| Colby Environmental Assessment Team | |
| December 7th, 2006 |
| Presentation Outline |
| Development Patterns K.T. Weber | |
| Water and Phosphorus Budgets Kelly Bakulski | |
| Summary and Recommendations Alex McPherson | |
| Time for Questions |
| Ground Surveys |
| Roads | ||
| Area and Condition | ||
| Buffer Strips | ||
| Coverage | ||
| Residence Count | ||
| Seasonal or Year-round | ||
| Shoreline proximity | ||
| GIS Modeling |
| Maps | ||
| Bathymetry | ||
| Slope | ||
| Models | ||
| Erosion | ||
| Development | ||
| Using Layers |
| Erosion Potential |
| Erosion Potential Model |
| Erosion Impact |
| Erosion Impact Model |
| Road Survey |
| Road Concerns | ||
| Erosion and Sedimentation | ||
| Drainage | ||
| Maintenance Tools | ||
| Crowning | ||
| Ditches | ||
| Culverts | ||
| Diversions | ||
| Road Survey Results |
| Camp roads | ||
| Worse condition | ||
| More Fair and Acceptable | ||
| Targeted Problems | ||
| Culverts: 32% | ||
| Ditches: 26% | ||
| Crowning, diversions, etc. | ||
| Road Maps |
| Buffer Strip Survey |
| Buffer functions | ||
| Protect soil | ||
| Remove nutrients and trap sediment | ||
| Maintain natural habitat | ||
| Evaluation Parameters | ||
| Buffers |
| Buffer Strip Survey |
| Overall good buffers | ||
| Weaknesses | ||
| Depth | ||
| Canopy trees | ||
| Commercially developed areas | ||
| Residence Count |
| Measure human impact | ||
| Wastewater | ||
| Recreational use | ||
| Shoreline Houses | ||
| Within 250 ft | ||
| Residences |
| 479 Houses | ||
| Year-round | ||
| Shoreline | ||
| Residential Density | ||
| High in developed areas | ||
| Lowered by tracts of undeveloped land | ||
| Undeveloped Areas |
| Significant portion of shoreline | ||
| Some development options | ||
| Protects water quality | ||
| Less human impact | ||
| Ecosystem buffer | ||
| Septic Suitability |
| GIS Map | ||
| Soil type | ||
| Porosity | ||
| Slope | ||
| Many Sites Suitable | ||
| Few Areas of Concern | ||
| Leveling, import soil | ||
| Residential Density |
| Development Potential |
| Proximity to lake | ||
| Proximity to existing infrastructure | ||
| Ease of construction | ||
| Slope | ||
| Soil type | ||
| Future Considerations |
| Roads | ||
| Poor general condition | ||
| Easy remedies | ||
| Buffers | ||
| Good general condition | ||
| Maintain depth | ||
| Residential Count | ||
| Relatively low | ||
| Many development opportunities | ||
| Water and Phosphorus Budgets |
| Kelly Bakulski |
| Water Budget Significance |
| Flushing Rate |
| Water Budget Methods |
| Basic relationship: (assuming no change in water level) | |
| runoff + direct inflow + precipitation = evaporation + outflow |
| Physical Parameters |
| Calculating the Net Input |
| Inet = (runoff * watershed area) + (precipitation * lake area) – (evaporation * lake area) | |
| Inet = (0.622 * 2.316 x 107) + (1.057 * 5.160 x 106) – (0.560 * 5.160 x 106) | |
| Inet Long Pond North = 1.697 x 107 m3/year |
| Input From Other Lakes |
| Flushing Rate |
| Flushing Rate = [(Inet Long Pond) + (Inet Input1) + � (Inet Inputn)] / (Volume of Lake) | |
| Flushing Rate = (1.324 x 108)/(3.492 x 107) | |
| Flushing rate of Long Pond North is 3.79 flushes per year. |
| Phosphorus Budget |
| Total amount of P entering a lake from specific sources | ||
| Why? | ||
| Problem sources | ||
| Future projections | ||
| Phosphorus Budget |
| Dependent on: | |
| Land Use | |
| Population (Septic Use) | |
| Soil Retention | |
| Point-Source Inputs |
| Amount of Phosphorus Entering Long Pond North (W) |
| Land Use (L) and Lake Concentration (P) Phosphorus Loading |
| L = W / As | |
| P = L / (11.6 + 1.2qs) |
| Results |
| With Sediment Release | |
| Range: 6.2 - 12.7 ppb | |
| Best Estimate: 8.7 ppb | |
| Sampled Site 1 | |
| Mean Epicore: 7.6 ppb |
| Percent Contribution of Phosphorus |
| Slide 36 |
| Future Projections of Phosphorus Budget |
| Flow patterns |
| Summary and Recommendations |
| Alex McPherson |
| Long Pond Value |
| Aesthetic | ||
| Economic | ||
| Land values | ||
| Ecological | ||
| Belgrades | ||
| Kennebec | ||
| Threats |
| Phosphorous loading | |
| Gloeotrichia | |
| Invasive species |
| Phosphorous Loading |
| Recommendations |
| Land use | ||
| Maintain trends | ||
| Undeveloped Lots | ||
| Septic systems | ||
| Maintenance | ||
| Remediation | ||
| Camp Roads | ||
| Maintenance programs | ||
| Gloeotrichia |
| Blue green algae or cyanobacteria | |
| Seen on the surface | |
| Currently being studied at Colby |
| Invasive plants |
| Introduced by boats | |
| �Clog up� the lake | |
| Are found in neighboring lakes |
| Recommendations |
| Continue to be vigilant! |
| Main Message |
| Long Pond is in good shape | |
| With continued community support, it can stay that way |
| Acknowledgments |
| Earl Bacon | |
| Bernadette Bibber | |
| Curtis Bohlen | |
| Roy Bouchard | |
| Amanda Brown | |
| Dale Finseth | |
| David Firmage | |
| Gary Fuller | |
| Danielle Garneau | |
| David Halliwell | |
| Steve Harmon | |
| Jen Jesperson | |
| Dennis Keschl | |
| D. Whitney King | |
| William Najpauer | |
| Kirsten Ness | |
| Tricia Rouleau | |
| Tom and Carmen Tucker |
| Questions? |