The Return of the Stormwater Rangers: Tackling Urban Stormwater and Statewide Solutions

Send us a text

In this episode, Rebecca Squared & Amanda the new kid continue the coversation with Stormwater Super Heros - Giants of municipal water protection activities; South Portland's Stormwater Coordinator Fred Dillon and Portland's Stormwater Coordinator Doug Roncarati and their state level partner Maine Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Engineer Cody Obropta to tackle issues around development pressures. 

Does regulation make development harder or does regulation and planning make development cheaper on the community in the long run? Get the one the ground facts from the front lines and learn about the theory of low impact development versus use of green infrastructure and why those buzzwords are coming to an ordinance near you soon. 

Ever wondered about the intricate dance between stormwater law and water quality standards? Using the Long Creek Watershed as our case study, we delve into the stringent mandates of MS4 permits and the herculean efforts required to restore urban impaired stream habitats. Our discussion extends to the significance of maintaining viable aquatic ecosystems and a closer look at the progressively stricter requirements every five years. You'll gain insights into the benefits of educating service contractors, the impact of clearer statewide standards, and the promising potential of green infrastructure projects.

Lastly, explore the innovative ways Portland’s stormwater utility credit program incentivizes redevelopment while addressing pollutant-specific approaches for stormwater management. We highlight how these strategies benefit developers and the broader implications of climate change on future MS4 communities. Tune in to hear about Maine’s unique phosphorus control strategies in lake watersheds and the persistent challenges posed by historical land use and climate change. Wrapping up, we stress the importance of expert consultation and community involvement, all while celebrating the camaraderie and shared humor of those dedicated to tackling these complex environmental issues.

"Urbanized and developed municipalities and other large public entities require Clean Water Act permits to send stormwater to nearby water bodies due to an increased likelihood of stormwater pollutants."
 
 "Stormwater is precipitation that does not soak into the ground. Runoff accumulates in large quantities as it flows off of rooftops, driveways, roads and other impervious surfaces, picking up soil and polluting chemicals in its wake. It then flows into a storm drain, through an underground network of pipes, where it discharges into local rivers and streams, untreated."
 
 Think Blue Maine
 https://thinkbluemaine.org/

Map of urban impaired streams: https://maine.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7f8f40a744ad49f3a6cccc7f1330872a 

Non-Point Source Training Center -
revisit the second half of acliffhanger episode that we left
you with earlier this winter.
We're going to follow up secondhalf of a cliffhanger episode
that we left you with earlierthis winter.
We're going to follow up withour Stormwater Rangers and drop

(00:30):
Stormwater Rangers, Part 2,Return of the Stormwater, which
seems timely given our largerain events that we've had most
recently.
But don't worry, we'll be backas a team soon, but in the
meantime, we hope you will enjoythis episode, Rebecca.
Today we are here with some ofour favorite or my personal

(00:53):
favorite people that we areintroducing our colleague to,
who is also on this call.

Amanda Campbell (00:59):
Amanda, you want to introduce yourself.
Hi folks, I'm Amanda Campbell,your third co-host.

Rebecca Graham (01:06):
Amanda's going to have to take over some of the
management of this advocacyportfolio and it struck us as an
important conversation that weshould be having with the public
in general to talk aboutstormwater, stormwater
regulation, ms4 permits and awhole bunch of anacronyms with
some of my favorite people tohang out with.

(01:27):
Today we have with us FredDillon, who is the South
Portland Stormwater ProgramManager.
Is that?

Fred Dillon (01:34):
Coordinator.
But yeah, I mean, manager isfine too.

Rebecca Graham (01:38):
And Doug Roncarati, who is Portland's
Stormwater Czar right Programcoordinator works just fine, and
Cody, I'm going to butcher yourlast name, cody, can you
introduce yourself to us?

Cody Obropta (01:53):
Yeah, sure thing.
So I'm Cody Abrupta.
I'm a licensed professionalcivil engineer working for the
Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection in the
Land Bureau, and I'm a member ofthe stormwater engineering team
.

Rebecca Graham (02:04):
Awesome, Cody.
We're so glad to have you heretoo, because the nexus between
local, state and federal in thistopic in particular is
extremely important to try tounderstand.
When we left our stormwaterrangers, they were just talking
about how difficult it was toget, how difficult it was to get
stormwater infrastructure pasta budget committee.

Doug Roncarati (02:37):
Will they succeed?
Do they have bright ideas?
Let's find out in episode two.
And it's a hard thing to dowhen budgets are tight now.
It's hard to say we need tospend some money on this now,
when everybody would like to say, hey, we can do that in five
years, when things are a littleless tight.
But five years comes and thingsare just as tight, if not worse
.
So it's a hard sell.

Rebecca Graham (02:55):
And everything in stormwater is hidden, so it's
not something that people seeon a regular basis in an
intimate way like they would aroad.
There's a catch base in there,but they know when there's a
pothole and that becomes apriority versus oh actually, I
think this might be a good segueinto Andre the Giant's
connection with stormwater howwe interact with the roads and

(03:21):
our expectations as we're ridingthrough South Portland or
Portland and how that impactsstormwater and that behavior
change Like that's a that's alitigation nightmare too often
or use litigation is used as a.

Fred Dillon (03:36):
Thanks, rebecca, that's an interesting one.
And, just tagging on to whatDoug was saying, I mean thinking
about, you know, modifyingbehaviors and the other pet
waste.
That's one thing, but the otherway to appeal to people is
through, you know, throughdollars and cents, right so,
versus bugs and bunnies, rightso, if there's a way that we can
convince people that you canstill maintain.
So.
The reference to Under theGiant is a great one, and I put

(03:58):
a slide together for apresentation on fluoride use.
And who'd have thunk that saltapplication and in, uh, in areas
of where there are freshwaterresources, is a big deal, but
it's a big deal.
I mean, chlorides can be toxicto the things that live in these
fresh waters, and uh, and we,we put way more salt down than
we need to, and so there's thismisconception that more is

(04:20):
better, and if you can't hearcrunch underfoot, then it's not
enough.
And uh, so we're now learning,and it's not rocket science, but
there's a, there's some,there's some science behind this
that you can, you know, you canapply just enough, still
maintain a level of service sopeople can safely walk into the
mall or safely drive down thestreet and and in addition to

(04:40):
benefiting bugs and bunnies.
You know, environmental waterquality.
You can actually also benefitinfrastructure and save money in
the process, because salt isexpensive, and so that's an
example of what we're trying todo, and Portland was trying to
do it as well.
I think we're both kind ofdipping our toes into the salty
water now to figure out if thereare practices that we can use,

(05:01):
that our public worksdepartments can use and are
willing to use, because thereare.
I mean.
Going back to the publicexpectations, because people
want to be able to you get a10-inch snowstorm.
They want to be able to drivedown the main turnpike at 70
miles an hour, you know, withina half hour after that storm
stops.
So, um, so there are.
There are challenges there, butI think those are, I mean.
So I like to you know some ofthe interns that work with me,

(05:22):
so that I don't completely bumthem out.
You know I used to start outwith let's make the world a
better place.
You know now I've kind of cometo say, well, let's make the
world less worse, but at somepoint we're trying to make
things better, I guess.

Andre the Giant (05:36):
I just want to make everybody happy.

Rebecca Graham (05:38):
Can you repair a stream?
Is there any evidence that?
Not saying that it's notimportant, but if you have an
impaired stream, is there anyway to repair that stream?
Or is preventing the impairmentmuch easier?

Fred Dillon (05:57):
Because I've spoken so much.
There's lots to say there, butI bet both Cody and Doug have
great, great thoughts on that aswell.

Cody Obropta (06:04):
So I'll stop talking, I'll jump in really
quickly and I'll just say thatyou know, when it comes to
impaired streams, as little as10% impervious cover in a
watershed can lead to measurableand demonstrable impacts on a
water body.
If you get over 25% imperviouscover in a watershed, most

(06:36):
likely that stream is not goingto be able to support the type
of aquatic wildlife that wereally would like to see in a
healthy stream.
And so, when it comes to, canstreams be repaired?
Yes, they can be be.
However, it's a lot moredifficult to do it once the
stream has been impacted past acertain point, it becomes very
difficult to actually accomplishthat type of restoration work
and again, like all things, itbecomes more and more expensive

(06:58):
the more impacts you're tryingto repair and respond to.
Now, yes, we've absolutely gotways to address this situation.
There are watershed-based plansor watershed management plans
that are put together to help.
It's basically like a roadmapto improving water quality and
habitat in an affected waterbody.
We can fund restoration work orimplement best management

(07:22):
practices, stormwater controlsto help address some of the
either pollutant loading issuesor also other issues to think
about with a water body arethermal issues actually, so
stormwater.
When it's running off of a hotsurface, a pavement heats up, a
lot more so than grass or forestarea does.
So when rainwater hits that inthe summer, that water is warmed

(07:46):
up and those thermal impactsactually it may not seem like a
lot to us, but to aquaticwildlife that has different
thresholds it can be a bigdifference.
So cooling down that stormwateris another big important point.
And then, on top of that,building up the habitat in the
actual streams can be a bigchallenge.

(08:08):
But yeah, there are definitelyways to address it.
Some of the things we use arespecifically our structural BMPs
best management practices tocapture and slow down the
stormwater too.
Right Impervious surfaces shedstormwater very quickly.
I mean, one of the things thatus humans are really good at is

(08:30):
paving over a surface andgetting water and moving it
around really quickly.
We're good at directing waterto places.
The problem is in a naturalsetting that's not the ideal
habitat generating mechanism.
You don't want a lot of that.
You don't want the stream to gofrom just normal base flow to
completely flooding out in amatter of minutes.

(08:54):
Usually in an undevelopedwatershed, it takes hours, days
for water to travel across thatsurface and end up in the water
bodies because there's all theseobstructions, you've got your
vegetation cover.
Some of that water isinfiltrating into the
groundwater and so throughdevelopment we kind of reduce
all of that time it takes forthe water to run off and we're

(09:17):
basically blowing out ourstreams, for lack of a better
word.
And so all of those challengescan be difficult to mitigate
later on.
You know, addressing it upfrontand preventing it from
occurring can be one of thebetter ways to address the
problem.
But again, you know, there isalways going to be a development

(09:39):
pressure and it's, I guess it'sjust it's tough to it deal with
.
But I'll let I'll let Doug talka little bit.

Doug Roncarati (09:46):
One thing I wanted to clear up a little bit.
There's a lot of talk abouturban impaired streams and I
don't want to go too far downthat road.
But I wanted to explain thatunder the Clean Water Act the
state of Maine has developedwater quality standards and
those standards are essentiallyto look at a whole host of lakes

(10:07):
, rivers, streams, coastalwaters and determine what their
uses are and determine whattheir current status is based on
the standards that they've setup.
So, for example, every waterbody or large water body has a
water quality standard that isthe goal for it to meet.

(10:28):
It should currently it shouldbe able to meet those standards
and provide all the benefits anduses that that go with those
standards.
So when you get into stormwaterlaw, that's a separate thing.
That's when you get into theurban impaired stream standard.
So you can have a stream or alake or a river that doesn't

(10:50):
meet water quality standards andthen the communities that are
part of that watershed have todo things to improve water
quality in those water bodies.
But if you have a stream thatisn't meeting water quality
standards and it is designatedunder stormwater law as an urban
impaired stream, then there areadditional things under

(11:14):
stormwater management law thatyou completely separate from the
main water quality standardsand the infamous 303D list,
which is basically the list ofall impaired water bodies or
potentially impaired waterbodies that the state has to

(11:38):
submit to the federal governmentevery so many years under the
Clean Water Act.
For example, you could have apond in your community that
isn't an urban impaired stream,but it's an impaired pond
because, for example, too muchphosphorus is being dumped into
it.
It's causing algae blooms,which results in less dissolved

(11:59):
oxygen in the water, whichdegrades the habitat for the
fish and all the other aquaticorganisms and makes it pretty
much miserable for everybody touse.
So I just wanted to clarifythat type of thing.
So there's things that arerequired under Maine water
quality law and things that arerequired under Maine stormwater
law.

Fred Dillon (12:20):
But one other nuance, doug, to add to that and
correct me if I'm wrong, butisn't it only recently that
there's been a linkageestablished between those two,
ie the MS4 permit, which nowactually compels us to do
something about urban impairedstreams, or, as before, prior to
this most recent permititeration?
And we didn't mention thatthese MS4 permits go in
five-year cycles, this last onebeing an exception because

(12:42):
there's been some controversyabout some of the elements of it
.
But just assume that there's afive-year permit cycle and each
iteration becomes a little bitmore strict.
And I think prior to this one,the urban impaired stream work
that we were doing and that allof us have been doing we call it
voluntary, but I mean, I don'tthink that there was as much
regulatory push behind it sothat if we didn't feel like feel

(13:03):
like developing a watershedmanagement plan, we didn't
necessarily have to.
What that enabled us to do wasto we did this, you know nine
step epa, you know kind ofapproved plan planning process.
It made us eligible for theep319 funding we talked about
funding earlier so that we coulddo some stuff and you know, to
restore the stream.
So, um, but we try restore thestream, which goes back to

(13:25):
Rebecca's original question areall streams restorable?
And Cody kind of got at it aswell Maybe not.
So one quick example is lookingand it's not a quick example
but I'll try and be quick aboutit is that both Doug and I are
on the board of the Long CreekWatershed Management District,
which is a stream system in themain mall area, and Cody
mentioned that 10% is a criticalthreshold, maybe even 8%.

(13:48):
We actually start to seedegradation of aquatic habitat.
Some of the sub-watershed areasin the main mall have 60%
impervious area and are thoserestorable?
Maybe not.
So you had a question, rebecca,about that.
We don't want them to get anyworse.
So Doug has been a real greatadvocate on the board and has
made the point of in the LongCreek watershed it's about three

(14:11):
and a half square miles, Ithink there's about 700 acres
currently of impervious area andof that very small percentage
of that we're not small but it'snot a big enough percentage
that it takes a big bite out ofthe amount of all the stuff that
Cody was talking about thevolume, the thermal impacts, the
pollutants that come going toimprove and one of the other

(14:35):
things that I don't think we'vementioned yet, in addition to
all the structural BMPs thatCody talked about, is that Long
Creek did this really coolin-stream restoration project
where they actually went intothe stream itself, the stream
channel, and put all thesenatural features in there to try

(14:57):
and mimic what was blown out.
Cody mentioned all these firehose effect when you have this
heavily urbanized landscape andyou get these rain events that
just throw all this waterquickly at a stream and then
just blast it out.
But anyway, I know that's a bitof a jumbled jumbled thoughts,
but I see Doug's got his hand upand I bet he's got some
clarifying points to make.

Doug Roncarati (15:18):
Yeah, you really get some great points, fred,
and you know Long Creek is agreat example of how not to
manage a watershed.
Essentially, it's not just aboutmanaging stormwater, it's the
fact that we went in wholesale,destroyed the stream.
We moved the stream, we filledthe stream, we altered the

(15:40):
stream, we filled in all of thewetlands that provide natural
treatment and habitat andprotection for the stream, and
then we put all of thislandscape on top of it, which
produces a lot of runoff and alot of urban environments, salt
being a big one in thatwatershed.
So we physically changed it andwhen you get to that point,

(16:04):
it's very, very expensive, aswe're finding, to try to restore
it and even putting instormwater infrastructure the
most modern, best and a lot ofit is not necessarily going to
replace the stream and thewetlands that were part of it,
the habitat that made it afunctional watershed and a

(16:25):
functional stream.
We turned it into a drainagesystem that's being managed, but
we're not.
We're not restoring the habitatand in Maine, a big part of
what helps you meet waterquality standards is the fact
that you have viable habitat.
So, for example, for a stream,can the stream support the food

(16:49):
sources and the fish that eatthose food sources?
Is it drinkable water?
And because all of thesestreams are connected to larger
water bodies, they have to berestored in some way so they're
not contributing pollutants andimpairing the water bodies that
receive them, and eventuallyeverything goes to the ocean
anyway.

(17:09):
We don't want to be impairingthe ocean.
Long Creek flows into the FourRiver, which then flows into
Portland Harbor and the Bay.
So why is it important torestore these and not continue
to allow them to degrade andcontribute pollution into the

(17:29):
Four River and the harbor?
Because we want our river andour harbor to be healthier too.
So it's those connections.
They're not just discreteentities, they're connected
systems.
We have to start looking atthem like they are connected
systems.

Fred Dillon (17:46):
And just quickly I'll add that our predecessors
failed the Hippocratic Oathfirst do no harm, right?
So moving forward, and toRebecca's point, I mean, in some
cases it may be a tall order tothink that the subcatchment
that's got the 65 percentcontributing, you know, 65
percent of impervious covercontributing to that watershed
can be restored, but we sure asheck don't want it to get worse,

(18:07):
right so.
So maybe we're going to holdthe line on it, but the idea
that we're going to get trout orcold water fisheries back into
that, it's probably going to bea tall order.
That we're going to get troutor cold water fisheries back
into that, it's probably goingto be a tall order, but maybe
not.
I mean, and it's not to saywell, and I guess it does beg
the question is, how much moneydo we have to spend before we
finally get to the point ofsaying you know what I mean,
we've really given it and LongCreek's this great science

(18:27):
project, but it's an expensiveone, right?
So when we look at it, is youknow?

Doug Roncarati (18:32):
and I'll just say quickly.

Fred Dillon (18:33):
You know, both Doug and I have devoted a decade or
more of our lives to, you know,kind of looking at trying to
help restore Long Creek.
But we spent a lot of money 1.5million bucks a year for the
past 15 million dollars over thepast 10 years and we've got
this really sophisticatedmonitoring system.
Long Creek is the most heavilymonitored stream no, no question

(18:54):
in the state, and we reallycan't demonstrate, by looking at
all the water quality data thatwe've collected, that we're
moving the needle very much inmany regards in these various
segments of the watershed.
So I think we could say thatyou know it's only 10 years.
It took us 50 years to mess thestream up.
So we need to keep trying.
But will we reach a point wherewe say you know what this is?

(19:16):
You know we're shoveling andyou're going to edit this out
too.
We're shoveling shit againstthe tide.
So some of these streamsegments are going to be maybe
non-restorable.
Just don't make them worse.
So I'll stop there.

Rebecca Graham (19:29):
Yeah, that's something that's always struck
me as odd from the advocacy endin thinking about water systems,
thinking about water sheds,water doesn't care where the
municipal boundary is, and wehave this really odd kind of
regulatory regime where you know, I need a federal, state and
state and local permit to sticka dock into a river or a pond,

(19:55):
but I can pay to fill in awetland and the payments for
that wetland may be used byanother community someplace else
for an environmental project,but that wetland is gone.
You've paid to fill in.
That, to me, has just been anodd concept.
I think that that probably hasmore harm than the dock, which

(20:19):
has this you know, massive leveland is focused right at that
river, like the impacts offilling those.
I don't think you look at in asystem way, though we have this
system of taking money for thatactivity and giving it to other
areas for preservation purposes.

Doug Roncarati (20:36):
It seems like a bit of a perverse incentive and
I bet Doug's got some ideasaround how many wetlands he has
left in Portland to fill,believe it or not, there are a
lot of wetlands because they'rejust not high quality compared
to what you'd see up in thecounty, which has wonderful
forests and streams and rivers.

(20:57):
Our you know, basically, thedevelopment of Portland.
You know, from the earliesttimes to the clearing that went
on for farms and pasture, to therailroad and the changes that
the railroads made.
Basically throughout Portland'shistory it's been a lesson in
moving water around thelandscape and trying to get it

(21:19):
off our built landscape and intothe ocean as fast as possible.
And I mean, if you look at whatPortland used to look like
along the coastline, it probablyresembled something more like
Scarborough Marsh at one time.
But we filled in a lot of thatland to use for, you know,
industrial, commercial andresidential uses and inland.

(21:43):
You know we've done the samething and we've used pipes and
ditches to move that wateraround the landscape.
And we continue to do that.
We continue to convey it to thelow-lying areas that are out of
our way and then eventually wedecide well, we need that land
too.
So we want to, as you say, fillin that land and build on that,

(22:07):
which creates challenges.
But then there's a costassociated with that because
that water, when it rains heavy,that water's got to go
somewhere.
So we've got to find adifferent place to put it and we
either have to run it throughour storm drain systems or we
have to shift it over ontosomebody else's property and
then nature finds a way ofdealing with it at that point

(22:30):
and then we just you know thatcycle continues.
So in order to manage ourlong-term costs, we have to
think about how we're movingwater around the landscape,
where we're putting ourdevelopment.
Would it be cheaper to leavethat wetland and that woodlands
and that stream in that spot andfind a better place to develop,

(22:51):
such as if there's anunderutilized developed area in
the urban core?
Can we develop there insteadand get the same thing out of it
and not have to incur the costof moving stormwater around and
managing stormwater?
And I think that's where we'reat issue.

(23:12):
Traditionally, the poorestpeople have been relegated to
the locations where a lot of ourwaste and water, our runoff and
wastewater are directed.
It doesn't make sense to fillin wetlands and put in housing

(23:33):
in those locations only for themto have lots of problems and
for the community to incurgreater costs for filling in
those places to put housing,because those costs then impact
the cost of housing.
Yeah, so it makes more sense todevelop the underutilized

(23:53):
developed spaces rather than toutilize most, because most of
what's left in portland is verymarginal land, not land that was
easily developed because it waswet and or it was just a big
ditch or ravine that collectedwater that, you know, nobody
wanted to fill in because itjust wasn't cost effective.
Um, so it makes it still makesno sense to develop a lot of

(24:18):
those areas because they'reproviding, you know, drainage
services that we won't have toreplicate using stormwater
infrastructure.

Rebecca Graham (24:27):
Yeah, managing the sins of the past, like you
talked about previously.
I think the East Coast ingeneral has the same issue that
the West Coast probably doesn'thave whatsoever, or at least
nowhere near as great of a time.
So is there a way we can builda stormwater conveyance to the

(24:47):
West Coast from here?
You know, like a massiveutility pipeline we could send
them all of our stormwaterpipeline, we could send them all
of our storm water and you joke.

Cody Obropta (25:02):
But there have been plans, or at least, um, you
know, ideas, to either pipesome of the mississippi river
out to the colorado river or todeal with some of the water
issues.
And again, I know it crazy, butthe situation is getting so
dire there that this may be oneof the only ways that they can

(25:22):
accomplish that outside ofexpanding desalination to just
the nth degree.
But anyway, that's a wholenother topic for some some other
day, for some other day.

Rebecca Graham (25:37):
What type of contractor education is
available for someone?
You mentioned construction, sohow might we be doing a better
job at educating contractors onhow they need to meet your needs
in the community and how theycan be better stewards for
stormwater on these sites asthey're, as they're?

Fred Dillon (25:59):
going forward rather than seeing them as a
barrier I'll jump in quickly andthen I'll, then I'll hand it
off to cody and I bet doug wouldprobably second this is that I
feel like dep is doing a really,really good job now with this
contractor pride trainingprogram.
So they've, they've reallyrevamped it and, um, the fellow
that uh, you know, john mcclainthat is overseeing that project,
is just doing a stellar job.
So I think that it really does.

(26:20):
It hits all the high pointsfrom an MS4 perspective and that
, I think, is a really bigimprovement.
That John made on behalf of DEPis to make a more explicit
connection between the generalconstruction practices and what
the MS4 programs have to dealwith.
So I think, to my mind, doug,you feel like there's any gaps.
I mean, from what I've seen ofEEP's contractor training

(26:41):
program for constructionprojects, it seems like it's
really.
I mean, I think it hits all thepoints that we needed to hit
from a construction managementperspective and keeping private
dirt on private sites and notinto public store marks.

Doug Roncarati (26:54):
I'm a big advocate for.
Let's figure out how to dothings right and let's figure
out how to do them across thestate.
Right now, the biggest burdenis on the communities the 30
regulated communities, becausethey have these stormwater
permits.
But we really need to make surethat those expectations on and

(27:15):
sedimentation control andon-site management of waste are
done on every construction site,regardless of the scale of the
site and regardless of wherethey are in the state of Maine.
That would be something that Iwould love to see more of more
statewide solutions and moresimilar expectations across the

(27:37):
board.
Contractors there are otherkinds of contractors.
There are contractors that goout and provide services such as
carpet cleaning, tile cleaningor grease vent fan cleaning, and
there's no consistent industrypractices or standards for
managing the wastes that aregenerated from those things.

(27:59):
And unfortunately, in an urbanenvironment, where do they do
them?
In the parking lot, which goesinto the catch basins, which

(28:24):
goes into the in South Portland.
If I'm a contractor that'sproviding one of these services,
I know I have to implementthese best practices so that I'm
not creating stormwaterpollution.
So that I'm not creatingstormwater pollution.
It's very, very difficult forPortland you know, being a
stormwater program coordinator,when I have to go and talk with
these contractors and say, hey,you can't do that, that's
illegal.

(28:44):
And he said, well, I do it overin Scarborough or I do it over
in, you know, cape Elizabeth,you can do South Portland.
You know Portland gets a very,very bad rap for rap for being,
you know, being difficult towork in.
But part of that is because youknow we are being asked to do

(29:09):
more from a regulatorystandpoint and we have to do
more because we have such alarge built landscape.
But part of it is because thoseexpectations are not clear, cut
and across the board foreverywhere in the state and for
everybody.
So, that would be something thatI would like to see some
support, some additional supportfrom, but I agree 100% that the

(29:32):
newer training andcertification program for
erosion sedimentation controlhas been awesome and we really
welcome that that's voluntarythough, right, Cody.

Cody Obropta (29:46):
Yes and no, it's voluntary in some respects, but
if you are a contractor workingin a shoreland zone, you need to
have somebody on that siteduring any type of construction
activity that is certifiedthrough the through the main dep
um non-point source trainingcenter.
And again, the non-point sourcetraining center is the training

(30:06):
that both f that both Fred andDoug have spoken at length about
.
I'm sure we'll include the linkin the show notes because
that's a really great resource,just to hit a couple of other
things.
So I have another resource Iwant to give, but I also just
want to backtrack a little bit,talking to piggyback off of
something Doug said, howPortland may have a reputation

(30:27):
of being a difficult area towork.
And, same thing, a lot ofpeople were concerned that, oh
well, long Creek has all ofthese you know, crazy
restrictions and you know if weput these crazy restrictions in
or if we make these developershave to deal with all this stuff
, no one's going to want to.
They're going to move somewhereelse and they're going to, you
know, pollute that pristinelandscape.
And what we've seen throughdevelopment trends at the state

(30:50):
level is that is not the case.
I mean absolutely.
Yes, other communities areseeing an increase in
development, but areas like LongCreek Watershed or areas like
Portland are seeing a lot ofdevelopment despite the high
expectations of treatmentstandards the you know, the high

(31:11):
expectations of treatmentstandards.
And so I think something thatthat speaks to is you know, yeah
, there are absolutely concernsthat if you make regulations too
strict, you know people aregoing to go somewhere else or
that those communities aren'tgoing to see the benefits.
But I don't think that thatbears a lot of truth, based on
just the development trends thatwe've been seeing, especially
again in Long Creek Watershed inPortland and in other MS4

(31:33):
communities.
I mean, despite all of theseregulations, there's still a ton
of demand, a ton of developmentdemand and interest in, you
know, building in these areas,and so I just wanted to add that
point.
In Just speaking to a couple ofother resources, I think I agree
with both Doug and Fred thatJohn McLean and his group at the

(31:55):
Nonpoint Source Training Centerhave done wonders.
I wish he had a team of likefive or ten people rather than
being almost like a solo artistthere, because I think with a
larger team he could accomplishso much more.
I think there needs to be moreeducation in a lot of different

(32:16):
departments and I've beenworking with John on just some
other stormwater-relatededucation initiatives.
One of the things we'd love todo is put together a
post-construction stormwaterinspection and maintenance
certification or workshop wherecontractors or other
professionals can take thisclass and become certified so

(32:39):
that they can provide inspectionand maintenance services on
post-construction stormwatermanagement.
Because again, you have duringconstruction, which is your soil
erosion and sediment controls,and then you have
post-construction, which is yourlong-term stormwater control
measures, best managementpractices.
That's like the stormwater wetpond you put in, or that's like

(32:59):
the proprietary treatment device, your focal points and your
tree boxes and all that stuff,your Ferguson Water Works
infrastructure.
And then you also have yourunderdrained soil filters and
all that stuff is important too.
And again, ms4 communities havethat additional burden of making

(33:20):
sure that the private propertyowners are maintaining their
stormwater infrastructure.
We try to accomplish that atthe state level through our
five-year recertificationprogram, which I fortunately
have had the pleasure ofrevitalizing after a little bit
of a hiatus because ofunderstaffing, but again

(33:40):
incorporating additionaleducation from a
post-construction inspection andmaintenance perspective.
I think that there's a lot ofroom there to expand the
training.
And then, finally, I justwanted to plug this other
training opportunity thatRutgers University has a green
infrastructure champions programwhere they have a it's

(34:02):
completely free, it's there'slike 10 classes, I think.
They're two hours each, and itoffers a really good
introduction to the world ofgreen infrastructure.
So for somebody who doesn't knowanything about green
infrastructure whether you're acontractor, municipal employee
or something like that I thinkit offers a really good
introduction, exclusively onretrofitting projects or going

(34:36):
to existing stormwaterinfrastructure and improving it
or expanding it, and so I thinkthat that kind of speaks to some
of the things we were talkingabout dealing with combined
sewer communities, going in andretrofitting some of these areas
.
So I think that that's an areawhere it ties in and I think it
just gives a really goodoverview of how green
infrastructure can be part ofthe solution and how contractors
may be able to look at that assomething that's not super

(34:58):
difficult to use on a site,because, again, one of the
things we want contractors to beable to do is recommend green
infrastructure, recommend reallygood quality stormwater
infrastructure when they arerequested.
You know, hey, give me anestimate.
I have this problem.
Can you help me with this?
What do I need to do?

(35:20):
In an ideal world, those folkswho are providing that guidance
will go hey, I know these greeninfrastructure practices are
really good, or I know thatliving shorelines are a really
good way of dealing with thisproblem, whereas currently, some
of the challenges we run intoare just the legacy development
that people have been doingforever and ever that people

(35:41):
know how to do really well.
That's what gets turned to whenwe have, I think, frankly,
better solutions available to usat this time.
I think it's just a matter ofeducating not only the people
who are going to be installingthis stuff, but also the
homeowners and the propertyowners and the towns and really
just everybody across the boardto look towards these solutions

(36:05):
and familiarize themselves withthem.
I mean, just like the same waywhere, you know, we used to put
in a lot of ornamental exoticshrubbery as our landscaping and
now there's been a really bigpush to put in native plants as
landscaping on projects.
I mean, that shift has happenedover a number of years and I

(36:26):
think the same needs to be donein just different areas of
stormwater management, withgreen infrastructure practices,
living shorelines, nature-basedsolutions.
I think all of that stuff needsto follow suit with that type
of evolution.

Fred Dillon (36:41):
And MMA will have to have us back again because
what Cody and Doug just bothsaid really will be largely
encompassed in the new Chapter500 updates.
So the stormwater standards anda couple of points about that.
Apropos of what both of themsaid is the notion of these
regulations beingsprawl-inducing.
So that argument will be nodoubt trotted out.
Mma is going to hear about it.

(37:02):
No question from municipalofficials that these DEPs are
crazy.
This is going to drivedevelopment out of the
hinterlands and it's going to beworse.
And Doug has always been a realstrong proponent, and spot on, I
would say, about trying tolevel that playing field so that
across, in addition to the MS4communities, the 30 of us, all

(37:24):
these, to some extent all ofthese communities are going to
have to have some basis.
Where they're going to have to,there'll be restrictions on
development for them as well.
So that will maybe dampen andso you know it'll be a sausage
making process, right.
So the devil will be in thedetails of what comes out of
that and it'll probably take usa couple of years to get there.
But again you will.
You definitely will hear thatthese regulations are crazy,

(37:47):
it's going to be sprawl inducing, it's going to cut into
affordable housing.
We've got a housing crisis, soall of that.
So, anyway, I'd love to comeback, because I'll talk about
this stuff longer than any ofyou will want to listen to you
don't know the power of the darkside, I do find stormwater
fascinating.

Rebecca Graham (38:03):
This is not something that I ended up
thinking that I would get reallygeeked about, but I've been at
parties before where I found akindred soul and talked for like
hours while everyone elsewalked off.
This is a party.
What does it matter with you?
Yes, we have an emergentproblem with housing.
It didn't happen overnight, ithappened since 2010 and the slow

(38:26):
of that building, and we're notgoing to build our way into a
solution anytime soon.
So I get the emergency feelingaround it, but at the same time,
you know we're going to bereaping way more at the other
end.
We've been here before.
We've been here a billion timesbefore.
It's time we should probablylearn about it and we have an
opportunity.
I don't think things take moretime to do right and they may

(38:48):
cost more to do right, but notin the long term.
That's my soapbox, doug, do you?

Doug Roncarati (38:52):
mind if I jump on mine for a minute, please.
You know, kind of picking up onsomething that both Cody and
Fred said development hasimpacts.
There's no way of gettingaround it.
We hear a lot of terms aboutlow-impact development and you
know what does that really mean?
And there's different campsabout that.

(39:14):
And the idea is, you know,looking at Portland, you know
essentially Portland's awonderful place to live.
Many communities would love tobe like Portland.
They'd love to have the taxbase, they'd love to have the.
You know, the hot spots havethe hot spots and the tax base
and everything that comes withbeing Portland.
But there were costs associatedwith that and there continue to

(39:37):
be costs associated with that.
You have very high taxes andhigh land values, which make
other choices more difficult.
As far as our water resourcesgo, I would encourage
communities that don't have thestormwater and wastewater
challenges.
We have to be more proactiveand to avoid getting into the

(40:01):
situation that we're in, becausethat can help manage your
long-term costs and make you amuch more affordable place to
live.
So it's a double-edged swordwhen it comes to managing these
things.
Our costs are extremely highand unfortunately that creates
high cost of living and verychallenging affordability

(40:22):
situations but really hoppingonto the soapbox when it comes
to low-impact development.
It's really a philosophy.
It's about looking at thelandscape, determining where the
natural resources are, wherethe most important resources are
on that area.
And it could include multiplesites, because we kind of take

(40:45):
the landscape and divide it intoparts and pieces by ownership,
but those really fit into onelarger landscape and we need to
proactively look at thelandscape, both on the large
scale and on an individual sitescale, and say, okay, we should
protect this stream and give itsome room to grow and to exist,

(41:06):
to grow and to exist.
We should protect thesewetlands and these forests and
determine, okay, where on thesite would be suitable for
development.
And then let's look at thatarea and let's develop that the
best way we possibly can.
We know we're going to generatestormwater runoff because we

(41:26):
know we're putting buildings andparking garages or parking lots
and roadways there.
We're going to have to manage itusing stormwater infrastructure
.
Let's utilize the beststormwater infrastructure we can
and use green stormwaterinfrastructure, which is
essentially using techniquesthat mimic some of nature's

(41:47):
processes to provide the beststormwater benefits that we can
Grabbing the stormwater inlittle bits and pieces and
treating it and managing itthere, slowing it down, as Cody
mentioned, rather than trying tocollect it in big pipes and
then put it into a big detentionpond or to completely send it
off-site into the nearest waterbody, to a big detention pond or

(42:09):
to completely send it off-siteinto the nearest water body.
So green stormwaterinfrastructure is a great tool
for managing stormwater from theareas we do develop.
It is not the same aslow-impact development.
Low-impact development is whatyou look at from the landscape
and try to protect the resources, and then green infrastructure
is one of the stormwatermanagement approaches and tools

(42:32):
that we use to manage the areasthat we are going to do.
So there's a differencephilosophically from a planning
and from a stormwater managementstandpoint, and I think they
both have important long-termcost management benefits for
looking at how we develop anddevelop better.

Rebecca Graham (42:54):
Yeah, that's an important distinction, because
I've heard that the ordinancerequirement for low-impact
development in MS4 communitieson the developer side is being
too onerous and why is thathappening now?
And there was a disconnectionin not understanding that it was
going to become a permitrequirement.
So that was something that thecontractor education, but also
the development community, Ithink needs to understand a bit

(43:17):
more too, Because that's now apermit requirement, right, Doug?

Doug Roncarati (43:21):
It is a permit requirement and the state will
be looking at low-impactdevelopment standards and we're
waiting to see what those are.
But we're not waiting, not beingactive, we're actually being
proactive and we're regionally.
We worked to create a modelordinance and we use that as a

(43:42):
starting point for Portland todevelop its own set of standards
and then we'll be comparingthat against the state standards
when they come out to make surethat we're consistent and also
meeting Portland's needs,Because doing low-impact
development in Portland is goingto be different than doing
low-impact up in the county,simply because we're in a

(44:04):
redevelopment situation ratherthan a development situation.
But, as Cody mentioned, there'slots of things that we can do in
redevelopment situation ratherthan a development situation.
But, as Cody mentioned, there'slots of things that we can do in
redevelopment and the city ofPortland, as part of its
stormwater utility, actually hasa credit program which
basically says whether you're ina new development situation or

(44:25):
a redevelopment situation.
If you put in modern stormwatercontrols whether they be grain
or gray, gray being yourtraditional pipes and box
container type systems,proprietary systems and so on
versus green, which are likesoil filters and tree box
filters and so on you can applyfor a credit on your stormwater

(44:50):
fee, and it's a very significantit can be easily 60% of your
total stormwater fee and thatwill help not only meet your
state and local stormwaterstandards, but for doing what
you already have to do.
You can get credit for doingthat as long as you continue
maintaining and reporting on it.
You can get credit for doingthat as long as you continue

(45:10):
maintaining and reporting on it,and it's a great tool for
developers to help manage theirstormwater costs on their
individual sites and it's agreat way for us to incentivize
reducing the burden on thepublic side.

Rebecca Graham (45:27):
Amanda, since you're so new to this topic and
kind of new to the whole permit,it's going to be in your
wheelhouse.

Amanda Campbell (45:42):
I'm going to throw you under the bus and ask
if there's anything in thisconversation that you had
questions about or might want todig in.
Does anybody anticipate thatthe number of regulated
communities?

Fred Dillon (45:57):
will increase in the next five year, when the
next five year permit comes up,and what would make and what
would make that happen?
I think I mean census, right, Imean Doug, mentioned earlier.
I think that it's a populationbased determination and there
are several, I think or maybethat's overstating it several, I
think, or maybe that'soverstating it maybe a few
communities that are in theseareas that are burgeoning.
You know Brunswick, topsom, youknow those areas that
potentially will trip thatthreshold and will get pulled
into the program.

(46:17):
I mean there are probablyothers, doug or Cody, you know
of any other population centersthat might, you know, might get
dragged in and maybe thoseboundaries would expand in
certain communities.
So that's what's referred to asan urbanized area is a
designation that's largely basedon census data and so that
could also expand, because someof the communities that are

(46:37):
already in the MS4 programaren't their entire municipality
and actually, believe it or not, south Portland is densely
developed, as we are the mainmall, because it doesn't have a
residential component, althoughthat's changed recently with a
lot of development that'shappened there, the main mall
isn't part of South Portland'surbanized area, although we

(46:58):
manage our infrastructure outthere as if it were.
So yes, I mean there will be.
I can't say for certain, butI'm pretty sure that there will
be additional communities thatcome on board with the next
census.

Amanda Campbell (47:10):
And because that's population-based, there
isn't something that they coulddo to prevent that from
happening, right?
Like if they knew now that, oh,that's going to happen, or
potentially that's going tohappen, but if population is the
trigger, there's nothing theycan do to prevent themselves
having to be sucked into thatsort of bubble, right.

Fred Dillon (47:28):
I don't think so.
I mean to my mind.
No, I mean unless they kickpeople out of the community or
put a gate at the state linecoming in.

Rebecca Graham (47:38):
Right.
Well, isn't there a nexus withimpervious surface, though?
Sure, because I look at VZ asbeing an MS4, and Augusta is not
.

Fred Dillon (47:49):
Yeah, that's a good point actually, and that's a
curious, that's an oddity as faras I don't actually know the
details behind why Augusta isn't.
Yeah, so that's a good point.
I would think Augusta would bea strong candidate for, but I
don't actually know the history,not that.
I'm advocating for that.
But, cody or Doug, do you knowanything about why Augusta

(48:10):
didn't get I mean?
And so yeah, imperviousness ispart of it, but I think it is
population.
You know it's really largelypopulation-based.
I'm not sure aboutimperviousness.

Cody Obropta (48:19):
So unfortunately I am not the expert on MS4 and
the requirements.
Actually, the Water Bureauhandles a lot of the MS4 stuff
and I'm in the Land Bureau,which again, I mentioned before
we even started recording that Iwish there was a little bit
more communication between thetwo of us because I think
there's a lot of crossover whenit comes especially to
stormwater management.

(48:40):
But yes, you're right.
I mean, augusta is not an MS4community and there are actually
a number of areas that haveurban impaired streams but are
not MS4 communities.
So Caribou has urban impairedstreams, same with Lisbon Falls
and Sanford.
So these areas have urbanimpaired streams but they're not

(49:00):
MS4 communities.
And I think, another thing tothink about long.
This is more long-term planning.
But as climate change continuesto progress, the state of maine
and and the northeast as a wholeis actually one of the I.
I don't want I.
I don't want to mix my words up.
It's not necessarily the saferplace to be when it comes to

(49:22):
climate change, but it's goingto be one of the more hospitable
areas in the United States.
When you look at the climatetrends and all of the associated
risk factors, like wildfires,hurricanes and things of that
nature and droughts, theNortheast is relatively well
protected, and so I think thatplanners and people in general

(49:47):
should be aware that we couldvery realistically see a larger
influx of people from otherstates moving to our area, and
no doubt that that would notonly increase the population
numbers but that might createmore MS4 communities down the
road, and it's just something tothink about.

(50:08):
I mean, I don't exactly haveany solutions or anything to
recommend other than maybe getsome good mixed-use zoning in
right now, so that way you canhave retail and housing combined
in one area.
But anyway, that's a differentsoapbox on an urban planning
perspective that I won't jumponto, especially.

(50:29):
I'm not qualified, I'm not aprofessional planner.

Fred Dillon (50:34):
You're totally on the right track there, cody.
So to Cody's point about howdevelopment happens.
I mean densification, you know.
I mean Doug and I came frombeating into our heads about how
density is a good thing.
But if you look at greenfielddevelopment and the way that
it's developed, densificationthere is also a good thing.
But if you look at greenfielddevelopment and the way that
it's developed, densificationthere is also a good thing.
So you can really concentratedevelopment.

(50:55):
So if you look at it at awatershed scale and there's this
great graphic that EPAdeveloped over the years that
really just really illustratesit very, very well that the
amount of runoff, the amount ofpollutants that come off that
landscape, the amount oflandscape that can be preserved.
Back to Doug's original point.
You know he's very propensorial.
He'll be a great adjunctfaculty member in his retirement
years, I think.

(51:15):
Talking about LID as aphilosophy, right so.
But the I'll take that class.
Yeah, exactly, you know, you'vegot a thousand acre parcel and
you can densify it, get the samekind of use out of it in 10
acres and you preserve 990 acres.
And again, maybe that's anextreme example, but I mean, I
think EPA has actually gotgraphics that show this, that
it's a huge impact from thestormwater runoff perspective,

(51:38):
and that's smart planning, andit really does have a lot to do
with the highest and best usethat we use.
That's a term that MMA is veryfamiliar with.

Amanda Campbell (51:45):
It's constitutional, can't help it.
That's a term that MMA is veryfamiliar with it's
constitutional.

Fred Dillon (51:48):
You can't help it.
I don't know, doug, if there'san example of that in Portland,
but that Strahd Water projectright is that.
I mean there was some realeffort there to try and preserve
some of that green space herein Portland that I think
attempted to make some effortsto preserve a lot of the green

(52:12):
space and it's a traditionalsubdivision.
These are upscale single-familyresidential houses but I think
that there was some effort there.
I don't know if you would callthat LID, doug, but I mean you
know the development I'm talkingabout.
I can't remember the name.

Doug Roncarati (52:25):
A couple of things happened happened one.
We worked very hard to makesure that we protected the
shoreline zone, that entire 250foot swath or corridor along the
river itself, and to make surethat no infrastructure would be
put in there, so we weren'timpacting that area.
And it was already cleared.

(52:46):
It had been farm fields for along time, so essentially it's
going to be managed as fieldsand forests.
There will be recreationaltrails to allow people to go
down in that area.
But the focus was trying toprotect that area, allow
development closer to theroadway the main roadway and to

(53:08):
minimize wetland impacts,because there's quite a bit of
wetland as you get closertowards the river itself.
And they also had to put inmodern stormwater controls.
There's a variety of differentstormwater management techniques
that are being used in there.
That's kind of how it wasapproached.
They had to meet the local andstate stormwater standards and

(53:29):
we required them to preserve theentirety of that buffer.

Fred Dillon (53:34):
LID you think To reduce impacts?
You think that's LID or?

Doug Roncarati (53:39):
I wouldn't necessarily call that, I would
say a lower impact development.
I mean, certainly you can't putthat many houses on the
landscape and have it be theequivalent of a farm field.
You're shifting the type ofimpacts that are going on there.

Rebecca Graham (53:55):
Certainly agriculture has one set of
impacts that could affect waterquality and housing and roadways
has a different kind of set ofimpacts, kind of a set of
impacts, but certainly there wasadditional stormwater
management required to deal withthe buildings and the roadways
that are there, yeah, so how doyou manage something like that

(54:17):
in terms of you're looking atpollutant load and you're
looking at an agricultural plotof land that might have
phosphorus runoff and yourmanagement around that is maybe
education to the landowner abouttrying to find some natural
alternatives or something ofthat nature.
But then it shifts and it turnsinto residential and roadways,

(54:39):
which is a whole other differentpollutant runoff situation.
How do you guys manage thatwithin your within your programs
?
And do you guys manage thatwithin your programs and is
there a lot of pushback?

Doug Roncarati (54:51):
Well, right now and it gets back to a point Fred
made earlier right now we lookat stormwater management and
pollutant loading from theperspective of it's all
stormwater.
We're not looking at it, inmost cases, on an individual
pollutant by pollutant basis.
We're looking at trying tomanage the effects of any

(55:15):
stormwater that's generated andone of the challenges we have is
not all sites produce the samekind of pollutants.
You know industrial landscapeproduces one kind of thing,
agricultural a different kind,residential, different kinds,
yet for the most part undercurrent stormwater law they're

(55:37):
all treated the same.
It's all considered imperviousarea that needs to be managed,
that the way these treatmentsystems are designed and
permitted, they will manage afair amount of a variety of
different pollutants.
Not necessarily.

(55:58):
You know phosphorus and you knowsediment and nitrogen being
some of the ones that they focuson.
But not all treatment systemsare equal.
So if, for example, nitrogenwas determined to be a pollutant
of concern for that particularwater body, then as a community

(56:21):
we would encourage the developerto put in treatment systems
that would help manage for thatnitrogen.
But that isn't necessarilyrequired right now and that's a
discussion that we'll probablybe having, you know, during the
Chapter 500 stormwaterregulations Talk about.
Okay, let's figure out what thekinds of pollutants are that we

(56:45):
really have to manage and thenlet's custom tailor the
treatment systems to targetthose pollutants are that we
really have to manage and thenlet's custom tailor the
treatment systems to targetthose pollutants.
And that's a method that's beingused around the country but is
not really being used this muchin Maine, at least it's not as
much as it should and that getsback to that whole TMDL total

(57:07):
maximum daily load, which iskind of what you look at.
If you're talking aboutwastewater and managing
wastewater discharges from anindustrial site, where nutrients
such as nitrogen and phosphorusare real targets in a lake
watershed where phosphorus is ahuge driver of algal blooms that

(57:35):
really make a big difference tothat lake.
On the marine side, when you'retalking about coastal systems,
nitrogen is really the bigfactor, which is one of the
reasons why a lot of localwatchdogs and advocates have
been working really hard to makesure that the city and the
treatment plant are managingnitrogen discharges to our

(57:58):
coastal waters.

Cody Obropta (57:59):
Yeah, I just wanted to add some additional
context for listeners that maynot be as familiar with
stormwater management practicesas a whole or requirements, as
familiar with stormwatermanagement practices as a whole
or requirements.
But the way that our currentregulations and systems treat
stormwater, or the approach thatwe take, is we are trying to
treat what's called the firstflush, the first flush being

(58:21):
when you are driving on aroadway or just under normal
conditions, all that sediment,all of those nutrients and stuff
are going to be deposited onthe surface, and when it rains,
that stuff gets swept off like abroom sweeping off a surface
and it ends up in our waterbodies.
And so that's why, when we aretrying to treat stormwater

(58:42):
runoff, we're trying to treatthat first flush.
That's where we're achievingthe maximum water quality
treatment.
First flush, that's where we'reachieving the maximum water
quality treatment.
Usually, after you treat thatfirst flush, the water is
relatively clean because most ofthe pollutants have been
removed from that surfacealready, and so in larger
flooding events, unless you'retrying to control for quantity,

(59:03):
the total volume of water, a lotof treatment measures get
bypassed just because they'remeant to treat that first flush,
and anything after that isassumed to be a little bit
cleaner.
But I just wanted to add thatcontext because for somebody who
doesn't really understandstormwater management, you may
not be thinking about thesethings.
Another thing that the state ofMaine does, where you know,

(59:24):
because, like Doug said, we'renot focused on specific
pollutants, because thestormwater management practices
and control measures that werecommend have a broad level of
treatment.
But one of the areas that Maineis a little bit special is we do
have phosphorus as a targetedpollutant treatment in lake

(59:45):
watersheds, in lake watersheds,specifically lake watersheds
most at risk of development andlake watersheds that are
actively undergoing algal bloomissues.
That's where we are actuallyspecifically targeting
phosphorus, and so developers inthose specific watersheds are
required to utilize stormwaterinfrastructure and stormwater

(01:00:07):
control measures that treatphosphorus a little bit more
effectively, or at least they'reincentivized to do so, in order
to meet that standard.
They're going to get morecredits if they use better
phosphorus control, stormwatercontrols, compared to just doing
your average stuff.
But again, like Doug said, Imean different watersheds have

(01:00:28):
different triggering nutrients,you know, and in like a nitrogen
watershed in a coastalwatershed where nitrogen might
be a pollutant of concern, usingsomething that has internal
reservoir storage or asubsurface gravel wetland that
achieves higher denitrificationrates might be something that we

(01:00:49):
want to incentivize at thestate level or at least at the
community level, if that'ssomething that we care about.
And again, like Doug said, I'msure we'll be talking about it
at length in the upcomingChapter 500 update, but just
wanted to add that context forthe listener.

Rebecca Graham (01:01:05):
Yeah, I think that's really important because
I didn't think about the firstflush piece versus a large
volume of water either, in thenuance in between that and the
bypassing.
I also think that phosphorus isoften thought of as being an
agricultural product pollutantand I would hazard a guess that
there's not a heck of a lot ofagricultural activity going

(01:01:26):
around Maine's lakes largelyprobably, at least in southern
Maine, but the drive for agreener, fluffy lawn Actually,
in addition to that, rebecca,believe it or not, I think the
primary input from phosphoruscomes from eroding soils, right?

Fred Dillon (01:01:42):
So phosphorus, you know, soils are able to so camp
roads around a lot of theselakes that are not paved.
They erode badly and so therehave been a whole host of camp
road associations that haveformed around these main lakes.
And I know this because I thinkI mentioned earlier in my bio
that I worked for FBEnvironmental, the environmental

(01:02:04):
consulting firm that was doinga lot of work for DEP at the
time, and we were doing thesethings called PCAPs phosphorus
control action plans for theselakes and ponds that were
actively blooming, you know, hadalgal blooms, and we would.
We do these.
It was more GIS, you know,geographic information system
mapping exercise that we woulduse a model that had been
developed that pretty well stoodthe test of time to allocate

(01:02:27):
the contributions from variousland use types.
But inevitably we'd find thatone of the most significant
sources of phosphorus to thesefreshwater lakes or ponds was
often poorly managed gravelroads basically.

Rebecca Graham (01:02:42):
Wow, that's fascinating.

Fred Dillon (01:02:44):
Yeah.

Doug Roncarati (01:02:44):
And just to follow up on that, we have to
remember that Maine had a prettystrong agricultural background
and you know today's developedareas were last year's pastures
and farms.
And one of the things aboutphosphorus is that it tends to
get bound up in the soil prettyquickly and stay there.

(01:03:06):
It'll get taken up by plants,but when those plants die back,
they put it right back into thesoil and quickly gets bound up
in that soil.

Fred Dillon (01:03:14):
So it's available.

Doug Roncarati (01:03:15):
So soil disturbance, soil happens to get
run off, then you're movingthat historic phosphorus loading
down into the water column anddown into your water resources
water resources nitrogen, on theother hand, tends to get picked
up a lot faster, both by plantsand animals and by water, and

(01:03:35):
moved out a lot more quickly.
The another really you knowstrong source of nitrogen and
phosphorus loading in lakewatersheds are septic systems
and poorly managed septicsystems.
And poorly located septicsystems and poorly managed
septic systems and poorlylocated septic systems can
result in, you know,groundwaters eating nitrogen and

(01:03:57):
phosphorus in those lakes andponds, and it's a real concern
for a lot of small lakes.

Fred Dillon (01:04:07):
And there's an interesting analogy between.
So Doug mentioned thatphosphorus can be stored in the
soil on the land.
There's also this thing inlakes and ponds that are
blooming and it's called aninternal load so that you could
cease all phosphorus dischargeinto these water bodies.
But it's going to take a whilefor that internal load.
All that phosphorus that's inthere, accumulated in the bottom
of the lake, it getsre-entrained in the water column

(01:04:28):
where there's this turnoverprocess that happens in the
spring and the fall and thatphosphorus gets kicked back up
into the water column andpromotes the growth of algae.
So you can have, you know, youcould again do a great job at
controlling watershed inputs andstill have years of blooming
lakes.
Similarly you can have the samekind of thing happen in these
urbanized watersheds,particularly around mall areas,

(01:04:49):
where there's a lot of saltapplied.
With that salt the chloridegets into the groundwater and
you could cease all chlorideapplication of that landscape
and still have a period of timefor that chloride-laden
groundwater to flush out.
Because there's an exchangebetween groundwater and surface
water streams, especially duringbase flow conditions.

(01:05:10):
Base flow means lowest flowduring the summertime when the
conditions are most challengingfor the things that live in the
stream and that's the time whenyou actually see the worst
chloride concentrations, becauseyou've got this concentrated
groundwater getting into thestreams that's potentially
killing stuff.

Cody Obropta (01:05:24):
That lives in the stream.
And just to add to that reallyquickly, climate change also
plays a role in warming thewater, specifically when it
comes to the phosphorus feedbackloop.
So, as the climate starts towarm, algae is getting more and
more of a favorable environmentto establish itself, and so
there may be some negativeconsequences to that where, yeah

(01:05:48):
, we might be doing a reallygreat job managing phosphorus,
but if the water's warm tocertain extents, well then just
the natural phosphorus that's inthe lake watershed already
could kick up algae blooms, andso that's another concern, and
that's another reason whyclimate change is just this
looming threat that really needsto be managed and needs to be

(01:06:08):
dealt with, because, again, ifyou live on a lake watershed or
if you live in a community by alake, I imagine you really don't
want that lake to be impactedby algal blooms.
I mean, it decreases propertyvalues, it decreases the
recreational use of those waterbodies, and I think we're all on
the same side that we reallywant to have that pristine

(01:06:31):
environment and that usablewater body where we can, you
know, have all the advantages ofliving in that area, and so I
think we're all on the same sideand that we really just want to
make sure that we're protectingour resources long term.

Rebecca Graham (01:06:46):
In the Land Bureau.
What are one of the biggerchallenges that you see with
this nexus with stormwater?

Cody Obropta (01:06:52):
The Land Bureau specifically is in a difficult
place, at least the stormwaterengineering team, because again,
like I mentioned, there's theLand Bureau and the Water Bureau
and the Water Bureau has kindof been driving or they're
controlling the MS4 program andthe low-impact development
requirements came from EPAthrough the MS4 program and the
low impact developmentrequirements came from EPA
through the MS4 program.

(01:07:12):
First they weren't pressuringus as the land bureau to
establish those requirements.
Now, previously we have had lowimpact development standards in
our best management practicesmanual and in our chapter 500
stormwater rules, but theyweren't like the primary focus,

(01:07:33):
they were just they were inthere as resources.
But now that MS4 communitieshave to implement low impact
development standards, they arelooking to the state for some
guidance, for some.
How should we do this?
What's the best way to go aboutdoing it?
And the water Bureau has theirideas.
But but there's also a lot ofeyes looking towards the land

(01:07:56):
Bureau and our chapter 500update that we're we're going
through the process of updatingit.
There's a lot of focus on that.
Where, hey, can those guys comeup with low impact development
standards that we can use at theMS4 level?
Or another problem is, what ifthe standards that we end up

(01:08:16):
coming up with conflict with thelow-impact development
standards that the MS4communities end up adopting, and
then that's going to spur awhole other process of revising
ordinances and whatnot.
So we're in a difficult spot inthat regard.
Another thing, too, is climatechange driving precipitation

(01:08:38):
changes.
As you might assume,precipitation changes throughout
the state.
It's not just.
Everything is going to get moreintense.
Different areas of the statemight actually see a decrease in
precipitation over the comingyears, whereas other areas of
the state might see asignificant increase in total

(01:08:59):
precipitation or an increase inintense storm events, which is
something that we've been seeingmore and more, at least in a
lot of the communities thatwe're all from seeing more and
more, at least in a lot of thecommunities that we're all from.
These intense storm eventswhere there's a lot of rain all
at once over the course of a dayor two, and some of the
negative consequences relatingto that I mean that's based on

(01:09:20):
the Climate Council's scientificreport that they put out that's
only going to continue toincrease.
We're not only going to seemore rain in general across the
state, in most municipalities,but also we're going to see
increasing intense storm events,and those intense storm events

(01:09:41):
have a whole host of issues,including infrastructure damage,
flooding and all of thoseconcerns, and so at the state
level, we are trying to manageall of that.
We want to protect our naturalresources, we want to ensure
that stormwater is being treatedeffectively, but then we're

(01:10:02):
also concerned with theincreasing intensity and how
climate change impactsstormwater runoff.
So there are a lot of thingsthat are on our mind and it's
something that we have to dealwith.
We are speaking to experts, weare discussing it internally and
we're trying to come up withthe best standards that we can.

(01:10:23):
But keeping in mind that I mean, as Doug and I think Fred have
both said, not every communityin Maine are the same.
I mean an area in I think Fredhave both said you know, not
every community in Maine are thesame.
I mean an area in Portland isvery different from, like, a
small town nearby me, brooks,maine, where they might have one
development project in a decade, versus Portland's got dozens,

(01:10:43):
maybe 100 development projectsevery year, projects every year,
and you know.
So areas in the county and areasin Southern Maine are all
regulated under the statestormwater regulations and so we
are trying to balance thatwe're trying to balance the
needs of all of these differentcommunities and come up with
standards that do protect thoseresources but also make sense

(01:11:08):
for all of those communities.
And again, like folks havementioned, it is a little bit of
a home rule state wheremunicipalities can come up with
regulations on their own thatare more strict than the state
requirements.
So the state does lean a littlebit on some of these
municipalities to enact, I guessenact ordinances or regulations

(01:11:30):
that may make more sense fortheir communities.
So I guess all this to say insummary, we're in a difficult
position and we're never goingto satisfy everybody, but we are
doing our best.
We are really thinking aboutthese things.
We're not just going with theflow and making it up as we go
along.
This is something that we havelong discussions about and we do

(01:11:53):
a lot of reading and talk to alot of experts and get a lot of
community involvement andcommunity engagement, what their
needs are, and so that's great,cody.

Rebecca Graham (01:12:03):
Thank you, and please don't take any of the DEP
beatings that MMA mightadminister in committees as
anything personal.

Fred Dillon (01:12:13):
I think Rebecca has a little post-it right on the
front of her computer that saysthe beatings will continue until
morale improves.

Rebecca Graham (01:12:18):
Exactly Until policy improves.
And when I think of TMDL Ithink total maximum daily load
of legislature, it's like doubleL.
I would like a significantreduction in that number.

Doug Roncarati (01:12:33):
That should be total maximum daily levity.

Rebecca Graham (01:12:37):
That is what I want to seek in my life on a
regular basis, which is why Ienjoy stormwater and beer,
because Andre the Giant comes upand we can geek out and take
tree baths.
And yeah, did you say baths orbaths.
Tree baths.
You're a forestry guy, you knowwhat tree baths are.

Fred Dillon (01:13:04):
So, Amanda, how are you feeling about all of this?
Because you're going to be forthe stormwater community, you're
going to be our connection toMMA, right?

Amanda Campbell (01:13:13):
Yes, eventually full-time.
Hopefully Rebecca's going tohang on for a little bit until
I've learned, because what I'velearned is I have a lot to learn
.
But yeah, no, this isdefinitely interesting and
luckily I like to geek out onscience and things too, so this
will be a good placement for me.
So I'm looking forward toworking with you guys.

Fred Dillon (01:13:36):
Despite what I said earlier about talking about
longer than you want to listen.
I normally would, but I get a.
I've got a skedaddle at about1230.
So I don't know how much youguys free to keep on.

Amanda Campbell (01:13:47):
I have a webinar that I need to get to as
well there we are then there weare then Thank you for the
opportunity to talk about allthis stuff and please make us
all sound very intelligent andknowledgeable and coherent.

Rebecca Graham (01:14:02):
You guys already do that without much editing,
but I will try to edit for somebrevity.

Fred Dillon (01:14:07):
Well, thanks so much to you all for having us
and thanks, Cody and Doug, forbeing great foils for this
fascinating discussion.

Rebecca Graham (01:14:16):
Yes, thank you all.
I really appreciate it, and weneed to get back to the Andre,
the Giant and beer soon.

Doug Roncarati (01:14:23):
You're here.
Thanks, guys.
An honor to work with you guystoday.
Likewise have a great day, takecare.