Maine Nonpoint Source

Management Program Plan 

2015 - 2019 

September 15, 2014

Contact: Norm Marcotte, Bureau of Land & Water Quality

Phone: (207) 215-6277

norm.g.marcotte@maine.gov

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

17 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0017

www.maine.gov/dep 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

i

Acknowledgements

Many individuals and partner organizations provided information and input to this update of 

Maine’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Special thanks to the DEP’s Watershed Unit staff 

and the following partners for their contributions to the plan:

NPS Plan Lead Agencies

Keith Kanoti, Maine Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry

Mark F. Hedrich, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

MacGregor Stocco, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

Kohl Kanwit, Department of Marine Resources

Kathleen Leyden, Maine Coastal Program

Rhonda Poirier, Department of Transportation

Glen Angell, Department of Health and Human Services

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Sandra Fancieullo, EPA – New England

DEP Staff

Plan Production Team

Jeff Dennis

Kristin Feindel

Wendy Garland

Norm Marcotte

Don Witherill

Funding for this plan was provided, in part, by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

ii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................................i

Acronyms Used ...............................................................................................................................vi

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

II. Maine NPS Program Mission, Goals and Guiding Principles...................................................... 2

III. NPS Pollution Management Program Framework..................................................................... 4

A. Key State and Federal Laws................................................................................................... 4

B. Statewide and Watershed-based Approaches...................................................................... 5

C. Restoring Impaired Waters and Protecting Unimpaired Waters Threatened by NPS.......... 7

IV. Maine’s Water Resources.......................................................................................................... 8

A. Summary of Waters Impaired by NPS Pollution ................................................................... 9

B. Water Quality Standards and Classification........................................................................ 11

C. TMDL Assessment Reports and TMDL Implementation ..................................................... 13

V. Statewide Watershed Prioritization ......................................................................................... 14

A. NPS Priority Watersheds List............................................................................................... 14

B. DEP Targeted Watersheds................................................................................................... 16

VI. Maine Watershed-based Approach......................................................................................... 17

A. Targeted Assessment and Stressor Analysis....................................................................... 18

B. Watershed-based Plan Development ................................................................................. 19

C. Watershed-based Plan Implementation ............................................................................. 23

D. Measuring Success and Monitoring Environmental Results............................................... 25

VII. Statewide NPS Control Strategies by NPS Category............................................................... 27

A. Developed Areas ................................................................................................................. 28

B. Agriculture........................................................................................................................... 32

C. Transportation..................................................................................................................... 35

D. Forestry ............................................................................................................................... 38

E. Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems................................................................................. 42

F. Hydrologic Modification...................................................................................................... 44

G. Other NPS Sources .............................................................................................................. 47
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

iii

VIII. NPS Programs and Partnerships............................................................................................ 49

A. DEP NPS Programs............................................................................................................... 49

B. Integration with Other Government Programs that Protect Water Quality ...................... 55

C. Partnerships with Non-Governmental Organizations......................................................... 62

 D. Program and Partnership Strategies.......................................................................................... 64

IX. Funding Sources....................................................................................................................... 66

X. NPS Program Five-Year Objectives, Actions and Annual Milestones....................................... 71

XI. Measuring Progress and Evaluating Maine’s NPS Program.................................................... 85

A. Measuring Environmental Success...................................................................................... 85

B. NPS Program Evaluation...................................................................................................... 89

References .................................................................................................................................... 90

Appendices

1. Key Components of an Effective State NPS Management Program, EPA .............................. 91

2. Maine NPS Priority Watershed Lists....................................................................................... 92

3. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Strategies and Partners................................... 113

4. Targeted Assessment and Stressor Analysis ........................................................................ 119

List of Figures

Figure 1.Maine’s NPS Program Goals and Guiding Principles ........................................................ 3

Figure 2. Statewide & Watershed Approaches - Maine NPS Management Program. ................... 6

Figure 3. Health of Maine’s Assessed Waters ................................................................................ 7

Figure 4. Maine’s Landscape........................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5. Total Sizes of Impaired Maine Lakes by Source Category ............................................. 10

Figure 6. Total Sizes of Impaired Maine Rivers and Streams by Source Category ....................... 10

Figure 7. Total Sizes of Impaired Maine Marine Waters by Source Category.............................. 11

Figure 8. Maine’s Water Quality Categories of Attainment......................................................... 12

Figure 9. Maine DEP’s Watershed-based Approach Steps........................................................... 17

Figure 10. Watershed Planning Process ....................................................................................... 26

Figure 11. Status of Maine Landfills.............................................................................................. 48

List of Tables

Table 1. Maine’s Population and Land Area ................................................................................... 9

Table 2. Maine’s Waters................................................................................................................. 9

Table 3. Nine Element Watershed-based Plans Accepted by Maine DEP .................................... 22

Table 4. Lake Watershed-based Protection Plans Accepted by Maine DEP................................. 22

Table 5. Lead Agencies for NPS Categories................................................................................... 27

Table 6. Key NPS Target Audiences and Current BMP Promotional Efforts................................. 54
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

iv

Table 7. Programs, Partners and Roles......................................................................................... 61

Table 8. Partner Organizations and Roles..................................................................................... 64

Table 9. Watershed Approach: Objectives, Actions and Milestones ........................................... 71

Table 10. Statewide Approach - Developed Areas: Objectives, Actions and Milestones ............ 75

Table 11. Statewide Approach - Agriculture: Objectives, Actions and Milestones ..................... 77

Table 12. Statewide Approach - Transportation: Objectives, Actions and Milestones ............... 79

Table 13. Statewide Approach - Forestry: Objectives, Actions and Milestones .......................... 80

Table 14. Statewide Approach - Subsurface Wastewater Disposal: Objectives, Actions and 

 Milestones .................................................................................................................... 81

Table 15. Statewide Approach - Hydrologic Modification: Objectives, Actions and Milestones 82

Table 16. DEP Programs, Partnerships and Funding: Objectives, Actions and Milestones ......... 83

Table 17. NPS Priority Watershed Selection Criteria Summary ................................................... 93

Table 18. Impaired Lakes Priority List........................................................................................... 95

Table 19. Threatened Lakes Priority List....................................................................................... 97

Table 20. Impaired Streams Priority List..................................................................................... 103

Table 21. Threatened Streams Priority List ................................................................................ 107

Table 22. Impaired Marine Watersheds Priority List.................................................................. 112

Table 23. Threatened Marine Watersheds Priority List.............................................................. 113

Table 24. Monitoring and Assessment Activities....................................................................... 114
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

v
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

vi

Acronyms Used

Acronym Definition

ACOE Army Corps of Engineers

BMP Best Management Practice

CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

CBEP Casco Bay Estuary Partnership

CDC Center for Disease Control

CEO Code Enforcement Officer

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWD Coarse Woody Debris

CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund

CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments

DACF Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

DEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection

DHHS

DMR

Maine Department of Health and Human Services

Maine Department of Marine Resources

DO Dissolved oxygen

MaineDOT Maine Department of Transportation

EGAD Environmental and Geographic Analysis Database

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program

ESC Erosion and Sediment Control

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FAME Finance Authority of Maine

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FSA

GRTS

Farm Service Agency, USDA

Grant Reporting and Tracking System

IC Impervious Cover

IR Integrated Report

LOP Livestock Operation Permit

MCBMP Maine Clean Boatyards and Marinas Program

MDWP Maine Drinking Water Program

MFS Maine Forest Service

MHB Maine Healthy Beaches

MLS Maine Lakes Society

MMA Maine Municipal Association

MMBB Maine Municipal Bond Bank

MMTA Maine Marine Trades Association

MNRCP Maine Natural Resource Conservation Program
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

vii

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MTA

MRS

Maine Turnpike Authority

Maine Revised Statutes

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MSGP Multisector Stormwater General Permit

MSZA Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act

NEMO Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials

NMP Nutrient Management Plan

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS Nonpoint Source 

NPSTRC Nonpoint Source Training and Resource Center

NRPA Natural Resources Protection Act

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDA

NWQI National Water Quality Initiative

PPA Performance Partnership Agreement

PREP Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership

SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative

SIC State Implementation Committee

SSI Sustainability Solutions Initiative

SSWD Subsurface Wastewater Disposal

SWAT Surface Water Ambient Toxics

SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

USDA United State Department of Agriculture

VLMP Maine Volunteer Lakes Monitoring Program

VRMP Volunteer River Monitoring Program

WBP Watershed-based Plan

WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

WRF Water Resources Forester

YCC Youth Conservation Corps
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

1

I. Introduction

Nonpoint source pollution (NPS) has a major impact on Maine’s lakes, rivers, streams and 

marine waters. Unlike pollution from point sources, such as industrial and sewage treatment 

plants, NPS pollution comes from many diffuse sources. It is caused by rainfall or snowmelt 

moving over and through the ground and picking up natural and human-made pollutants, such 

as fertilizer, road salt, sediment, oil and bacteria, along the way. Eventually these contaminants 

end up in waterbodies, where they can threaten drinking water supplies, cause nuisance algal 

blooms, diminish recreational activities, and endanger aquatic life and habitat. 

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) coordinates the State of Maine 

Nonpoint Source Pollution Program (38 MRS 410) to restore and protect waters impaired and 

threatened1by nonpoint source pollution. In this NPS Program Plan, DEP establishes the overall 

strategy that Maine will use over the next five years (2015-2019) to control and prevent NPS 

pollution to the state’s waters. The Plan identifies:

 Programs, strategies and resources state agencies use to address Maine’s most pressing 

NPS water pollution control problems;

 DEP’s approach to strategically focus watershed protection and restoration work in NPS 

Priority watersheds;

 Funding opportunities and partnerships critical to protecting and improving Maine’s lakes, 

streams, rivers, and marine waters; and 

 Five-year objectives, actions and milestones to make progress achieving the long-term goals 

of Maine’s NPS management program.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires states to have an updated NPS 

Management Plan in place to qualify for federal Section 319 grant awards under the Clean 

Water Act. In 2013, EPA issued 319 program guidelines describing key components to be 

included in an effective state NPS management program. Appendix 1 summarizes how these 

key elements have been incorporated into Maine’s Plan. 

 

1

The use of the term, ‘threatened’, in this document refers to unimpaired waters that are subject to

potential impacts from NPS pollution. The term is not intended to be used as described in Maine’s 

Integrated Report, where waters are listed as ‘threatened’ for Clean Water Act §303(d) listing purposes 

if those waters are anticipated to fall into non-attainment with the next listing cycle of two years.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

2

II. Maine NPS Program Mission, Goals and Guiding 

Principles

Maine’s NPS Program is guided by the following mission, goals and guiding principles. Section X 

of this Plan lists objectives, actions and milestones that will be used to achieve program goals to

address Maine’s priority NPS problems. 

Long-term Goals

The long term goals of Maine’s NPS program are:

 Restoration of Waters - To restore waterbodies that are impaired by nonpoint sources so 

that they meet water quality standards.

 Protection of Waters - To prevent NPS-related impairments of unimpaired water bodies.

Guiding Principles

Maine’s lead NPS agencies will use the following six guiding principles to help implement 

strategies to achieve NPS management program goals and objectives (Figure 1):

1. Promote the use of state-agency defined "best management practice guidelines" (BMPs) 

throughout the entire state to control nonpoint sources;

2. Promote voluntary, locally-led, incentive-based strategies to address NPS issues

3. Ensure informed compliance with applicable regulatory requirements;

4. Establish and strengthen partnerships among stakeholders at local, state, and federal levels 

in the management of NPS pollution sources;

5. Encourage proper management of wetlands, riparian corridors, floodplains, natural areas,

and other green infrastructure resources in urban and rural watersheds to help restore or 

maintain healthy watersheds; and

Maine's NPS Program Mission:

Maine’s lead NPS agencies (Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture, 

Conservation and Forestry, Department of Transportation, Department of Health and Human 

Services) administer programs to help prevent, control, or abate water pollution caused by 

nonpoint sources so that waters attain or exceed their classification standards and beneficial 

uses of water resources are maintained or restored.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

3

6. Use a watershed-based management approach as a coordinating framework to organize 

public and private sector efforts to identify, prioritize, and implement activities to address 

NPS problems to restore NPS impaired waters or protect waters threatened by NPS 

pollution.

Figure 1. Maine's NPS Program Goals and Guiding Principles.

NPS Program 

GOALS

Restore waters impaired by 

NPS, and 

Protect healthy waters from 

NPS impairment

Promote BMPs 

statewide

Promote 

voluntary, 

locally-led, 

incentive-based 

strategies

Ensure 

compliance with 

regulatory 

requirrements

Establish and 

strengthen 

partnerships

Encourage 

proper 

management of 

green 

infrastructure

Use watershedbased approach 

to focus on 

waters most in 

need
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

4

III. Maine NPS Management Program Framework

As Maine’s lead water quality agency, DEP is responsible for developing and implementing

water quality protection and improvement programs required under state and federal laws. 

DEP manages both regulatory and voluntary programs and collaborates with local, state, and 

federal agencies to plan and implement strategies to protect Maine’s water quality. The 

following section summarizes key State and Federal laws that guide Maine’s NPS program and 

Maine’s overall approach to controlling NPS pollution.

A. Key State and Federal Laws 

Three laws helped prompt the establishment and formalization of Maine’s NPS program. These 

laws provide ongoing structure and guidance for the program and identify the agencies 

involved in program implementation.

Maine's NPS Pollution Program Statute

In 1991, Maine’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Program was codified under State statute (38 

M.R.S. Chapter 3, Subchapter 1, Article 1-F). The statute directs State agencies to promote the 

use of State agency-defined "best management practice guidelines" (BMPs) to prevent or 

reduce water pollution from nonpoint sources. DEP administers the State of Maine NPS 

program and coordinates their efforts with other state agencies. Under Maine’s statute, DEP, 

the Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry (DACF), and the Department of 

Transportation (MaineDOT) are responsible for developing and promoting the use of BMPs in 

order to reduce and prevent NPS pollution from their associated pollution categories:

Development (DEP); Transportation (MaineDOT); Agriculture (DACF) and Forestry (DACF). 

Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act

Congress enacted Section 319 of the Clean Water Act in 1987 and thereby established a 

national program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Funding appropriated under 

§319 can be used to implement state NPS programs including, as appropriate, non-regulatory 

or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, 

training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects to achieve implementation of best 

management practices and to meet water quality goals. EPA provides grants to states, tribes, 

and territories to implement programs that control and prevent nonpoint source pollution to 

waters. To be eligible for §319 funding, states must implement updated NPS Management 

Programs and follow other program guidelines (EPA, 2013). 

Section 6217 of the Federal Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)

EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) jointly administer a 

program that establishes management measures designed to control runoff from six main 

sources: forestry, agriculture, urban areas, marinas, hydrologic modification and riparian areas. 

These measures are backed by enforceable state policies and actions (“state authorities”) that 

will ensure implementation of the program. All coastal and Great Lakes states and territories 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

5

that participate in the Coastal Zone Management Program are required to develop coastal NPS

control programs. In 2003 EPA and NOAA jointly approved the Maine Coastal NPS Pollution 

Control Program, which implements management measures in the whole state including the 

coastal zone.

B. Statewide and Watershed-based Approaches

Maine’s NPS program uses a combination of statewide programs and targeted watershed 

projects to achieve its long term goals of restoring and protecting waters. 

Statewide Approach

Maine’s statewide approach targets six major categories of NPS pollution identified in the state. 

These NPS pollution categories include developed areas, agriculture, transportation, forestry,

onsite wastewater disposal systems and hydrologic modification. The State’s lead NPS agencies 

and other cooperating agencies and partners implement an array of regulatory and nonregulatory programs to control pollution from these major NPS categories. 

Regulatory programs (e.g., permitting, compliance assistance and enforcement) are 

administered under several core State of Maine environmental laws including but not limited to

the Storm Water Management Law; the Site Location of Development Law; the Erosion and 

Sedimentation Control Law; the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA); the Mandatory 

Shoreland Zoning Act; the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules; Pesticide Control laws; the 

Nutrient Management Act; and the Forest Practices Act. These laws limit specific activities 

(e.g., soil disturbance, timber cutting and pesticide application) and require the use of BMPs to 

limit pollution transport to waterbodies. A number of these laws, including the Stormwater 

Management Law and NRPA, also provide enforceable policies of the Maine Coastal Program 

and are applicable to federal agency actions under the CZMA’s consistency provision. Section 

VII in the Plan outlines how these core state environmental laws may apply to various NPS 

categories.

NPS pollution is oftentimes not adequately addressed by existing laws. As such, efforts to 

encourage more widespread voluntary use of BMPs are a vital component of Maine’s NPS 

Program. Non-regulatory programs often involve providing technical assistance, BMP training, 

and outreach to municipalities, individuals, businesses, and non-governmental organizations. 

Recognition programs and demonstration projects are also used to recognize individuals and 

businesses and highlight projects that implement BMPs to prevent or reduce NPS pollution.

Watershed-based Approach

In addition to statewide programs, Maine also uses a targeted watershed approach to restore 

and protect waters. Through a priority-setting process, DEP first identifies watersheds that are 

most in need of improved NPS control efforts and where there is considerable opportunity to 

make substantial progress restoring or protecting a waterbody. Projects in these NPS Priority 

Watersheds typically follow four steps as they move towards the restoration or protection 

goals. Steps include conducting targeted assessment and stressor analysis; developing locally-
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

6

supported watershed-based management plans; implementing watershed-based plans; and 

measuring success and environmental results. Refer to Section VI for a description of Maine’s 

watershed approach. 

Figure 2. Statewide and Watershed Approaches - Maine NPS Management Program.

Partnerships and Integration with Other Programs

Success of the NPS program depends on maintaining existing and forging new partnerships with 

state, interstate, tribal, regional and local entities; private sector groups; citizens groups; and 

federal agencies. These partners and their affiliated programs have goals that align or overlap 

with the goals of the NPS Program, thus providing mutual benefits. Partnerships strengthen the 

program by attracting new ideas and input, increasing understanding of NPS problems, and 

building commitment to implementing solutions. Maine’s lead NPS agencies use a variety of 

formal and informal means to develop and maintain these partnerships. Refer to Section VIII

for information about partnerships.

Goal Protect and Restore Water Quality

Approach Statewide Watershed

Emphasis

Strategies

Promote Use of BMPs in 

Major NPS Categories

Promote and Implement BMPS 

in Priority Watersheds

Coordinate Programs and Leverage Partnerships

BMP Guidelines

Voluntary Action

Regulatory Measures

Outreach & Education

Technical Assistance

Identify Priorities

Conduct Targeted Assessment

Develop Watershed Plans

Implement Plans

Support Local Efforts

Monitor Environmental Results and Measure Success
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

7

Fully attain 

water 

quality 

standards

94%

Impaired

6%

All Assessed Lakes, Rivers, Streams, 

& Marine Waters

Fully 

Attain 

94%

Impaired

6%

Assessed Marine Waters 

(acres)

C. Restoring Impaired Waters and Protecting Unimpaired 

Waters Threatened by NPS

This plan outlines approaches to both restore the relatively small number of 

waters impaired by NPS pollution and protect the many unimpaired waters 

threatened by NPS pollution. Maine’s 2012 Integrated Report (IR) indicates that state’s waters 

are very clean with 96% of assessed river and stream miles, 94% of marine waters and 91% of 

lake acres fully attaining water quality standards (Figure 3). Correspondingly, only 4% of 

assessed river and stream miles, 6% of marine waters and 9% of lake acres were listed as

impaired. That said, many of Maine’s clean waters that attain standards are threatened due to 

NPS sources. For example, 24 lakes (3.7% of lake acres) are impaired due to nutrients, but 215 

lakes (11% of lake acres) are threatened, primarily by nutrients, by existing developed areas and 

projected growth rates in their watersheds. These 215 lakes are designated “Most at Risk” 

under Maine’s Storm Water Law. 

Given the relatively high proportion of unimpaired waters and relatively low number of 

impaired waters in Maine, DEP prioritizes and balances the use of available NPS resources to 

protect and restore lakes, streams and marine waters. Prevention of water pollution is a 

daunting challenge for watersheds facing increased development pressures. Since prevention 

is far more feasible and less expensive than restoration of an already impaired waterbody, DEP 

allocates significant program resources for projects that help communities protect waters 

considered threatened or most at risk. The NPS Priority Watersheds list (Appendix 2) identifies

impaired waters and unimpaired waters threatened by NPS pollution. 

Fully 

Attain

91%

Impaired

9%

Assessed Lakes

(acres)

Fully 

Attain

96%

Impaire

d

4%

Assessed River & 

Streams (miles)

Figure 3. Health of Maine’s Assessed Waters (Maine DEP, 2012 Integrated Report).
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

8

Forest

69%

Open Water 

Surface Area

12%

Wetlands

6%

Agricultural 

Land

6%

Scrub-Shrub

3%

Developed 

Lands and 

Paved Ways

Other (alpine, 3%

shorelines, bare 

ground)

1%

Maine's Landscape

IV. Maine’s Water Resources

Maine is the largest state in New England with a 

total surface area of over 35,000 square miles

(Table 1). The state has an abundance of fresh 

water resources with the larger surface waters 

occupying nearly 4,500 square miles (Table 2). 

Maine’s 5,780 lakes and ponds cover 986,952 

acres, an area larger than the State of Rhode 

Island. There are over 7,000 perennial brooks, 

streams, and rivers that extend nearly 55,000 

miles. Fresh and saltwater wetlands cover an 

additional 5,196 square miles. Groundwater is 

considered plentiful with three basic types of 

aquifers (stratified drift deposits, till, and 

fractured bedrock). Stratified drift deposits, which provide large-volume water supply wells

cover about 10% of the state, and bedrock aquifers underlie the entire state. Maine’s coastline 

is 2,757 miles long. There is a total area 2,846 square miles of marine waters out to the "three

mile" limit, including near shore waters and tidal rivers.

Figure 4. Maine’s Landscape (Maine DEP, 2012).
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

9

Table 1. Maine’s Population and Land Area (Maine DEP, 2012).

Table 2. Maine’s Waters (Maine DEP, 2012).

A. Summary of Waters Impaired by NPS Pollution

Maine’s 2012 Integrated Report (IR) lists lakes, rivers, streams and marine waters impaired by 

point and/or nonpoint pollution sources. The cause of impairment is variable and site specific. 

All freshwaters in Maine are under a fish consumption advisory due to impairment caused by 

atmospheric deposition of mercury. Atmospheric deposition is the largest single source of 

mercury pollution. All marine waters are impaired for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and 

dioxins and fall under a statewide lobster tomalley consumption advisory. Also, bacterial 

contamination is a significant cause of impairment, affecting 159 square miles of marine waters 

(not including CSO affected waters).

The relative importance of pollution sources in different types of impaired waters varies 

considerably. Only one lake is impaired by a point source (Figure 5). Most lakes are affected by 

a mix of rural residential development, agriculture, internal recycling and urban stormwater. In 

streams, industrial point source discharges, unknown sources and NPS are of almost equal 

importance, each affecting approximately 400 river miles, and general agricultural NPS sources 

affect 358 miles (Figure 6). Municipal point source discharges, combined sewer overflows, 

State of Maine Basics

State Population (2010 National Census data) 1,328,361 people

Rural population 552,638 people

Urban population 775,723 people

Land Area 35,236 sq miles

Maine’s Waters

Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs 1,542 sq miles

Number of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs* 5,780

Lakes greater than 10 acres 1,502 sq miles

Number of lakes greater than 10 acres 2,690

Rivers and Streams 54,995 miles

Perennial streams 30,894 miles

Intermittent streams 16,375 miles

Rivers 7,726 miles

Coastline (including shorelines of tidal rivers and islands) 2,757 miles

Bays, estuaries, and harbors 2,717 sq miles

Tidal rivers 129 sq miles

Wetlands 5,196 sq miles

Saltwater wetlands 381 sq miles

Freshwater wetlands 4,815 sq miles

Sand and Gravel Aquifers 1,281 sq miles
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

10

overboard discharges and NPS are the primary sources causing impairment s of marine waters

(Figure 7). NPS contributes to bacterial impairments of marine waters. 

Figure 5. Total Sizes of Impaired Maine Lakes by Source Category (Maine DEP, 2012).

2

Figure 6. Total Sizes of Impaired Rivers and Streams by Source Category (Maine DEP, 2012).2

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Area (acres)

Number of Lakes

Lakes

Sources of Impairment

Number of

Lakes

Area (acres)

NPS

Point

Source

Mixed -

Pt & NPS

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

River and Stream Miles

Rivers and Streams

Sources of Impairment 

Point Source Mixed - Point & NPS NPS
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

11

Figure 7. Total Sizes of Impaired Maine Estuarine and Marine Waters by Source Category

(Maine DEP, 2012).2

*Variable miles from combined sewer overflows (CSO). As of 2012, there were 32 CSO communities 

with a total of 159 CSO discharge points.

B. Water Quality Standards and Classification

The quality of Maine’s waters is described in terms of physical, chemical, and biological 

characteristics associated with the state's water classification program. As established in Maine 

statute (38 M.R.S. Sections 464-470), the classification program consists of three components: 

designated uses (e.g. drinking water supply, recreation in and on the water, habitat for fish and 

other aquatic life); criteria (e.g. bacteria, dissolved oxygen and biological criteria); and an antidegradation statement (e.g. natural, free flowing) that specify levels of water quality necessary 

to maintain the designated uses.

 

2

The square miles, miles, or acreage attributed to causes and sources in these figures may be listed more than 

once if a waterbody is subjected to several different types of disturbance. For example if a waterbody has both 

agricultural and NPS sources of impairment, the impaired acreage or miles will be listed in both the Agriculture and 

NPS categories. For more information on source categories, see the Maine Integrated Report. 

163

154

0.9 0.9

52

2

0

50

100

150

200

Square Miles

Estuarine and Marine Waters

Sources of Impairment 

Mixed - Point & 

NPS Point Source NPS

Variable 

Miles*
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

12

All State waters have a classification assignment (Lakes: GPA. Rivers and streams: AA, A, B, C. 

Marine and estuarine: SA, SB, SC). Wetlands are classified the same as their associated surface 

waters. Wetlands that are part of great ponds or natural lakes and ponds less than 10 acres in 

size are GPA waters. All freshwater wetlands not classified as GPA waters are class AA, A, B or C 

under Sections 467 and 468 according to the watershed in which they occur. Coastal wetlands 

are classified SA, SB or SC according to the provisions of Section 469 (Classification of Estuarine 

and Marine Waters). 

Groundwater is classified by its suitability for drinking water purposes. Under the Maine Water 

Classification Program Section 465-B, groundwater is classified as either potable (GW-A) or 

unpotable (GW-B). Water is unpotable when the concentrations of chemical compounds 

detected exceed either the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) or the Maximum Exposure 

Guidelines (MEG) as defined in the Rules Relating to Drinking Water administered by the Maine 

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Although there are localities where 

groundwater is unpotable and contaminated, no groundwater is currently classified GW-B.

The DEP is responsible for overall assessment of the State’s waters. With support from 

partners, DEP biennially produces the Integrated Water Monitoring and Assessment Report

that fulfills Clean Water Act reporting requirements under Section 305(b), Section 303(d) (list of 

impaired waters) and Section 314 (Clean Lakes Report). This report provides a summary of the 

current status of the State’s waters and identifies impaired waters that are not meeting one or 

more of their designated uses. The Integrated Report lists waters in one of five categories of 

attainment (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Maine’s Water Quality Categories of Attainment (Maine DEP, 2012).

For more information, go to http:\\www.maine.gov\dep\water\monitoring\305b\index.htm.

• Attaining all designated uses and water quality standards, and Category 1 no use is threatened.

• Attains some of the designated uses; no use is threatened; and 

insufficient data and information is available to determine if the 

remaining uses are attained or threatened.

Category 2

• Insufficient data and information to determine if designated Category 3 uses are attained.

•Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses, but does not 

require development of a TMDL (because TMDL is completed, other 

pollution controls are expected to result in attainment of standards, or 

impairment not caused by a pollutant).

Category 4

• Waters impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses Category 5 by a pollutant(s) and a TMDL is required.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

13

C. TMDL Assessment Reports and TMDL Implementation

DEP monitors the water quality conditions of Maine's rivers, lakes, and marine waters to 

determine if they meet designated uses for recreation, swimming, fishing, shellfish harvesting, 

and drinking water supply, and if the waters support healthy habitats for fish and wildlife. DEP 

places degraded waters (i.e. not attaining water quality standards needed to support 

designated uses) on the list of impaired waters, or the Section 303(d) list. A Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) assessment is required for nonattainment waters under state and federal 

water quality laws to determine the reductions needed from point and nonpoint pollution 

sources to meet standards. The fundamental goal of a TMDL assessment is to establish water 

pollution control targets and recommend actions needed for planning and implementation 

work. 

Communities, agencies, and individuals are invited to provide input on the development of 

TMDLs. After TMDL assessments are completed, local stakeholders often consult TMDLs as 

they take action to apply conservation practices (BMPs) to eliminate or reduce NPS pollution

sources. DEP’s staff involved with TMDLs provides limited technical assistance to assist 

communities to further scope out and identify problems. 

Stormwater runoff from both point and nonpoint sources have long been recognized as a 

significant source of pollutants to surface waters. Historically, individual programs have been 

developed to address specific aspects of stormwater control. One such aspect is TMDL 

development. TMDLs typically cover one pollutant at a time and do not take into account the 

other various programs that may impact stormwater runoff. While there may be several 

programs focusing on a specific location/waterbody, often coordination of activities is limited. 

DEP will improve coordination of all stormwater related programs to make progress restoring 

waters impaired by point or nonpoint sources through a Watershed Improvement Process 

(WIP). The WIP is designed to involve and coordinate all programmatic aspects of the DEP that 

deal with stormwater. Examples of these are the MS4 permitting program, watershed 

assessments, Site Law requirements (Chap 500), SRF loans, 319 grants, etc. Further, the scope 

of the WIP is designed to involve other agencies/organizations that have stormwater impacts as 

well, such as MaineDOT, MTA, DACF, DMR, SWCDs, and NRCS.

DEP will apply the watershed-based approach, described in Section IV, when it is appropriate to 

help ensure effective coordination of stormwater runoff control activities to restore impaired 

waters.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

14

V. Statewide Watershed Prioritization

Given Maine’s extensive water resources, statewide watershed prioritization is an important 

part of Maine’s NPS program. Maine’s first NPS priority watersheds list was developed in 1989

and substantially revised in 1998. The list was updated as part of development of this NPS 

management plan. NPS impaired or threatened 3waters with significant regional or statewide 

value were placed on the list. The list was developed to help prioritize DEP NPS water pollution 

control efforts and attract local communities to take action to restore or protect waters 

impaired or threatened by NPS pollution. DEP plans to review and update the NPS Priority 

Watersheds list on a regular basis, and changes are anticipated as prioritization criteria are 

refined (e.g., EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool for streams) and new evaluation 

techniques (e.g., aluminum content in lake sediment) become available. 

In addition to this listing process, DEP staff also conducts an annual review of NPS priority 

watersheds and identifies a small subset of highest priority waters. This annual review helps 

DEP direct NPS program funds and services to address compelling needs and opportunities to 

make progress restoring or protecting waters. Selection criteria and some of the tools available 

for targeted actions are described later in this section.

A. NPS Priority Watersheds List

The purpose of the NPS priority watersheds list is to encourage NPS abatement work in 

watersheds most vulnerable to NPS pollution. The list is used to help prioritize DEP NPS water 

pollution control efforts and attract local communities to take action to restore or protect 

waters impaired or threatened by NPS pollution. The 1998 NPS priority watersheds list was 

updated as part of development of this NPS plan. Watersheds were evaluated using several 

guiding principles. The first principle was NPS priority waters must have NPS pollution as the 

primary source of impairment or threat. Watersheds with point sources or legacy pollutants as 

the primary source of pollution were not selected as priorities since the point source or legacy 

pollutant would have to be addressed for water quality to significantly improve. Second, 

watersheds were evaluated for the likelihood that NPS grant funds and support could make a 

difference in the water quality. Third, the number of NPS priority watersheds was kept 

reasonably focused so that resources can be invested where they are most needed and there is

opportunity to effectively restore or protect waters vulnerable to NPS pollution.

Prioritization criteria were developed to make selections as objective as possible, using 

monitoring data, analysis, and reports. To determine the waterbody-specific prioritization 

criteria, work groups consisting of DEP water resource professional staff knowledgeable in 

 

3

 The use of the term, ‘threatened’, in this document refers to unimpaired waters that are subject to potential 

impacts from NPS pollution. The term is not intended to be used as described in Maine’s Integrated Report, where 

waters are listed as ‘threatened’ for Clean Water Act §303(d) listing purposes if those waters are anticipated to fall 

into non-attainment with the next listing cycle of two years.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

15

statewide lake, stream, or marine water quality and management issues reviewed available 

waterbody data and information. Priority lists and knowledge from partner agencies and 

regional monitoring organizations were consulted. Waterbody-specific prioritization criteria 

are summarized below and described in detail in Appendix 2. 

In addition to the NPS Priority Watersheds List, there are several other lists that help guide 

MDEP efforts and regulatory programs. This includes impaired waters, waters with approved 

TMDLs, Chapter 502 Lakes Most at Risk from New Development, and Urban Impaired Streams. 

These lists were used to help develop prioritization criteria for NPS Priority Watersheds List.

Lake Watersheds 

Impaired lakes were assessed as to whether 

reducing nonpoint sources would be likely to 

improve water quality over the long term. Lakes 

meeting water quality standards were assessed on 

threats to water quality and value of the resource. 

Threatened lakes included lakes with a significant 

negative trend in water clarity, sensitivity to 

additional phosphorus inputs, or recent increased 

threat to the watershed by development or 

agriculture. Lakes on the DEP Watch List were also 

considered threatened4. High value lakes included 

public drinking water supplies, designated priorities by a 

partner agency, or lakes with outstanding water quality in need of protection. Over 2600 lakes 

were considered in the evaluation process. Twenty-one impaired lakes and 147 unimpaired 

lakes were selected for inclusion on the priority list.

Stream Watersheds

A NPS impaired stream watershed was added to the 

priority list if it had a TMDL, was identified as a 

priority watershed by a partner agency or 

organization, or was assessed as having a high risk of 

future development due to its proximity to a 

highway exit. An unimpaired stream watershed was 

added to the priority list if it met any of the criteria 

listed for the priority impaired streams, if it was on 

the DEP Watch List, or if recent increased impacts or 

significant potential threats from agriculture or 

 

4

 The use of the term, ‘threatened’, in this document refers to unimpaired waters that are subject to potential 

impacts from NPS pollution. The term is not intended to be used as described in Maine’s Integrated Report, where 

waters are listed as ‘threatened’ for Clean Water Act §303(d) listing purposes if those waters are anticipated to fall 

into non-attainment with the next listing cycle of two years.

Algal bloom on impaired lake.

Stream with turbid water.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

16

development were evident. Seventy one (71) impaired streams and 77 threatened streams 

were placed on the priority list.

Marine Watersheds

Impaired and threatened marine waters were assessed by the same criteria. A watershed was 

added to the priority list if likely NPS sources were known and tied to shellfish harvest area 

closures. Watersheds were also added to the priority list if partner organizations had 

documented water quality indicators linked to NPS pollution, or if the waters were threatened 

by local agriculture, streams, or development that drains to public beaches or protected 

embayments. Additions to the marine priority list are anticipated as more information 

becomes available. Eleven impaired marine waters and 16 threatened marine waters were 

included on the priority list.

B. DEP Targeted Watersheds

DEP conducts an annual evaluation that assigns elevated priority to a small subset of waters on 

the NPS Priority Watersheds List. DEP then identifies ways to focus staff or financial resources 

on restoration or protection efforts in these watersheds. 

Criteria used to select DEP’s targeted watersheds include those used to generate the NPS 

Priority Watersheds List as well as more strategic factors. Targeted watersheds have typically 

included impaired waters that DEP sees as having a high restoration potential based on water 

quality monitoring data and watershed needs. Targeted efforts also capitalize on strong local 

interest and support, leverage other available funding sources, jump-start new watershed 

efforts, prompt continued momentum on established projects and/or protect against an 

imminent NPS threat. 

After a subset of priority waters is established, DEP considers and select appropriate tools, such 

as, NPS grants or staff services to prompt and complete additional protection or restoration 

work in these targeted watersheds. DEP may use a request for proposals (RFP) process to 

provide grants for projects in targeted watersheds. In addition, DEP may provide extra staff 

support in targeted watersheds. For example, DEP staff can conduct water quality monitoring 

and stormwater catchment mapping in an urban impaired stream to supplement an upcoming 

watershed-based planning effort in a targeted watershed. This investment of staff time leads 

to a better understanding of watershed stressors and needs and sets the stage for more 

effective watershed restoration efforts.

This internal prioritization process has been used on an informal basis for many years. DEP has 

provided direct-funding and conducted water quality monitoring and catchment mapping in 

numerous watersheds. Moving ahead, DEP will conduct the evaluation and provide a list of the 

targeted watersheds to EPA and partners. 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

17

Measuring 

Success & 

Environmental 

Results

Watershedbased Plan 

Implementation

Watershedbased Plan 

Development

Targeted 

Assessment & 

Stressor 

Analysis

VI. Maine Watershed-based Approach

The watershed-based approach is a coordinating framework for identifying, prioritizing, and 

fixing water quality problems. This approach seeks to organize both public and private sector 

efforts within a specified geographic area. The watershed-based approach allows the DEP to 

focus resources on the waterbodies and watersheds most in need and to follow a systematic 

approach to meet water quality goals. There are four steps to this approach:

Figure 9. Maine DEP’s Watershed-based Approach Steps.

 Targeted Assessment and Stressor Analysis - Once DEP or local groups focus attention on a 

priority water, it is critical to gather the information necessary to accurately characterize 

the NPS impairments and/or threats. Water quality monitoring, watershed surveys and 

other watershed information should be evaluated to determine the principal stressors and 

NPS sources that contribute to the impairment or threat. 

 Watershed-based Plan Development – Stakeholders produce a locally-supported 

watershed-based plan (WBP) that describes actions needed for NPS mitigation and water 

quality protection or restoration. To be eligible for Section 319 funding, plans must include 

specific elements required by EPA and DEP.

 Watershed-based Plan Implementation - Plan implementation is usually coordinated by a 

local entity such as a municipality, Soil and Water Conservation District, or a local watershed 

group. Implementation usually involves a number of phased projects and is typically funded 

by a mix of grants and local sources. 

 Measuring Success and Monitoring Environmental Results - In addition to implementing 

the NPS pollution reduction measures identified in the plan, implementation will include 

ongoing or periodic evaluation to assess whether the plan is meeting its goals and 

objectives. 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

18

Abbreviated Watershed Approaches

Some watershed restoration and protection efforts may not 

incorporate all of the steps outlined in this section. There is usually 

some element of assessment involved, but the planning process 

may be largely skipped, often because solutions are straightforward and local groups plan to implement BMPs independently. 

Some examples follow: 

 The source identification and fixes required to address a 

localized bacteria impairment may be quite simple, and 

elimination of the impairment may be accomplished without 

the development of a plan. Simply bringing the problem to the 

attention of the local sewer district or code enforcement officer

would likely result in fixing the problem.

 Lake watershed surveys are often done informally and funded 

locally. They provide information to guide local efforts to 

address sources. 

 BMP implementation work is also often done without formal 

planning. Municipalities may use local revenues or mitigation 

funds to address obvious pollutant sources. Locally supported 

Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) often provide the labor to 

implement BMPs in lake watersheds. Sometimes this is part of 

watershed based plan implementation, but often it proceeds 

independently due to local interest in water quality protection.

A. Targeted Assessment and Stressor Analysis

The success of restoration and protection efforts hinges on understanding the principal 

environmental stressors connected to the water quality impairment or potential impairment 

and the watershed conditions associated with those stressors. The types and extent of 

assessment and stressor identification needed for a given watershed varies depending on the 

type of waterbody and available existing information. See Appendix 4 for more detailed 

information about this step.

For most lakes on the NPS Priority Watersheds list, there is a long record of water quality data 

and an understanding that phosphorus loading is the primary environmental stressor. As a 

result, this step primarily involves identifying phosphorus sources to the lake and opportunities 

to reduce these sources. Watershed surveys are the most commonly used tools used to meet 

these needs. Over 120 surveys have been completed over the past 20 years, and the 

methodology is documented in the DEP’s Citizen’s Guide to Volunteer Lake Watershed Surveys

(2012). During a watershed survey, DEP and other partners train local volunteers to document 

Local BMP implementation -

planting a rain garden.

YCC at work.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

19

phosphorus sources (primarily in the form of soil erosion problems), develop recommendations 

to mitigate the sources, and rate the cost and priority of the sites. The resulting survey report 

and prioritized list of watershed problems can then be used to develop watershed-based plans 

and guide implementation efforts.

Environmental stressors are often more challenging to identify in stream watersheds. This is 

particularly true in urban streams where there can be several stressors, and they can change 

throughout the stream network. Stressors in a stream could include chloride, stream channel 

alterations, nutrient loading, legacy pollutants, poor instream habitat, riparian buffer 

disturbance and flow problems. Once the stressor(s) are pinpointed, specific sources must then 

be identified to help mitigate the impacts of the stressors. Targeted assessment usually 

includes a combination of water quality screening, biological assessments, stream habitat and 

corridor assessments and watershed assessments. 

Bacteria are often the primary concern and stressor in marine waters. However, identification 

of bacteria sources is often quite challenging. There are several tools available to identify and 

prioritize potential bacteria sources including water quality monitoring, DMR sanitary surveys, 

smoke and dye testing, and canine detection of human bacteria sources.

B. Watershed-based Plan Development

Effective planning is needed to guide successful watershed restoration and protection efforts. 

In general, a watershed plan describes actions needed to restore a waterbody that is impaired 

by NPS pollution or to protect unimpaired waters threatened by NPS pollution. An effective 

plan identifies and prioritizes the structural and non-structural practices necessary to address 

the environmental stressors and sources of NPS pollution that contribute to or threaten 

impairment of the water body. It identifies stakeholders and partners who can work on 

projects; pollutant reduction goals; cost estimates and strategies for funding plan 

implementation; and ways to measure results and water quality improvements.

Key Components of Successful Plans

Plans should be developed for a geographically-appropriate scale so that the planned 

implementation efforts can lead to measurable reductions in pollution and the achievement of 

water quality goals. Plans should reference an area large enough to address all the major 

sources and causes of impairments and threats to the water body of concern. However, the 

area should not be so large that chances of successful implementation are not feasible or 

practical. Several parts of the planning process are particularly important in development of 

effective watershed-based plans. 

 Stakeholder Involvement - There will be little support for implementation of a watershed 

based plan if the planning process does not include as many of those individuals and 

organizations that will have a role in plan implementation as possible. Every effort should 

be made to involve key landowners, municipal officials, representatives from relevant state 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

20

agencies (e.g. Transportation, Agriculture), local resource and conservation groups, and 

local experts (e.g. engineering consultants, planners, realtors). An effective way to enhance 

involvement is by recruiting these people for the planning project steering committee and, 

in watersheds with complex issues, for the subcommittees (e.g. technical advisory, 

education and outreach, ordinance development) where most of the decisions are made. 

Strong local participation leads to local buy-in, which is essential for successful plan 

implementation.

 Clear Definition of Plan Objectives- Early in the plan development process, the steering 

committee should come to agreement on the water quality, ecological and community 

related objectives that the plan will seek to achieve. In some instances, these will be 

dictated by state water quality standards, but other objectives may also be identified. 

Failure to come to agreement on the goals of the plan will make the process of plan 

development inefficient and unnecessarily difficult.

 Financing - For some watersheds the pollutant loading and other plan goals might be 

achieved with installation of a modest number of low-cost BMPs. In these watersheds, 

existing local resources and available grants might be able to achieve the plan goals in a ten 

year period. More commonly, plans for impaired waterbodies (e.g., urban streams or highly

agricultural watersheds) involve numerous and expensive BMPs that exceed existing 

funding resources. In such cases, planning projects need to consider other possible funding 

mechanisms (e.g., stormwater utilities, local bonds). Local involvement in this financial 

discussion is critical to ensure future public support of selected funding avenues.

Sample stormwater infrastructure map for urban impaired stream.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

21

EPA Nine-Element Plans

Starting in 2003, EPA required a specific type of plan to 

guide Section 319-funded work in impaired 

watersheds. These EPA plans are referred to as 

watershed-based plans or ‘nine-element’ plans because 

they must address nine key elements:

 An identification of the causes and sources that 

will need to be controlled to achieve the load 

reductions and goals in the plan;

 An estimate of the load reductions expected for 

the management measures in the plan;

 A description of the NPS management measures

that will need to be implemented to achieve the 

load reductions estimated and an identification of 

the critical areas in which those measures will be 

needed to implemented; 

 An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, 

and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement the plan;

 An information and education component that will be used to enhance public 

understanding of the project;

 A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures;

 A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management 

measures or other control actions are being implemented;

 A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being 

achieved over time and that substantial progress is being made towards water quality 

standards; and

 A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts 

To date the DEP has accepted 30 nine-element plans (Table 3). Of these, 27 plans are for 

impaired watersheds and three plans for threatened waters. Two of the three unimpaired 

waters with nine-element plans were listed as impaired when they were developed and have 

since been restored. There are 16 plans for inland streams; 11 plans are for lakes; and three

plans for coastal streams.

Capisic Brook Nine-element Plan.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

22

Lake Watershed-based Protection Plans

EPA NPS Program Guidelines (2013) recognized several cases where alternatives to nineelement plans may provide an effective approach toward achieving the water quality goals of 

Section 319-funded restoration or protection efforts. EPA outlined the elements required in 

alternative plans and the circumstances under which alternative plans may be accepted, 

including those pertaining to the protection of high quality and/or unimpaired waters.

DEP used the EPA guidelines as a basis to develop guidance for lake watershed-based 

protection plans in Maine (Guidance for Maine Lake Watershed-based Protection Plans (2013)).

Most, if not all, watershed plans for unimpaired waters are expected to follow this guidance, 

instead of the more intensive nine-element planning guidelines required for impaired waters. A 

recent NPS watershed survey (or equivalent assessment) must be in place before a lake 

watershed-based protection plan can be developed. This information is a key component of an 

alternative plan. If the watershed survey is outdated, there is an increased likelihood that the 

survey is no longer accurate. As such, lakes with surveys over five years old should not 

complete alternative plans until the survey data are validated or updated. To date, DEP has 

accepted seven Lake Watershed-based Protection Plans (Table 4). 

Table 4. Lake Watershed-based Protection Plans Accepted by DEP.

Table 3. Nine-Element Watershed-based Plans Accepted by Maine DEP.

Annabessacook Lake (2007) Ogunquit River (2013)

Birch Stream (2010) Pearce Brook (2013)

Bond Brook (2009) Penjajawoc Stream (2008)

Capehart Brook (2011) Pleasant River (2011)

Cape Neddick River (2014) Pleasant Pond (Richmond) (2008)

Capisic Brook (2011) Prestile Stream, Upper (2009)

China Lake (2009) Red Brook (2011)

Dudley Brook (2009) Sabattus Pond (2007)

East Pond (2007) Spruce Creek (2008)

Great East, Horn and Wilson Lakes (2010) Togus Pond (2008)

Hart Brook (2005) Unity Pond (2007)

Highland Lake (2008) Webber, Threemile & Threecornered Ponds (2005)

Highland Lake (2006) Whitten Brook (2011)

Long Creek (2009) Wilson Pond (Wayne) (2009)

Long Pond (Belgrade Lakes) (2010) Trout Brook (2012)

Crescent Lake (2013) Thompson Lake (2013)

Lake Auburn (2013) Toddy Pond (2013)

Little Sebago Lake (2013) Woods Pond (2013)

Philips Lake (2014)
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

23

Other Types of Alternative Plans

In addition to alternative plans for high quality or unimpaired waters, the EPA guidelines (2013)

list three other situations where alternative plans may be warranted. This includes when the 

impairment is not specific to a pollutant. Nine-element plans emphasize identifying major NPS 

pollutant sources and ways to achieve load reduction. However, this is not possible if the 

impairment is not caused by a pollutant but by a water quality problem such as a dam and 

concomitant altered flow regimes. EPA may also find an alternative plan acceptable when 

there is a need to respond to a NPS pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health risk (e.g., 

to reduce pollution affecting drinking water safety). In Maine no such plans have been 

developed to date. However, DEP will work with partners and EPA to help guide development 

of such alternative plans if the need arises. 

EPA may also find alternative plans acceptable in cases where a small-scale water quality

impairment results from a few sources that are not caused by larger watershed-wide problems 

and can be fully addressed within one grant period. EPA (2013) stated: “In meeting these 

conditions, the state will ensure that multiple smaller problems are not dealt with in a 

piecemeal fashion when they are actually part of a larger water quality problem involving 

multiple pollution sources in the watershed.” In Maine, most NPS impairments occur from 

multiple sources within a watershed.

C. Watershed-based Plan Implementation

The next step of the watershed-based approach is to 

implement the watershed based plan (WBP) and actions 

that ultimately protect and/or restore the waterbody. 

WBPs are implemented by local entities such as 

municipalities, Soil and Water Conservation Districts or 

local associations. Plan implementation consists of a 

suite of actions described in the watershed-based plans. 

Actions may include getting ordinances passed, having 

the public works department install BMPs, retrofitting or 

installing structural stormwater BMPs, restoring riparian 

and aquatic habitat and implementing public outreach 

programs. Plan implementation usually takes place 

through a series of phased projects over period of ten or 

more years.

Typical funding sources for implementation are from the municipality, Section 319 and other 

federal funds, private grants, lake associations, and in certain cases stormwater utilities. In 

instances where the source reduction and prevention measures are relatively simple, there is 

community support, and the cost is low, plans may be substantially implemented with financial 

support from grant programs, most often through EPA Section 319 grants. Plans aimed at 

protecting threatened lakes often fall into this category. When the measures identified in the 

plan are more complex and expensive (e.g., restoration of an impaired urban stream), funding 

Watershed-based plan 

implementation - installation of 

bioretention swale.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

24

mechanisms will likely need to be more diverse and include some level of local financial support 

such as a stormwater utility. In either case, plan implementation is likely to involve a number of 

phased projects. It may also involve the establishment of a local authority such as a watershed 

management district or a stormwater utility district to implement the plan over an extended 

period. 

Streams 

In recent years, most of the NPS implementation work in stream watersheds has focused on 

impaired streams. This includes rural streams impaired by agricultural sources and urban 

impaired streams. Restoration work in rural stream watersheds usually includes strong 

involvement from local farmers, the Soil and Water Conservation District and NRCS and 

includes construction of agricultural BMPs on a small number of farms. NRCS funding is also 

often leveraged to stretch resources and get more work done on the ground. Since 2013, the 

National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) partnership between DEP, EPA and NRCS has also 

helped focus resources on three watersheds in Maine. This includes the Unity Pond watershed 

and portions of the Meduxnekeag River and Sebasticook Lake watersheds.

Restoration work in urban streams tends to include a 

diverse set of actions and partners. Municipalities 

typically start plan implementation with ‘the low 

hanging fruit,’ such as easy fixes on municipal properties 

and on outreach efforts. Larger more expensive aspects 

of the plan (e.g., major structural retrofits, ordinance 

implementation, and creation of stormwater utilities)

are often phased in over time as funding sources and 

political support are secured. This has been done by 

reaching out to the planning board and elected officials, 

and incorporating relevant portions of WBP into the 

municipality’s comprehensive plan. Restoration of 

urban streams may take decades and up to millions of 

dollars due to the complexities of multiple pollution 

sources and fixes. 

Lakes

Lake WBP implementation is usually less complex than 

urban stream implementation because phosphorus is 

often the only pollutant of concern. Implementation

usually consist of BMP installations at eroding sites 

and/or agricultural properties, changes in ordinances, creation of or continued support of a 

Youth Conservation Corps, and outreach. While municipalities are also involved in lake 

watershed-based plan, often the local lake association takes a leadership role and provides fuel 

for political support and action. The time period of implementation can range from five years 

to decades, depending on the size of the watershed and amount and types of phosphorus 

DEP support assessing an urban 

impaired stream. (Photo by FBE)
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

25

sources. If the lake has an internal phosphorus recycling problem, implementation may also 

include efforts, such as treatment with aluminum salts to prevent release from the sediments.

Marine Waters

Implementation efforts in marine waters have been limited to a relatively small number of 

watersheds in recent years. However, interest in coastal NPS work has been increasing, 

particularly in southern Maine. The Maine Healthy Beaches (MHB) program works with 

communities to monitor bacteria levels at 29 beach areas. NPS has been identified as a 

probable pollution source in many of these areas with high bacteria levels. Several coastal 

communities regulated through the Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) program 

have also targeted coastal stream watersheds for the stormwater abatement work required 

through their MS4 permits. Although implementation work funded through 319 grants cannot 

be used to complete MS4 permit requirements; it can complement their efforts to address 

stormwater and bacteria impacts. 

DEP Support

DEP promotes and supports implementation of WBPs largely through DEP technical services 

and EPA Section 319 grants. Forty-four percent ($752,292) of Section 319 funds received by 

DEP in FFY 2013 ($1,726,692) were used for implementation of WBPs. DEP provides technical 

assistance to: assist municipalities or watershed groups design and install structural BMPs; 

share lessons learned from other implementation projects; provide information to planning 

boards; and provide other resources as needed. Since implementation of WBPs is led by local 

entities, DEP’s support is flexible and responsive to local needs. This assistance may be 

intensive and short-term, or spread-out over many phases, whichever is more appropriate and 

supportive of local plan implementation. 

D. Measuring Success and Monitoring Environmental Results 

Updating Watershed Plans

Restoration and protection of Maine’s waters is an ongoing process (Figure 10). Restoration of 

impaired waters can take years or even decades, and protection work is never done. As such, 

watershed plans all become outdated over time. Plans should be periodically evaluated and 

updated so they remain relevant and useful. DEP has not yet developed a process to prompt 

partners to update their watershed plans or request updated plans or status reports of progress 

on plan implementation. This need is addressed NPS Plan’s five year objectives.

As a WBP is implemented, new issues may be identified and alternative strategies may become 

available. The plan will need to be amended to address these new concerns and opportunities. 

Similarly, progress on the plan needs to be monitored and changes in the timeline and 

milestones need to be incorporated. The implementing entity should be responsible for 

amendments and updates to the plan. Since WPBs for urban streams are relatively new, they 

have not undergone major updates. Updates of lake watershed plans and watershed surveys 

don’t have a set update schedule. Local interest in lake protection and motivation to work on 

water quality fluctuates, so plans will be updated as local interest in lake protection is renewed.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

26

Figure 10. Watershed Planning Process (EPA, 2008).

Environmental Monitoring

Watershed-based plans include a monitoring component to assess progress toward the plan’s 

restoration or protection goals. This monitoring component typically involves estimating 

pollutant loading reductions and conducting water quality monitoring to track progress over 

time. Some of this work can be conducted by local stakeholders, and the resulting information 

can used to assess incremental progress over time. For example, Trout Brook’s monitoring 

efforts include water quality monitoring to look improvements following the mitigation of a 

chloride source to the stream. In addition, biomonitoring using kicknet methods are being 

conducted by local volunteers to determine if the stream’s macroinvertebrate population is 

improving as BMPs are installed in the watershed. Local groups also rely on DEP’s monitoring 

programs to assess water quality conditions and report on the official attainment status. See 

Section XI for more detailed information on monitoring environmental success.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

27

VII. Statewide NPS Control Strategies by NPS Category

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act requires each state to identify major NPS categories or 

subcategories and identify BMPs that may be used to reduce pollutant loadings for each. This 

NPS plan designates and describes six major NPS categories: Agriculture, Developed Areas, 

Transportation, Forestry, Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems and Hydrologic Modification. In 

addition, two other NPS categories (boatyards/marinas and land disposal) addressed primarily 

through regulatory programs are described later in this section

This section describes the six major NPS categories in the Maine NPS Management Program and 

provides descriptions of management strategies, core law/regulatory authority, NPS pollution 

sources, BMP guidelines, and programs and projects. Refer to Section X for tables listing NPS 

Program five-year objectives, actions and milestones for each major NPS category.

Table 5. Lead Agencies for Nonpoint Source Categories.

Nonpoint Source Category State of Maine Lead Agency

Developed Areas Department of Environmental Protection

Agriculture Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry

Transportation Department of Transportation

Forestry Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry

Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems Department of Health & Human Services

Hydrologic Modification Department of Environmental Protection

 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

28

A. Developed Areas

Lead Agency: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

Management Strategies

Encourage use of erosion and sediment controls and stormwater management BMPs 

through administration of land use laws and promotion of voluntary measures. Strategies 

include continue to administer the Storm Water Management Law and Site Location of 

Development Laws; ensure stormwater and ESC BMPs are in place and being maintained on 

permitted development sites; continue updating the Stormwater BMP Manual to include 

latest technology options for stormwater treatment; and continue training of town officials, 

engineers, developers on ways to reduce NPS impacts.

Core Law / Regulatory Authority

DEP is responsible for regulating point sources through the wastewater discharge law (38 

M.R.S. Chapter 3, §413), which requires that a license be obtained for the discharge of 

pollutants to a stream, river, wetland, or lake of the state, or to the ocean. DEP also 

regulates nonpoint sources associated with development activity through administration of 

the Erosion & Sedimentation Control Law (38 M.R.S. Chapter 3, §420-C), the Storm Water 

Management Law (38 M.R.S. §420-D), the Site Location of Development Act (38 M.R.S. 

Chapter 3, §§481-490), and the Natural Resources Protection Act (38 M.R.S. Article 5-A). A 

major purpose of these laws is to protect Maine’s water resources. This is accomplished by

requiring developers to use proper erosion and sedimentation control and storm water 

treatment measures. In addition, DEP promotes voluntary use of best management 

practices for safe lawn care practices through signage (required under 38 M.R.S. §419) and

other outreach. .

Developed Areas & NPS Pollution Sources

The 2012 Integrated Report indicates developed areas are the primary source of pollution 

of 21 impaired lakes and 28 urban impaired streams. Pervious natural landscapes like 

forests, wetlands, and grasslands trap rainwater and snowmelt and allow water to slowly 

filter into the ground. Runoff tends to reach receiving waters gradually. Impervious urban 

landscapes like roads, bridges, parking lots, and buildings don't let runoff slowly percolate 

into the ground. Water remains above the surface, accumulates, and runs off in large 

amounts. Storm sewer systems quickly channel runoff from roads and other impervious 

surfaces. Large volumes of quickly flowing runoff erode stream banks, damage streamside 

vegetation, widen stream channels, increase sediment loads, and raise water temperature 

impacting fish and other aquatic life.

Unpaved roads or trails were listed in the 2012 Integrated Report as the primary pollution 

source for three impaired lakes, but it is a significant issue for many surface waters. Camp 

and other gravel roads contribute a disproportionate amount of sediment deposition into 

streams and lakes, due to sub-standard construction, maintenance and their proximity to 

water. Typical problems identified through watershed surveys include: erosion of the road 

surface, road shoulders, and ditches; unstable and undersized culverts; poor road surface 

material; and inadequate ditches.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

29

BMP Guidelines

For erosion and sedimentation control:

www.maine.gov/dep/land/erosion/escbmps/index.html

For stormwater management: 

http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/stormwater/stormwaterbmps/index.html. 

For gravel road maintenance: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/watershed/camp/road/

For pesticide and fertilizer use on turf:

http://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/applicators/best_management_practices.shtml

BMP Types Areas Addressed by BMPs

Non-Structural (planning) Site specific erosion and sedimentation control plans, 

including temporary and permanent erosion control 

measures; Low Impact Development (Limit areas of 

clearing and grading, Minimize impervious area, 

Minimize directly connected impervious area, Manage 

stormwater at its source); Use contractors certified in 

ESC; Inspection and maintenance including 5-year 

certification; Good housekeeping practices, including 

sweeping, sand and salt management; Yardscaping 

(lawn care practices and lawn alternatives), including 

turf BMPs for fertilizer and pesticides.

Structural (groundwork) 

Provide treatment measures to 

mitigate for the increased 

frequency and duration of 

channel erosive flows; allow for 

infiltration; provide treatment of 

pollutants in stormwater and/or

mitigate potential temporary

impacts

Wetponds ; Vegetated buffers; Infiltration BMPs;

Under-drained soil filters; Detention ponds for flood 

control; Proprietary treatment systems

Program/Project Description

Administration of

laws

Erosion & 

Sedimentation 

Control Law

Maine DEP has regulatory authority over land use activities through 

five statutes:

The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law is a non-reporting 

program that applies to all development activity; DEP provides 

training to developers, consultants and contractors on how to 

conduct activities in a way that complies with the law’s requirement 

of preventing erosion and sedimentation at property boundaries.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

30

Site Location of 

Development

Law

Storm Water 

Management

Law 

Mandatory

Shoreland 

Zoning Act

Natural 

Resources 

Protection Act

The Site Location of Development Law applies to larger projects that 

may have a substantial effect on the environment, and include 

projects that occupy more than 20 acres or create three acres or 

more of structure (impervious areas). 

The Storm Water Management Law regulates development activity 

that disturbs one acre or more of land both during and after

construction. Stormwater treatment BMPs are required for projects 

that involve more than 5 acres disturbance; 20,000 square feet of 

impervious area in watersheds of most at risk lakes or urban 

impaired streams; or 1 acre of impervious area in any other 

watershed. The Site Location of Development Law applies to 

projects that develop three acres or more of land (not revegetated). 

DEP adopted Stormwater Rules (Chapter 500) that apply to projects 

under both the Storm Water and Site Location Laws. These rules 

specify what types of BMPs must be utilized. The rules require

inspection and maintenance of BMPs, including a provision added in 

2005 that developers must certify every five years that the required 

BMPs are in place and being properly maintained.

The Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act (MSZA), administered by 

municipalities with DEP oversight, requires municipalities to adopt, 

administer, and enforce local ordinances that regulate land use 

activities in the shoreland zone. The shoreland zone is comprised of 

all land areas within 250 feet of the normal high-water line of any 

great pond or river; upland edge of a coastal wetland; the upland 

edge of defined freshwater wetlands; and all land areas within 75 

feet of the normal high-water line of certain streams. The purposes 

of MSZA are: to prevent and control water pollution; to protect fish 

spawning grounds, bird and wildlife habitat; to project buildings and 

lands from flooding and erosion; to protect archeological and 

historic resources; to protect fishing and maritime industries; to 

protect freshwater and coastal wetlands; to control building sites, 

placement of structures and land uses; to conserve shore cover, and 

visual as well as actual points of access to inland and marine waters; 

to conserve natural beauty and open space; and to anticipate & 

respond to impacts of development in shoreland areas.

 

The NRPA requires a permit for any activity that is in, on, over, or 

adjacent to protected natural resources, which include wetlands, 

rivers, streams, brooks, ponds, significant wildlife habitat, and sand 

dune systems. Activities regulated under NRPA include: (A) dredging, 

bulldozing, removing or displacing soil, sand, vegetation or other 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

31

materials; (B) draining or otherwise dewatering; (C) filling, including 

adding sand or other material to a sand dune; or (D) any 

construction, repair or alteration of any permanent structure. 

Protected natural resources include streams, lakes, freshwater and 

marine wetlands, sand dunes and significant wildlife habitats.

Contractor 

Certification 

Program 

DEP has had a voluntary certification program for contractors on 

proper erosion and sedimentation control since 1997. In 2013, the 

program became mandatory for any contractor doing earth-moving 

work within 75 feet of streams and within 250 feet of other water 

bodies. As a result, the number of certified contractors in the state 

has risen from approximately 600 to over 2,500. A survey in 2004 

found that certified contractors have had a much higher compliance 

rate with the ESC Law (>90%) versus non-certified contractors (50%). 

Promotion of safe 

lawn care 

practices and 

alternatives for 

homeowners

In an effort to reduce the use of fertilizer containing phosphorus in 

lake watersheds, Maine enacted a law in 2008 pertaining to the sale 

of fertilizer. The law restricts the sale of fertilizer with phosphorus 

to locations where signs are placed promoting the use of 

phosphorus-free fertilizer except for new lawns, or where a soil test 

indicates a phosphorus deficiency. Maine is also promoting 

healthier lawn care practices through the Maine Yardscaping 

Partnership, overseen by the Maine Board of Pesticides Control at 

the DACF. This program hopes to inspire Maine people to create 

and maintain healthy landscapes through ecologically based 

practices that minimize reliance on water, fertilizer and pesticides. 

http://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/yardscaping/index.htm

Salt management Monitoring of aquatic resources in Maine has shown the presence of 

chlorides. Elevated levels of chlorides have been found particularly 

in urban impaired stream watersheds and are attributed to past and 

present stockpiles of sand and salt and to large commercial parking 

lots. Roads are also a contributing source. DEP has been partnering 

with the Maine DOT, municipalities and SWCDs on forums to learn 

more about best management practices for reducing the use of salt 

and/or reducing its impact on water resources.

Training for 

municipal 

officials, 

engineers and 

developers

Communication with towns and the regulated community are vital 

to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements for erosion

control, shoreland zoning, and stormwater management. The DEP 

provides training for the affected groups through the Nonpoint 

Source Training and Resource Center, which conducts spring and fall 

training classes on erosion control, and periodic conferences and 

workshops on stormwater management, as well as other related 

topics. In addition, DEP works with municipal officials, including 

town engineers on latest guidance on the regulatory program. This 

includes providing information BMP manual updates to towns 

delegated to administer the state stormwater program.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

32

B. Agriculture

Lead Agency: Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (DACF)

Management Strategies

Promote widespread use of agricultural BMPs for all agricultural operations through 

administration of the Nutrient Management Act and the Agricultural Compliance Program. 

Reduce the impact of agricultural operations on water bodies by promoting the continued 

implementation of site-specific BMPs. Focus efforts to help ensure that agricultural 

operations: have Nutrient Management Plans, if required; achieve updates to these Plans 

prior to expiration; and, obtain or maintain a Livestock Operations Permit, as required by 

statute. Continue to provide technical assistance to farms when needed, and continue to 

promote and conduct farmer educational programs related to BMPs and protecting water 

quality.

Core Law / Regulatory Authority

The NPS Management Program statute (40 M.R.S. Article 1-F) charged DACF with 

responsibility to develop and promote use of agricultural BMPs to prevent nonpoint source 

pollution. DACF has developed voluntary and regulatory programs and provided services 

that help farmers use BMPs. DACF has responsibility to regulate agricultural activity to 

control nonpoint source pollution through administration of the Right-To-Farm Law, the 

Nutrient Management Law and other statutes.

Agriculture & NPS Pollution Sources

DEP’s 2012 Integrated Report lists agriculture as a source of impaired water quality for six 

lakes (10,532 acres) and 358 miles of rivers and streams. NPS pollutants of concern 

associated with agriculture include bacteria, soil, fertilizers and pesticides. According to 

the USDA 2002-2007 census the number of Maine farms increased by 13 percent to 8,136. 

The average size of Maine farms decreased, from 187 to 166 acres. Maine has 1.3 million 

acres of farm land and leads the world in the production of wild blueberries. On a national 

scale, Maine is 1st in brown egg production, 2nd in maple syrup production and 8th in potato

production. Significant livestock agriculture includes cattle (dairy and beef), sheep, goats, 

hogs, equine and poultry. Given the increase in the number of smaller farms there is a 

need for increased outreach, education, and technical assistance on the use of BMPs. 

BMP Guidelines 

“Manual of Best Management Practices for Maine Agriculture” (January 2007) 

http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/narr/documents/BMP-Manual-Final-January-2007.pdf 

BMP Types Areas Addressed by BMPs

Sediment and 

Erosion Control 

BMPs

Contour plowing; row/strip/rotated/cover crops; buffer strips, crop 

residue, eroded areas, water diversions and stabilization; sediment 

basins; livestock access and stream crossings; farm equipment 

crossings.

Manure 

Management

Application rates/timing; buffers/setbacks; value; non-application 

areas; restrictions; storage, composting, cover crops and crop 

rotations, soil erosion; pest control, bedrock outcrops, shallow soils; 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

33

barnyard and feedlot runoff; water access, soil infiltration capacity.

Pest 

Management

Field selection, disease-free seeds; crop disease resistance; natural 

pest controls; biological controls; cultural controls; pest scouting; 

weed control; pesticide application plan; calibrate pesticide 

equipment; pesticide label directions/safety data; federal/state 

laws; certified pesticide applicator; 

mixing/loading/storing/disposing of pesticides; spray drift; crop 

rotation and pesticides; crops and weeds; mechanical weed control; 

determining application levels; pesticide application techniques; 

weather conditions.

Nutrient 

Management

Application levels and uniformity; background nutrient/organic 

matter/soil amendment levels; determining yield; split fertilizer 

application; fertilizer release rate; soil characteristics; equipment 

calibration; accurate records; irrigation; crop rotation; cover crops; 

fertilization; plant tissue testing; leachable nutrients; soils to avoid 

applications; soil erosion; buffer strips; organic matter content; 

compost excess or spoiled crops.

Irrigation 

Management

Irrigation water management plan for Irrigation from streams and 

rivers.

Livestock 

Management

Housing facilities, waste management structures; environmental 

factors; livestock fencing; pasture and forage crop management.

Odor Control Manure storage structures; coordinating with neighbors; cover 

field-stacked manure; incorporate manure; sod crop applications; 

weather conditions; injection; spreading activity & rates; minimize 

spillage; even application; solid manure; composting.

Insect 

Management

Proper sanitation; spilled feed and spoil piles; dead animals; feed 

bunks; waterers; animal diet; ventilation; poultry house manure 

removal; empty poultry houses; droppings boards; natural insect 

enemies; utilize physical fly removal methods; use pesticides 

sparingly and properly; use proper pesticide application techniques; 

pesticide feed additives; cover manure piles; compost; transporting 

manure; controlling barnyard exercise lots.

Noise Control Irrigation pumps; farm equipment.

Farm 

Management

Animal carcass disposal, equipment exiting farm fields; watering 

livestock, livestock waterway crossings, insect and disease 

infestations; aesthetics; vermin control; wild animal damage; 

residual usage; feed storage; milk room waste; silage management; 

management of spoiled or excess crops; dust control; financial 

record keeping; soil health management; crop production guides.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

34

Program/Project Description

Administration of 

Nutrient 

Management Law

The law requires that all farms with 50 animal units or more develop 

and implement a nutrient management plan (NMP). Also, a NMP 

must be developed for farms that use over 100 tons of manure not 

generated on the farm, farms that have a manure related 

complaint, and farms that utilize sludge. The law requires new or 

existing livestock operations with greater than 300 animal units, 

that meet the EPA definition of a Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operation (CAFO), or that plan on expanding beyond their land base

or manure storage capacity, to obtain Livestock Operation Permits

(LOP). The law prohibits the spreading of manure between 

December 1st and March 15th. Nutrient Management Rules establish 

standards for NMPs, the process for certifying persons to write and 

approve NMPs; requirements for obtaining a livestock operations 

permit; and procedures for implementing the law.

http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/narr/nutrientmanagement.html

Agricultural 

Compliance 

Program

This program handles complaints concerning agricultural activities 

and assists with inspections required for issuance of LOP and CAFO 

permits. Investigations determine whether BMPs are being used, 

works with farmers to develop site specific BMPs, if necessary, to 

correct the situation, and takes enforcement action if needed. 

The Compliance Program also provides technical assistance to local 

communities or DEP related to agricultural problems and BMPs 

called for in watershed-based management plans. 

Nutrient 

Management 

Loan Program

The program provides low interest loans for agricultural NPS 

pollution abatement projects. It is administered by the Finance 

Authority of Maine, and was developed in cooperation with the 

Maine Bond Bank, DAFC, DEP and EPA. EPA’s Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund program provides the funding, and Maine DACF 

determines eligibility for the loans. 

Soil & Water 

Conservation 

Districts (SWCDs)

SWCD are agencies of the state that help farmers, landowners, 

municipal officials, and others conserve and utilize their soil, water, 

forestry and wildlife resources by providing local solutions to local 

natural resource problems. SWCDs are non-regulatory entities wellknown for their ability to resolve issues efficiently at low cost. 

Districts reach out to local stakeholders in the community to 

determine priorities and set a course of action to solve natural 

resource problems. This is done by offering technical assistance and 

educational programs to these groups. These actions help prevent 

and reduce polluted runoff to waterbodies from agricultural and 

urban sites, and protect drinking water sources. Districts collaborate 

with DEP on many NPS pollution prevention projects to achieve 

these positive outcomes.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

35

C. Transportation

Lead Agency: Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT)

Management Strategies

Promote widespread use of an erosion control plan and the installation of effective erosion 

control measures with the goal of water quality protection at all transportation projects with 

soil disturbance through administration of the Stormwater Management Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) under Chapter 500, Stormwater Management Rules. Provide training and 

promote the Erosion Control Contractors Certification for all state, town, or contracted road 

crews. Continue working under the Stormwater Management Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) under Chapter 500, Stormwater Management Rules, for the implementation of 

statewide erosion and sediment control measures usage at new and maintenance soil 

disturbance projects and for the stormwater management of new developments. Manage 

hazardous materials and winter road sand/salt to reduce contamination of ground and surface 

waters.

The Maine Local Roads Center will provide training, technical assistance and information to 

municipal staff responsible for constructing, maintaining, and managing local roads and 

bridges. 

Core Law / Regulatory Authority 

The NPS Management Program statute (38 M.R.S. subsection 410-J) charged MaineDOT with 

responsibility to develop BMP guidelines for transportation-related activities, encourage all 

state and federally funded projects to use BMPs, and provide technical assistance to 

municipalities.

Transportation & NPS Pollution Sources

MaineDOT maintains 8,816 miles of roadway (Interstate highway, principal arterials, and 

collector roads). Erosion during and after construction of roads, highways, and bridges can 

contribute sediment and silt to runoff waters, which can adversely impact water quality. 

Heavy metals, oils, other toxic substances, and debris from construction traffic and spillage can 

be absorbed by soil at construction sites and carried with runoff water to lakes, rivers, and 

marine waters. Winter road maintenance, salting and sanding, is a significant source of the 

total chloride and sediment loading to fresh waters. Inadequate road stream crossings can 

disrupt stream channel morphology, cause streambank erosion and prevent natural passage of 

fish and other aquatic life.

BMP Guidelines

Maine Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control 

http://www.maine.gov/mdot/env/envdocs.htm

BMP Types Areas Addressed by BMPs

Non-Structural

(planning)

Clearly define transportation objectives and responsibilities; use

sound construction planning and techniques; anticipate general and 

seasonal site conditions; plan to minimize and stabilize exposed soils 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

36

during construction and for the long term; factor in and protect the 

integrity of nearby waterbodies; develop and implement a plan to 

safely handle on-site hazardous materials. 

Structural 

(groundwork) 

Ensure proper sizing and installation of bridges and culverts; control 

water; divert stormwater runoff to proper areas, install timely 

stabilization measures of disturbed soils.

Bridges and Culverts: Replace deficient structures with those that 

are sized appropriately for long-term flows and stability of the 

crossing, and in keeping with new science (e.g. revising BMP 

standards and specifications to accommodate extreme weather 

events). 

Wetland Crossings: Protect existing water movement.

Park and Rides: Provide stormwater management for quantity and 

quality of the runoff. 

Maintenance of Structures: Maintain drainage structures, roadside 

ditches and cross culverts.

Handling of Hazardous Materials: Provide guidance and training. 

Provide containment for oil/gas/coolants and to avoid leaks & spills.

Program/Project Description

Program Management

& Partnerships

The MaineDOT Environmental Office maintains one full-time 

engineering position and one environmental specialist to coordinate 

all stormwater engineering efforts. Seven environmental specialists 

work in the field to oversee contractors with erosion control 

management and ground delivery of the program. 

MaineDOT Erosion and 

Sediment Control 

Manual 

MaineDOT revised the Best Management Practices for Erosion and 

Sediment Control manual in 2008. The manual serves as the basis to 

promote on-the-ground use of erosion and sediment control BMPs

during design, construction and maintenance activities. 

Stormwater 

Management 

Memorandum of 

Agreement

MaineDOT has a stormwater memorandum of agreement with DEP 

wherby an erosion control plan is implemented for all its projects 

and that stormwater management measures are installed when 

applicable (Storm Water Management Law, Chapter 500). MaineDOT 

provides an annual report to the DEP summarizing activities and 

projects. This program is effective and will continue.

Compliance with 

Erosion & Sediment 

Control Law

Since 1997, MaineDOT has promoted to its department workers and 

contractors the importance of preventing erosion and stabilizing all 

exposed soils and compliance with the ESC law that directs 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

37

"adequate and timely temporary and permanent stabilization 

measures will be used to prevent unreasonable erosion and 

sedimentation". Special Provision 656 of MaineDOT Standard 

Specifications requires all MaineDOT contractors to include an 

erosion and sedimentation control plan for projects that have fill or 

soil disturbance. MaineDOT also partners with the DEP NPS Training 

Center to promote the Erosion Control Contractor Certification 

Program and to deliver erosion and sediment control BMP training.

Maine Local Road 

Center

The Maine Local Roads Center provides training, technical assistance 

and information to municipal staff responsible for constructing, 

maintaining, and managing local roads and bridges. Through its

newsletter and workshops, town officials and road maintenance 

crews receive information and guidance about the values (e.g., long 

term cost avoidance and protection of local water resources) of 

minimizing erosion and sedimentation from town roads and 

associated drainage features. 

Road winter sand and 

salt management

MaineDOT management of road sanding practices has exceeded the 

established goal of 40 percent reduction of sand use since 1999.

MaineDOT plans further winter sand reduction while maintaining

safe winter driving conditions. Using an anti-icing approach instead 

of a de-icing approach significantly reduced the use of winter sand. 

The anti-icing approach uses mostly rock salt, but also includes salt 

brine, and “Ice-B-Gone” which was recognized by DEP under its

Design for the Environment Formulator Program’. MaineDOT will 

continue to research approaches, methods, and products to 

maintain safe roads and winter driving conditions with the least 

environmental impact. 

Road winter sand and 

salt storage

MaineDOT road salt and sand/salt storage systems in all 5 regions 

comply with DEP regulations to protect ground and surface waters. 

All outdoor winter sand piles have been eliminated in Region 1, 2 

and 4. There are 30 remaining outdoor piles in Region 3 and 5. This 

represents a reduction of approximately 66 percent. The 30 

remaining piles are treated with either hot sand or DT50 products to 

prevent water infiltration. 

Watershed Projects Recognizing the importance of placing stormwater management 

systems in areas most needed, MaineDOT has implemented several

BMPs to help restore urban impaired streams. Pervious pavement 

was installed in the Long Creek watershed. The pavement has been 

placed in an area of high usage and is being cleaned and monitored. 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

38

D. Forestry 

Lead Agency: Maine Forest Service (MFS)

Management Strategies

Promote widespread use of forestry BMPs and BMP-based programs and projects on all forest 

harvest and forestry-based operations in Maine, with special emphasis on water quality 

protection. Improve consistency for the regulated community by working with towns to adopt 

statewide standards for timber harvesting in shoreland areas.

Core Law / Regulatory Authority

Under Maine’s Forest Practices Act (12 M.R.S. §§ 8867-A to 8888) landowners are required to 

notify the Maine Forest Service (MFS) of planned timber harvest activities (with very limited 

exemptions for personal use and small acreage). Harvest plans are required for clearcuts over 

20 acres. The NPS Management Program statute (38 M.R.S. Article 1-F) charged MFS with 

responsibility to develop and implement forestry BMPs. Since then MFS has developed 

programs and provided services that help landowners and wood harvesters use BMPs in 

accordance with MFS advisory and regulatory programs.

Forestry and NPS Pollution Sources

About 89 percent of Maine is forested, the highest percentage of any state. Forest products 

are a key part of Maine’s economy with roughly 200 forest products businesses employing 

17,000 people. Approximately 450,000 acres are harvested annually, via 5,500 to 6,000 

harvest operations. Constructing forest roads, trails, landings, and drainage systems can 

reduce soil absorbency, divert or concentrate water flows, cause soil erosion, increase 

sediment and nutrients entering streams, and diminish the benefits of vegetation next to 

water bodies. Harvesting may also reduce shade on the water’s surface, reduce the amount 

of natural woody debris, or eliminate food sources for aquatic life. Timber harvests that 

remove a significant percentage of trees can increase the water runoff into streams, in some 

cases increase flooding. Forestry BMPs mimic or protect natural forest functions, absorb or 

disperse runoff, retain soil nutrients, filter sediment, and help maintain natural water 

temperature. 

BMP Guidelines

Best Management Practices for Forestry: Protecting Maine’s Water Quality. 

http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/fpm/water/bmp.html

BMP Types Areas Addressed by BMPs

Non-Structural (planning) Clearly define harvest objectives & responsibilities; provide 

sound pre-harvest planning; anticipate general and seasonal 

site conditions; planning to control water flow; planning to 

minimize and stabilize exposed soil, including maintenance; 

planning to factor in and protect the Integrity of nearby 

water bodies; planning to safely handle on-site hazardous 

materials.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

39

Structural (groundwork) 

Ensure proper sizing/installing 

bridges and culverts; control 

water; divert water to proper 

filter areas)

Stream Crossings (bridges, culverts, fords) Key issues 

include fish passage, crossing size, and crossing installation.

Wetland Crossings Key issues include rutting and water 

movement.

Truck Roads The key issue is water control.

Log Landings Key issues include safety, site stability, and 

public perception.

Trails and Harvesting Key issues are water control, soil 

exposure and proper closure (‘putting sites to bed’).

Handling of Hazardous Materials Key issues are storage and 

handling of oil/gas/coolants, avoiding leaks & spills, and 

accident training.

Programs/Projects Description

Program 

Management & 

Partnerships

The MFS maintains one full time position to coordinate the forestry NPS 

program. Two MFS district foresters are designated as water resource 

specialists, to assist the WRF with program development and on-theground program delivery. Due to limited staff dedicated to forestry NPS 

issues, partnerships are important to program delivery. The Maine 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) State Implementation Committee 

(SIC) includes landowners representing roughly 7 million acres of forest 

land in Maine and promotes mills that procure wood from practically 

every timber harvest in the state. Maine’s WRF serves on the SIC’s 

active education committee, which identifies relevant education topics 

and develops/delivers approximately 20-30 trainings per year, reaching 

400-500 foresters, loggers and landowners. MFS also partners with 

several logger certification and professional organizations including the 

Certified Logging Professional Program, Northeast Master Logger, 

Qualified Logging Professional Program and the Professional Logging 

Contractors of Maine to deliver BMP training in conjunction with other 

scheduled trainings and events. These partnerships allow MFS to reach 

over 1000 loggers per year with BMP-related training.

Forestry BMPs for 

Water Quality -

Manual & Training

The MFS made minor revisions to the state’s forestry BMP manual in 

2010. The manual is published in English and French language versions

and has proven to be a useful program tool. Trainings are based on 

establishing a strong understanding of BMP principles to promote 

better in-the-field applications of specific practices detailed in the 

manual. The standard BMP training program was revised in 2012.

Training Programs Specific forestry BMP training topic needs are identified via regular BMP 

monitoring and interaction with partners and other outside sources. 

Once needs are identified, MFS works with its partners to either 

develop training in-house or search for outside experts to deliver or 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

40

assist with training development. MFS has an on-staff adult education 

expert who assists with all MFS training development. Recent topicspecific training has included designing road stream crossings to allow 

fish passage, and road grading for road rehabilitation and maintenance.

Forestry BMPs, use 

and effectiveness 

Monitoring

MFS has conducted random statewide monitoring of BMPs on timber 

harvesting operations since March, 2000. The objective is to assess the 

use and effectiveness of forestry BMPs in Maine. Currently the MFS 

conducts BMP monitoring on a biennial basis, evaluating approximately 

120 harvest sites. This effort has become part of MFS regular 

operations and is likely to continue as long as resources are available. 

The BMP protocol project was a cooperative effort of the Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Northeastern Area Association 

of State Foresters–Water Resources Committee. Reports and protocol 

can be found at: 

http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/fpm/water/bmp_monitoring.html 

Since Maine’s BMPs are voluntary and designed to be outcome-based, 

the protocol focuses on effectiveness and implementation rather than 

strict BMP compliance. This is done by recording measurable evidence 

and assessing a suite of BMPs rather than evaluating the installation of 

individual practices. The protocol evaluates: stream crossings and 

approaches; riparian buffers; chemical pollution; wetland crossings and 

approaches; haul roads, log landings, and rutted mineral soil in 

buffer/filter strips.

MFS Direct-Link 

Loan Program

Since 2007 the MFS has partnered with the Maine Municipal Bond Bank,

DEP, and several participating banks to provided low-interest incentive 

financing to loggers who purchase equipment capable of implementing 

BMPs to reduce NPS impacts on timber harvests. This program requires 

that participants receive BMP training from the MFS and maintain their 

certification by one of the state’s logger certification programs. 

Participants are also subject to follow-up BMP inspections by the MFS. 

Since program inception roughly 60 loggers have made equipment 

purchases with program assistance. Funding is from EPA’s Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund.

Portable Forestry

Bridge Loaner 

Program

The MFS partners with several mills around the state to provide 

portable bridges to loggers on a loaner basis, free of charge. The 

program has five sets of steel bridges and many sets of wooden bridges 

in circulation around the state. These bridges allow loggers to ‘try out’ 

this BMP without cost, and several loggers have purchased or 

constructed their own bridges after using the loaner bridges.

Watershed 

Projects

Recognizing the importance of placing resources in areas of most need 

and where they can do the most good, the MFS has invested effort on 

the Sebago Lake watershed through a major US Forest Service grant. 

Specifically, this project has provided cost-share assistance to over 15 

loggers for the purchase of portable forestry bridges; conducted BMP 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

41

implementation and effectiveness monitoring on every timber harvest 

over 15 acres conducted in the Sebago Lake watershed over the last 2 

years; provided cost-share assistance to woodland owners and towns 

for the preparation of forest management plans; and provided grants to 

towns for tree planting projects. MFS expects to replicate this effort in 

the future.

Coarse Woody 

Debris Program

The MFS has developed a program to increase the number of coarse 

woody debris (CWD) addition projects in Maine. In 2012 it worked to 

simplify the process for implementing CWD projects by writing 

rules/standards allowing trained licensed foresters to oversee CWD 

projects without the need for a permit. The MFS in cooperation with 

the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has developed and 

delivered training to foresters who will oversee these projects.

Timber Harvest 

Inspection/Water 

Quality 

Enforcement

Although Maine BMPs are voluntary, there are state laws prohibiting 

landowners from allowing sediment to enter water bodies. Landowners 

must notify the MFS of all commercial harvesting activity, which allows 

Maine’s 55 Forest Rangers to inspect the harvests for compliance with 

timber harvest regulations. Notifications must indicate whether

harvests occur near waterbodies, allowing inspections to be prioritized 

by potential environmental risk. The MFS uses cooperative agreements 

with DEP and the Land Use Planning Commission whereby MFS rangers 

inspect harvests for compliance using environmental laws administered 

by these agencies. The MFS has also recently assumed regulatory 

jurisdiction of harvesting and related activities in shoreland areas for 

many areas of the state. This is part of the transition from a dual set of 

regulations in the unorganized and organized areas of the state, to a 

consistent set of statewide regulations and a single regulatory authority.

Demonstration 

Projects

MFS regularly helps organize technology transfer demonstration 

projects. Most of these projects demonstrate innovative stream 

crossing installations, particularly those involving designs promoting fish 

passage, including ‘bottomless arch’ and box culverts and low-cost 

bridge installations.

Forest Certification 

Programs & 

Initiatives

The MFS supports forest certification by any of the several organizations 

that certify forest land in Maine. These organizations include the Forest 

Stewardship Council, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and the 

American Tree Farm System. About 9.4 million acres of Maine’s forests 

are certified to one of the three major standards. Use of water quality 

BMPs is mandatory under all of these systems. Lands certified under 

these systems undergo third-party audits, offering an added level of 

scrutiny with regard to the implementation and effectiveness of BMP 

practices.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

42

E. Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems

Lead Agency: Department of Health & Human Services, Maine Center For 

Disease Control, Division of Environmental Health, Subsurface Wastewater Unit

Management Strategies

Work with municipalities to implement the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal (SSWD) Rules. 

Improve the voluntary training and certification programs for septic system inspectors and 

installers (Voluntary Onsite Sewage Disposal System (OSDS) Inspection Program). Continue to 

encourage point-of-sale septic system inspections.

Revise and update the SSWD Rules as needed to address emerging issues and to reflect current 

technology in subsurface wastewater management and disposal.

Core Law / Regulatory Authority

By Maine statute (22 M.R.S. §42) the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is 

authorized to adopt rules providing for the inspection of plumbing and subsurface wastewater 

disposal systems. The rules are known as the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules (10-144 

CMR 241). Implementation and enforcement of the rules is the responsibility of municipalities. 

Municipalities are required to appoint plumbing inspectors to implement the rules.

Onsite Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Systems & NPS Pollution Sources

Onsite SSWDs are utilized for the treatment and disposal of domestic and commercial 

wastewater in areas that lack centralized municipal wastewater collection and treatment 

systems. Onsite SSWD systems, if improperly located, designed, or installed are subject to 

malfunction, which may cause adverse health effects and detrimental environmental impacts to 

land and water resources from untreated wastewater. Malfunctioning disposal systems can 

cause bacterial contamination and deliver nutrients to surface waters. 

BMP Guidelines

Subsurface wastewater disposal rules govern the siting, design, construction, and inspection of 

subsurface wastewater disposal systems in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of 

the citizens of Maine. Approved procedures, design, and siting requirements, materials, 

methods, and administrative polices are described in detail. These Rules provide minimum 

State design criteria for subsurface wastewater disposal to assure environmental sanitation and 

safety. These Rules are intended to complement municipal planning, zoning, and land use 

control. http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-health/plumb/rules.htm
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

43

Program Description

Subsurface Waste 

Water Disposal Rules 

(CMR 241)

Maintain copies of all plumbing and subsurface waste water permits 

issued statewide. Approximately 40,000 plumbing permits are 

processed annually, which generate approximately $275,000 in 

dedicated revenue. The Program processes approximately 10,000 

subsurface waste water permits annually. Provide reviews of 

engineering plans for compliance with or variance from departmental 

rules in support of the Division's various program areas. Provide 

interagency reviews and make recommendations for DEP, Maine Land

Use Regulation Commission, Maine Department of Education, and 

Bureau of Public Improvements, among others. Conduct site 

inspections to assist site evaluators, local officials, and property 

owners.

Rules for 

Appointment and 

Administration of 

Local Plumbing 

Inspectors (CMR 240)

Oversee the appointment and administration of Local Plumbing 

Inspectors, including the eligibility, application, examination, and recertification requirements.

Rules for Site 

Evaluators of 

Subsurface 

Wastewater Disposal 

Systems (CMR 245)

Oversee licensing of site evaluators that perform subsurface 

wastewater disposal evaluations for the purpose of designing onsite

subsurface wastewater disposal systems. This includes the 

administration, examination and licensing roles.

Voluntary Onsite 

Sewage Disposal 

System Inspection 

Program.

The Department oversees a Voluntary Onsite Sewage Disposal System 

Inspection Program for inspection of existing systems.

Certification of 

Subsurface 

Wastewater Disposal 

System Installers

The Department oversees a voluntary certification program for SWDS 

installers. The program involves training programs, review of actual 

performance and on-going 5-year recertification with continuing 

education and good performance.

Small Community 

Grants Program 

DEP administers the Small Community Grant Program, which provides 

grants to towns to help replace malfunctioning septic systems that are 

polluting a waterbody or causing a public nuisance. Grants can be used 

to fund from 25% to 100% of the design and construction costs, 

depending upon the income of the owners of the property, and the 

property's use. An actual pollution problem must be documented in 

order to qualify for funding. The highest priority is given to problems 

that are polluting a public drinking water supply or a shellfishing area. 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

44

F. Hydrologic Modification

Lead Agency: Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Management Strategies

Control hydrologic modification of rivers, streams, and lakes through administration of 

regulatory programs. Coordinate review and permitting of channel dredging with the Army 

Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Control impacts of hydropower dams through certification of 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower permits. Regulate impacts of other 

dams through state review of water level petitions and subsequent DEP water level orders. 

Encourage use of erosion and sediment controls and stormwater management BMPs through 

both administration of land use laws and promotion of voluntary measures by continued 

administration of the Storm Water Management and Site Location of Development 

Laws.Adopt new standards for stream crossings (new, repair, replacement, rehabilitation) 

designed to improve fish passage, hydraulic capacity and resiliency to larger storm events.

Core Law / Regulatory Authority

DEP regulates channel dredging through the NRPA in conjunction with the ACOE under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act. Licensing of hydropower dams is regulated by the FERC and 

conditions required by states under section 401 of the CWA to ensure attainment of State 

Water Quality Standards. Non-hydropower dams are regulated under the Maine Waterway 

Development and Conservation Act (38 M.R.S. §§ 630-636, 640), Maine Water Level Act (38 

M.R.S. §341-D, §§2), Municipal Regulation of Water Levels and Minimum Flows Act (30-A 

M.R.S. §4454-4457), and DEP’s In-Stream Flows and Lake and Pond Water Levels rule. DEP is 

responsible for controlling runoff and erosion through the ESC Law, the Storm Water 

Management Law, the Site Location of Development Act and NRPA. 

Hydrologic Modification and NPS Pollution Sources

DEP’s 2012 Integrated Report lists hydromodification as the source category for 85 miles of 

impaired rivers and streams and seven impaired lakes (48,994 acres). Hydrologic modification 

activities include dams, channelization, channel modification, and streambank and shoreline 

erosion. Channelization, channel modification, and stream crossings may adversely impact 

suitability of instream and streamside habitat for fish and wildlife. Several recent watershedlevel surveys of existing Maine stream crossings indicate that as many as 90% are barriers to 

fish passage and as many as 40% are impassable, causing significant loss of aquatic habitat. 

Hydrologic modification can alter instream water temperature, and sediment erosion, 

transport and deposition. The siting, construction and operation of dams can adversely impact

the hydraulic regime, water levels, surface water quality and habitat of a lake, stream or river. 

Erosion caused by hydrologic modification can have adverse impacts on riparian habitat. 

Excessively high sediment loads can smother submerged aquatic vegetation, cover shellfish 

beds and tidal flats, fill in riffle pools, and increase levels of turbidity and nutrients.

BMP Guidelines

For ESC: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/erosion/escbmps/index.html

For stormwater management:

http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/stormwater/stormwaterbmps/index.html. 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

45

BMP Types Areas Addressed by BMPs

Non-Structural (planning) - Conduct planning to avoid adverse impacts on water 

quality

- Site specific erosion and sedimentation control plans, 

including temporary and permanent erosion control 

measures

- Low Impact Development:

 Limit areas of clearing and grading

 Minimize impervious area

 Minimize directly connected impervious area

 Manage stormwater at its source

- Use contractors certified in ESC

- Inspection and maintenance including five-year 

certification

Structural (groundwork) 

Provide treatment measures to 

mitigate for the increased 

frequency and duration of 

channel erosive flows 

Wet ponds; Vegetated buffers; Infiltration; Under-drained 

soil filters; Detention ponds for flood control; Proprietary 

treatment systems

Program/Project Description

Maine Waterway 

Development and 

Conservation Act, 

401 CWA 

Certification of 

Hydropower 

Projects

DEP reviews applications for 1) construction, re-construction or 

alteration of hydropower projects which change water level or flow, 2) 

maintenance and repair of existing hydropower projects involving 

dredging or filling below normal high water under the Maine 

Waterway Development and Conservation Act and 3) hydropower 

license from the FERC under section 401 of the Clean Water Act to 

ensure that operation of the project will not result in non-attainment 

of the state’s Water Quality Standards. DEP may certify the project 

with conditions, which FERC then incorporates into the project permit. 

Maine Water Level 

Act Establishment 

of water levels

Municipal 

Regulation of 

Water Levels,

Minimum Flows

Municipal 

regulation

The DEP commissioner may on the commissioner's own motion and 

shall at the request of the owner, lessee or person in control of a dam, 

the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, or the 

Commissioner of Marine Resources, or upon receipt of petitions from 

the lesser of at least 25 percent or 50 of the littoral or riparian 

proprietors or from a water utility having the right to withdraw water 

from the body of water for which the water level regime is sought, 

conduct an adjudicatory hearing for the purpose of establishing a 

water level regime and, if applicable, minimum flow requirements for 

the body of water impounded by any dam that does not have a license 

for hydropower generation from FERC or other water level order from 

another entity. Municipalities may petition DEP for jurisdiction over 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

46

water levels and minimum flows pending adoption of an appropriate 

ordinance.

In-stream Flows 

and Lakes and 

Ponds Water 

Levels 

DEP Rule 06-096 

CMR Ch. 587 

This Chapter establishes river and stream flows and lake and pond 

water levels to protect natural aquatic life and other designated uses 

in Maine’s waters. Instream flow requirements for Class AA, A, B, and 

C waters are based on natural flows that occur in Maine waters, and 

the uses and characteristics assigned by the water quality classification 

program (38 M.R.S. Sections 464, 465) with attention given to 

protecting the outstanding natural resources associated with Class AA 

waters. Flow is managed to provide natural variation of flow described 

by seasonal aquatic base flows, or other seasonally variable flows, 

shown to protect aquatic life resources and water quality standards. 

Water level requirements for Class GPA waters take into account 

natural variation of water levels that occur in Maine lakes and ponds, 

and the uses and characteristics assigned by the water quality 

classification program (38 MRS Sections 464, 465-A). Water level is 

managed to provide variation that takes into account expected 

seasonal levels shown to protect aquatic resources and other water 

quality standards of Class GPA and downstream waters. Instream 

flows and water levels may be established by 3 methods: (1) standard 

allowable alteration, (2) by a site-specific flow designation developed 

through an Alternative Water Flow or Alternative Water Level, or (3) 

as part of a new or existing regulatory permit. A water use which fails 

to comply with the requirements of these rules is subject to penalties 

pursuant to Title 38, Section 349.

Develop new 

standards for 

stream crossings 

(new, repair, or 

replacement) 

designed to 

improve fish 

passage, hydraulic 

capacity and 

resiliency to larger 

storm events

New stream crossings, as well as the maintenance, repair, 

rehabilitation and replacement of existing crossings, are regulated 

under the Natural Resources Protection Act. Several watershed-level 

surveys of existing crossings revealed surprisingly consistent results 

indicating that as many as 90 percent are barriers to fish passage and 

as many as 40 percent are impassable. In an effort to reestablish the 

connectivity of Maine’s stream systems, the Legislature directed the 

Department, in concert with the Department of Transportation and 

other state natural resource agencies to develop an Aquatic Resource 

Management Strategy.

A major stakeholder group has been working on this issue since late 

2011. By 2015, it is anticipated that new standards will be adopted for 

new and replacement crossings designed to improve fish passage, 

hydraulic capacity and resiliency to larger storm events. Efforts are 

also underway to identify funding mechanisms, develop training 

programs and to assess and prioritize watersheds where removing 

passage impediments will result in the greatest connectivity of 

fisheries habitats.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

47

G. Other NPS Sources

The preceding sections describe six major NPS categories in Maine. Boatyards and Marinas and 

Land Disposal are no longer major sources of NPS pollution. Regulatory programs have reduced 

the water quality threat from these 2 NPS categories. 

Boatyards and Marinas

Because of their proximity to water, marine facilities including boat repair yards, marinas, 

commercial piers, and boat ramps can adversely affect water quality. Many types of pollutants 

including fuels, oils, grease, antifreeze, cleaning materials, fish waste and solid waste can get 

into nearby waters. In large part, marine facilities are regulated by the MEPDES program, 

through both the Industrial Multi-Sector General Permit and the Waste Discharge Program. In 

addition, marine facilities may be subject to regulation for fuel storage, hazardous, solid or 

sanitary waste, and air discharges. Commercial piers and municipal or state boat ramps are 

potential sources that are not regulated. 

DEP plays the lead role in carrying out these regulatory 

programs and providing technical assistance and 

outreach efforts for boatyards and marinas. The DEP 

manual, Brightwork: Best Management Practices for 

Maine’s Boatyards and Marina (2004) provides guidance 

on the various BMPs such as fish waste and bait 

management, boat cleaning, fuel spill prevention, solid 

waste management and sediment and erosion controls. 

The Maine Marine Trade Association (MMTA) leads a

voluntary, beyond compliance initiative helping 

boatyards and marinas operators meet and exceed 

environmental standards. The Maine Clean Boatyards 

and Marinas Program is a collaborative partnership 

among industry, state and federal agencies and 

environmental organizations dedicated to promoting BMPs in boatyards and marinas. The 

program helps protect and improve clean water by helping boatyards and marinas reduce 

pollution beyond the regulatory requirements. DEP will continue working with the MMTA on 

the Maine Clean Boatyards and Marinas Program.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

48

Land Disposal

Waste disposal was historically a significant NPS problem in Maine. Waste and leachate 

delivered toxics and nutrients to surface and ground waters. Fortunately, several laws have 

been enacted over the past several decades, and waste disposal activities are now highly 

regulated and monitored. In fact, most of Maine’s landfills are currently inactive or have been 

closed (Figure 11). There are now only a small number of highly regulated landfills, including 27 

municipal operations. 

The State of Maine supports an integrated 

approach to waste management. This 

includes programs to reduce the amount 

and toxicity of waste generated, promote 

reuse and recycling of waste, and compost 

and process waste to create safe and 

useful products. Disposal through 

incineration and landfilling is the least 

preferred option. 

DEP’s solid waste programs include solid 

waste facilities management, sludge and 

residuals management, scrap tire 

management, electronic waste and 

mercury product management, and the 

non-hazardous waste transporter 

program. These programs provide

education and technical assistance and 

carry out regulatory activities including 

licensing, compliance and enforcement of 

the State’s Solid waste laws.

Figure 11. Status of Maine Landfills
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

49

VIII. NPS Programs and Partnerships

A. DEP NPS Programs

DEP conducts focused work on NPS issues through the NPS Grants Program, NPS Technical 

Assistance Services and NPS Outreach. The following section describes these program areas 

and identified management strategies associated with each.

NPS Grants Program 

DEP administers a pass-through grants program that 

awards and monitors sub-grants of EPA Section 319 & 604b 

funds (Clean Water Act) for watershed projects to help 

restore or protect lakes, streams, rivers, or marine waters 

from NPS pollution. These grants help communities identify 

nonpoint water pollution sources, prepare watershedbased management plans, and take action to reduce or 

prevent NPS pollution. DEP Agreement Administrators are 

assigned to each NPS project to monitor grantee progress

in implementing the project and provide technical support 

to help grantees successfully carry out projects. DEP 

provides opportunity for two types of grants to help 

communities:

 Develop a watershed-based plan (WBP) - A WBP 

provides assessment and management information and 

describes actions needed over a five to 15 year period 

to restore NPS-impaired water bodies, or to protect 

water bodies threatened by NPS pollution. The extent 

of the planning area (watershed) needs to be a geographically-appropriate size so that 

implementing actions can lead to measurable reductions in pollution and achievement of 

water quality goals.

 Implement a watershed-based plan. - Grants are available to help partners make progress 

carrying out NPS management measures (actions) described in the plan. A WBP accepted 

by the DEP is a prerequisite to be eligible to apply for NPS grant funds to help implement 

the plan.

DEP administers Section 319 grant award received from EPA in accordance with the national 

EPA guidance for state NPS management programs and the EPA-DEP Performance Partnership 

Agreement (PPA). EPA guidelines designate the annual 319 award into two categories – “NPS 

program funds” and “watershed project funds”. States may use 50 percent of their Section

319 grant allocation (NPS program funds) to support any eligible NPS activities in the State NPS 

management plan. States are required to use at least 50 percent of funding (watershed project 

Sample 319 grant project: 

eroding lake shoreline before 

BMP implementation.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

50

funds) to implement on-the-ground 

watershed projects guided by a watershed 

based plan. Watershed project funds are for 

restoring impaired waters through the 

implementation of a WBP or to implement 

alternative plans approved by EPA, such as 

protecting unimpaired waters designated as 

a priority in a State NPS Plan. Project funds 

may not be used for planning activities such 

as WBP or TMDL development

In Maine, Section 319 “NPS program funds” 

will be used primarily to support DEP staff 

performing NPS program services, training 

programs through the NPS Training and 

Resources Center, and assessment of water 

quality trend for lakes where there has been NPS pollution control activities through the Maine 

Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program. DEP expects to use a limited amount of program funds to 

help develop new WBPs. Section 319 “Watershed project funds” will be used primarily for 

implementation of WBPs to help restore NPS impaired waters or alternative plans to protect 

unimpaired waters that are considered threatened. DEP plans to use up to 50 percent of 

watershed project funds for implementation of WBPs to help communities protect unimpaired 

waters that are considered threatened or most at risk.

Sample 319 grant project: Installation of a 

covered manure storage facility, heavy use 

area and vegetated runoff treatment system 

at a dairy farm to minimize and treat 

phosphorus runoff to nearby lake.

Sample 319 grant project: Undersized round culvert replaced with a much larger arch culvert; 

road no longer washes out during storm events.

Before After
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

51

Technical Assistance Services 

In addition to the support provided to active 319 projects, DEP invests considerable staff 

resources to provide technical support to watershed groups, municipalities and other partners. 

Some of the main areas of support are described below.

 Watershed Association Support – DEP staff support the work of lake and watershed 

associations through presentations, meetings and other technical assistance. DEP provides 

information to help groups understand their watershed’s NPS issues and evaluate available 

options for further assessment and remediation. Staff also promotes the use and adoption 

of the NPS Site Tracker, which helps groups manage information on erosion sites in their 

watersheds. The tool allows prioritization of erosion sites, tracking of sites as they are fixed, 

and listing of new sites as they 

are discovered. 

 Watershed Surveys –

Watershed Surveys find, 

document, and prioritize NPS 

pollution sources in a 

watershed and recommend 

BMPs needed at specific NPS 

sites. Many of these surveys 

are funded in part through the 

NPS Grants Program. In 

addition, DEP provides 

technical assistance and project 

oversight to smaller watershed 

survey projects that are 

conducted with local funding. 

 Watershed Roundtable – DEP hosts an annual Watershed Roundtable for watershed 

managers from state agencies, municipalities, watershed organizations, SWCDs, and the 

private sector. This informal, day-long event provides an opportunity for networking, 

sharing lessons learned, and discussing common problems in both rural and urban 

watersheds across the state. 

 Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) – The DEP provides 

technical assistance and training to the State’s nine YCC 

programs. These YCC programs hire high school 

students to install buffers, erosion control measures, 

and other conservation practices in lake and river 

watersheds. Most of these programs originally started 

as part of 319 grant projects, but communities then 

secured local funding to continue the programs after 

the grants ended. YCC crew members taking a break.

Volunteers for a lake watershed survey.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

52

Excerpt from Maine Statewide 

Bacteria TMDL (2009).

 Municipal Comprehensive Plan Reviews – DEP provides maps and waterbody information

to municipalities working on comprehensive plans, which are required under the 

Comprehensive Growth Management Act (30-A MRS § 4311). After plans are submitted to 

the state, DEP reviews the water resources sections of municipal comprehensive plans for 

consistency with agency goals, programs, and 

policies. Suggestions are also provided for 

possible strategies to address NPS threats 

and problems.

 Bacteria TMDL Follow-Up – Since 2010, DEP 

has conducted follow-up monitoring related 

to the Statewide Bacteria TMDL, which was 

approved in 2009. The objective is to identify 

specific sources of bacteria through sampling 

for E. coli and sanitary surveys; eliminate 

these problems; and remove the impaired 

stream segment from the 303d list. Sampling 

areas are selected from the TMDL list based 

on high restoration potential; adverse impact 

on downstream beaches; follow-up on 

previous sampling efforts; and to 

characterize natural levels of bacteria at 

clean sites. Samples are collected using a 

diagnostic approach that helps narrow down 

NPS inputs to specific subwatersheds and 

identifies manageable areas for sanitary 

surveys. 

NPS Outreach

NPS pollution is the result of a myriad of individual actions throughout a watershed. While 

many important polluted runoff sources can be controlled through administration of local 

ordinances or state regulations, outreach promoting voluntary use of BMPs can effectively 

prompt more widespread use of BMPs. DEP carries out several programs that promote

voluntary adoption and use of BMPs to address NPS pollution. Some of the main outreach 

activities are described below:

 Nonpoint Source Training and Resource Center (NPSTRC) – The NPSTRC provides training 

to various groups throughout the state to help them prevent NPS pollution. Training topics 

include erosion and sediment control; stormwater management; and septic system 

installation, design, and inspection. The NPS Training Center coordinates the Contractor 

Certification Program, which is required for contractors that disturb soil in the shoreland 

zone. The Center also coordinates conferences; develops and maintains various 

publications and a video lending library; and acts as a clearinghouse for NPS and BMP

information.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

53

 Phosphorus-Free Fertilizer Effort – Maine law (38 

MRS 419) requires stores that sell fertilizer to post 

DEP-approved signs explaining when it is 

appropriate to use fertilizers with phosphorus. DEP 

help coordinate the implementation of this law by 

providing retailers signs and other supporting 

materials about fertilizer use. 

 Outreach to Municipal Officials – DEP offers NPS 

training for municipal officials to help provide 

services formerly provided by the non-profit 

program, Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials 

(NEMO), which was discontinued in 2013. DEP 

plans on using Adobe Presenter to produce 20 

minute educational programs and on-line resources 

on topics such as NPS pollution prevention and low 

impact development. These will be marketed though the Maine Municipal Association and 

DEP’s municipal newsletter. Limited assistance will also be provided to municipalities that 

view the modules and would like additional information (e.g., ordinances changes). 

 Target Audience Analysis - Effective outreach 

segments audiences into discrete groups of 

people with common characteristics and then 

facilitates a more effectively targeted outreach 

effort. DEP’s NPS Outreach Program aims to 

understand key target audiences and then use 

this knowledge to effectively influence BMP 

use. DEP has funded and supported research 

efforts such as phone surveys, focus groups,

and intercept surveys to gather information on 

current behavior, beliefs, values, and barriers to 

behavior adoption. DEP then provides this 

information to partners who are working to 

promote water quality efforts. 

 NPS Outreach Assistance to 319 Grant Projects – DEP provides outreach assistance to 

partners developing and implementing watershed based plans to make sure that outreach 

efforts are as effective and targeted as possible. The guidance document, Outreach 

Guidance for NPS Watershed Implementation Projects (DEP, 2008), has been developed for 

grantees. DEP also provides staff support to help identify the target audiences that are key 

to advancing water quality improvement and protection. Once the audience is identified, 

projects can tap into existing programs or, if needed, design new ones based on the 

fundamentals of effective behavior change science. 

 NPS Outreach Assistance to Partners - The most effective way to promote voluntary use of 

BMPs is through one on one contact and local outreach. Since DEP doesn’t have the staffing 

Municipal officials learn about BMPs.

DEP-approved phosphorusfree sign posted at retailers.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

54

or local reach to effectively accomplish voluntary BMP adoption on a statewide basis, DEP 

partners with and supports local organizations. These organizations and programs deliver 

local behavior change efforts through technical assistance, educational opportunities, and 

cost-sharing. The organizations include statewide organizations with a local presence such 

as Maine Lakes Society’s LakeSmart program and the Maine Board of Pesticide Control’s 

YardScaping program. 

DEP has identified a number of important target audiences who in one form or another can 

have a significant impact on the quality or quantity of stormwater runoff. These audiences 

typically need encouragement to voluntarily implement BMPs. BMP promotional efforts 

and programs for several target audiences are described below.

Table 6. Key NPS Target Audiences and Current BMP Promotional Efforts.

Target 

Audience/Activity

Prominent Organizations (Outreach Efforts)

Agriculture USDA NRCS (voluntary technical assistance & funding for 

conservation practices/BMPs through EQIP, USDA Farm Services 

Agency (voluntary technical assistance & funding through CRP), 

and DACF (Maine nutrient management law administration)

Developers DEP Nonpoint Source Training and Resource Center (NPSTRC)

(limited outreach through occasional conferences)

Earthwork contractors DEP NPSTRC (contractor certification program & courses)

Homeowners and 

residents

Think Blue Maine partnership (website, trainings, outreach 

materials), DEP (P-Free fertilizer effort, 319 project support), 

Maine Board of Pesticide Control (Yardscaping Program)

Local Public Road 

Maintenance

Maine Local Roads Center (training and technical assistance), 

NPSTRC (indirectly through Erosion & Sediment Control courses)

Municipal officials and

employees

Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials (limited 

workshops and presentations), NPSTRC (training for CEOs and 

planners on low impact development)

Shorefront property 

owners

Lakes – Maine Lake Society (LakeSmart Program), Maine 

Volunteer Lakes Monitoring Program (trainings, website), 

Regional groups; Streams/Rivers – Regional groups, Long Creek 

Restoration Project; Marine – Regional groups, Casco Bay Estuary 

Partnership, Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership

Winter snow/deicing 

contractors

Statewide Salt Task Force (policy development, partner 

outreach), NPSTRC (conference, trainings)

Forestry Maine Forest Service (Certified Loggers program, BMP site 

inspections) and, USDA NRCS (voluntary technical assistance and 

funding for forestry management practices, Forestry plans and 

water quality conservation practices through EQIP).
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

55

B. Integration with Other Government Programs that Protect 

Water Quality

In addition to the DEP programs mentioned in the previous section, , there are many other DEP, 

state, federal and municipal programs that help protect and restore water quality. The most 

prominent NPS-related programs are described below.

Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. EPA provides annual funding to help DEP carry out NPS Programs 

through Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. EPA personnel also provide 

extensive program guidance and technical assistance for the NPS Grants 

Program to ensure compliance with EPA guidelines and reporting 

requirements. In 2014 the annual 319 program grant to Maine was $1,766,269. In addition to 

319 funding, EPA provides other funds for water quality related programs and activities 

including Section 604(b) funds for water quality planning, the Maine Healthy Beaches Program 

and the National Estuary Program. EPA and DEP performance objectives, priorities and 

commitments are detailed in an annual Performance Partnership Agreement.

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dep/about/planning.html

Maine Coastal Program

In 1978, the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

approved the Maine Coastal Program (MCP) as the State’s coastal zone 

management plan in accordance with the federal Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) (15 U.S.C. § , et seq.). The MCP works to 

improve the environmental and economic health of Maine’s coastal areas 

in accordance with the CZMA and the general policies stated in the state’s Coastal Management 

Policies Act (38 MRS § 1801). The Department of Agriculture Conservation and Forestry’s 

Bureau of Geology, Natural Areas, and Coastal Resources is the lead agency for administration 

of the MCP. Several state agencies, primarily DEP and DMR, play key roles in implementing 

Maine’s networked program. The MCP’s activities center on the designated state “coastal 

area”, which is comprised of the land area of all municipalities on tidally-influenced waters and 

coastal waters and the all islands within them seaward to the three-mile limit of state 

ownership.

The MCP’s NPS-related efforts focus primarily on planning related to the interaction of land 

uses and coastal water quality. Watersheds of shellfish growing areas are a major focus; as 

required by NOAA, MCP has a newly- instituted goal and indicator program to track progress in 

opening shellfish growing areas for harvesting. While ME DMR administers the shellfish 

classification program, MCP provides technical support to municipalities to develop municipal 

plans, policies and ordinances that address coastal pollution in shellfish growing area 

watersheds. MCP administers a competitive grant program for municipalities and regional 

organizations that may fund NPS-related projects such as water quality monitoring, pollution 

source surveys, and habitat restoration; and assists coastal organizations applying for CWA 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

56

Section 319 funds. MCP also provides limited funding to Regional Planning Councils in nine 

coastal regions that may assist coastal municipalities with NPS-related issues, among 

others. MCP’s Community Planning and Assistance Program, which supports smart growth 

strategies, low impact development, and other land use planning, and the MCP’s outreach 

program, which educates the public about coastal issues and promotes good stewardship, also 

contribute to the state’s approach to NPS management.

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dacf/municipalplanning/index.shtml

Maine DEP Stormwater Program (Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)

Since 1987, EPA has had authority under the federal Clean Water Act to regulate certain 

stormwater discharges as point source discharges through the National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System. EPA developed specific stormwater requirements for construction sites, 

industrial activities and for discharges from municipal separate stormwater sewer systems 

(MS4s). In 2001, EPA delegated authority to DEP to administer this program (now referred to as 

MEPDES). 

 Construction General Permits - In 2003, DEP issued general permits for point source 

stormwater discharges from construction activity. This general permit applies solely to 

construction activity and not to ongoing stormwater management following construction. 

The permit sets standards for managing stormwater that may pick up pollutants, including 

soil and discharge them to waters of the State such as lakes, streams, and wetlands. The 

requirement for a permit is triggered by the amount of disturbed area created during 

construction, and whether the site will directly discharge to surface waters of the state.

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/stormwater/construction.html

 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) - In 2003, DEP also issued general permits 

for discharges from MS4s in certain regulated communities. In 2013, there were 40 entities 

regulated through this program, including 30 municipalities, eight State or Federal-Owned 

facilities and two transportation agencies. Regulated entities are required to develop and 

implement a stormwater program management plan that addresses the following six 

Minimum Control Measures: public education and outreach on stormwater impacts; public 

involvement and participation; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction site 

stormwater runoff control; post-construction stormwater management in new 

development and redevelopment; and pollution prevention/good housekeeping for 

municipal operations.

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/stormwater/MS4.html
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

57

 Industrial Multi-Sector General Permit - In 2005, Maine’s Multi-Sector General Permit, was 

issued for point source stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity. Regulated 

entities are required to develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, 

which includes general guidelines as well as specific standards for each listed industrial 

activity. The Industrial Stormwater Unit provides technical assistance, training, outreach 

and support to help the Maine business community meet permit requirements. 

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/stormwater/multisector.html

 Long Creek Watershed - In 2009, DEP issued a MEPDES general permit 

for post-construction discharges of stormwater from properties with 

one acre or more of impervious area in the Long Creek watershed, an 

urban impaired stream located in the municipalities of South Portland, 

Westbrook, Portland, and Scarborough. Operators of properties that 

have a designated discharge are required to obtain an Individual Waste 

Discharge License from the Department or file for coverage under the Long Creek General 

Permit which requires permittees to participate in and comply with implementation of the 

Long Creek Watershed Management Plan, which is being carried out by the Long Creek 

Watershed Management District.

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wd/long_creek/index.html

Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR)

DMR was established to conserve and develop marine and estuarine 

resources through scientific research, promotion of the coastal fishing 

industry, and implementation of laws and regulations. DMR’s Shellfish 

Growing Area Program determines shellfish growing area classifications in all 

shellfish harvesting areas to ensure that only pollution-free areas are open to 

harvesting. Classifications are set through sanitary surveys that include a shoreline survey to 

identify pollution sources that may impact water quality; marine water sampling to determine 

fecal coliform bacterial levels in the marine water; and analysis of how weather conditions, 

tides, currents, and other factors may affect the distribution of pollutants in the area. Water 

samples are collected monthly from January through December, to determine bacteria levels. 

DMR sanitary surveys have identified NPS pollution as the likely sources of bacteria in 

numerous shellfish harvesting areas in the state. This information, in turn, has been used by 

DEP to help identify NPS Priority Watersheds.

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dmr/rm/public_health/shellfishgrowingarea.htm

Maine Climate Change Adaptation

The report, People and Nature Adapting to a Changing Climate: Charting Maine’s Course (DEP, 

2010) contains more than 60 recommendations for action to plan for changes to Maine’s 

climate. The report emphasized the need for planning and action at the local level, and 

recognized that creation of an actionable state-level climate adaptation plan requires years of 

work and significant expenditure of resources to assure widespread acceptance and 

implementation. Many of the recommendations in the 2010 report are being implemented, 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

58

such as providing climate change awareness education to municipalities and local planning 

organizations, evaluating and revising regulations, mapping areas of vulnerability, and 

estimating cost impacts of no-action alternatives for capital improvements.

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=369026&an=1

Maine Drinking Water Program (DWP)

The Maine Drinking Water Program, which is part of the 

Center for Disease Control, implements the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. The program uses EPA’s multiple barrier 

approach to help keep water safe and secure. Source 

protection is the program’s primary focus since poorly planned and managed development 

represents the greatest risk to water quality and quantity. Key DWP partners include Public 

Water Systems (PWSs) and Maine Rural Water Association. None of these groups have 

authority to manage land use. However, the DWP, PWSs and DEP collaborate on projects in a 

number of drinking water watersheds. The DWP also provides input on state-wide priorities for 

319 projects and provides PWSs with financial resources that can be used to enhance NPS 

projects. The DWP is also a key partner in the Salmon Falls Watershed Collaborative, which is 

an inter-state effort to protect drinking water supplies for over 47,000 residents in Maine and 

New Hampshire. 

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-health/water/

Maine Healthy Beaches Program (MHB) Program

The MHB program was established to ensure that Maine's salt-water beaches 

remain safe and clean. The program brings together communities to perform 

standardized monitoring of beach water quality, notify the public if bacteria 

levels threaten human health, and educate both residents and visitors on ways 

to keep Maine's beaches healthy. The MHB program is funded by EPA under 

the Federal Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act;

administered by DEP; and carried out in partnership with University of Maine 

Cooperative Extension. There are 29 beach management entities in the MHB 

program. While the focus of the program is to monitor bacteria levels at beaches, entities 

finding high bacteria levels at beaches often expand testing into feeder streams to help 

determine bacterial sources. 

FMI - http://www.mainehealthybeaches.org/index.html

Municipalities

Maine includes 488 organized municipalities that provide a wide range of services and 

responsibilities associated with self-government. Municipal roles related to NPS include road 

construction and maintenance, comprehensive planning, and growth management. Most 

municipalities have planning boards that carry out laws and ordinances related to 

comprehensive planning and growth management functions. The Municipal Subdivision Law 

(30-A MRS § 4401) requires planning boards to review subdivisions using the criteria set out in 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

59

the statute. The Comprehensive Growth Management Act (30-A MRS § 4311) encourages 

municipalities to identify tools and resources to effectively plan for and manage future

development within their jurisdictions. The Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act (38 MRS § 435) 

requires the adoption of local shoreland zoning ordinances that regulate lands within 250 feet 

of normal high water of certain water bodies and wetlands. 

Since Maine is a ‘home rule’ state, municipalities have broad authority to adopt additional local 

land use ordinances. Site Plan Review Ordinances have been adopted by numerous 

municipalities under the authority of home rule to regulate developments which normally 

cannot be reviewed as subdivisions. A smaller number of municipalities have also adopted 

ordinances limiting phosphorus export from single-lot development, promoting low impact 

development practices or creating set-backs along small headwater streams. In addition to 

local ordinance work, 30 municipalities are part of the MS4 program, which addresses NPS 

issues from municipal stormwater systems. The Maine Municipal Association (MMA) is a nonprofit organization that provides services advocacy, education and information, professional 

legal and personnel advisory services, and group insurance self-funded programs for member 

municipalities. Numerous municipalities have also become involved in and provided support for 

319 grant projects and other community efforts to protect and restore local water quality. 

FMI - http://www.memun.org/ 

Municipal Planning Assistance Program

This program, which is housed in the Maine DACF helps municipalities manage growth to 

enhance economic development and natural resource protection. MPAP works with towns 

throughout the state’s organized area. The MCP funds planning staff whose efforts focus on 

coastal communities and coastal issues. In In addition to administering Maine's Growth 

Management Act, program staff regularly provide technical assistance to local and regional 

planners, other municipal officials and volunteer boards on the development of land-use 

ordinances, interpretation of state land use laws, the local comprehensive planning process, 

and numerous other matters. The program also collaborates with other state agencies on the 

development of policies, rulemaking, comprehensive resource assessments, and other strategic 

state-level matters.

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dacf/municipalplanning/index.shtml

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA

The NRCS administers multiple federal Farm Bill programs that provide 

technical and financial assistance for implementation of water quality 

practices. The 2008 Farm Bill provided added opportunities for leveraging 

funding and other resources to improve water quality affected by 

agricultural and silvicultural NPS pollution. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

(EQIP) now states that “reducing NPS pollution, such as nutrients, sediment, pesticides, or 

excess salinity in impaired watersheds consistent with TMDLs where available” is a national 

priority to guide the allocation of resources. The National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) is a 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

60

new national priority beginning in 2012 as a collaborative program between NRCS and EPA to 

help improve water quality where there is a critical concern. EPA, NRCS, and the state of Maine

will continue to implement the NWQI to encourage and facilitate program coordination in 

watersheds enrolled in the program. NRCS will coordinate with DEP on the selection, 

implementation and monitoring of NWQI watershed projects. 

FMI - http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/me/home/

Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs)

Maine’s 16 SWCDs provide local conservation leadership, teach the value of natural resources, 

encourage conservation efforts and help plan and implement voluntary programs. Districts are 

governmental subdivisions of the state that are governed by a Board of Supervisors and funded 

in part by the DACF and their respective counties. Districts are part of the non-profit 

organization, the Maine Association of Conservation Districts, which helps coordinate and 

publicize District activities. Districts are heavily involved in DEP’s 319 grant program because of 

the close tie-in with their mission to NPS abatement and their close ties with the local 

community. 

FMI - https://www.maine.gov/dacf/about/commissioners/soil_water/index.shtml

State Universities

The University of Maine System supports NPS-related work through several programs. The 

George Mitchell Center’s Water Institute and Sustainability Solutions Initiative (SSI) conduct 

water-related research and promote sustainable policies and solutions through conferences, 

publications and local outreach. The University of Maine’s Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center 

convened a wide range of stakeholders to examine winter salt issues and authored a 

comprehensive report that spurred the formation of the Winter Salt Task Force. In addition, 

professors and students at several campuses provide assistance with water quality monitoring 

and technical assistance on local projects. Outside of Maine, the University of New 

Hampshire’s Stormwater Center conducts research and outreach related to stormwater BMPs 

in cold climates. 

FMI – SSI - http://www.umaine.edu/sustainabilitysolutions/about/index.htm 

UNH Stormwater Center - http://www.unh.edu/unhsc/
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

61

Table 7. Programs, Partners, and Roles.

Tribal Governments

Five federally-recognized Native American tribes are located within the State of Maine. These

include the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians; the Penobscot Indian Nation; the 

Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indians at Pleasant Point Reservation; the Passamaquoddy Tribe of 

Indians at Indian Township Reservation; and the Aroostook Band of Micmacs. The Houlton 

Band of Maliseets and Penobscot Nation have water quality and NPS programs. The 

Meduxnekeag River is an integral part of the Maliseet tribal culture. The tribe conducts regular 

water quality monitoring in the rivers and its tributaries, carried out an EPA Targeted 

Watershed Initiative project and is currently partnering with local organizations including the 

Southern Aroostook Soil and Water Conservation District to carry out NPS mitigation work in 

the watershed. The Penobscot Nation’s Water Resources Program is focused on the Penobscot 

River, water quality monitoring and partnerships to address NPS problems.

FMI – Houlton Band of Maliseets - http://www.maliseets.com/natural_resources.htm

Penobscot Nation - http://www.penobscotnation.org/DNR/Water/wrhome.html

Program and Partner Names

Education & 

Outreach

Financial 

Assistance

Technical 

Assistance

Technology 

Transfer

Monitoring

Regulatory 

Enforcement

Policy & 

Planning

Maine Coastal Program X X X X

Maine DEP Stormwater Program 

(MEPDES) 

X X

Maine Department of Marine 

Resources

X

Maine Drinking Water Program X X

Maine Healthy Beaches X X X

Municipal Planning Assistance 

Program

X

Municipalities X X X X

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

X X X

Soil and Water Conservation Districts X X X X

State Universities X X X X X

Tribal Governments X X X

US EPA X X X X X X X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

62

C. Partnerships with Non-Governmental Organizations

DEP relies on local non-governmental organizations to carry out NPS assessment and 

remediation work at the local level. These groups provide local knowledge and expertise, carry 

out monitoring and stewardship, and provide in-kind support or direct funding to get work 

done. The most successful NPS projects typically are initiated and implemented by a dedicated 

local organization with support from other local, regional, or statewide groups. Although there 

are too many organizations to list each individually, the key non-governmental organizations 

and types of groups are described below.

Casco Bay Estuary Partnership (CBEP)

CBEP is part of the National Estuary Program established by EPA. 

CBEP works with partners to protect and restore the water quality 

and fish and wildlife habitat of the Casco Bay ecosystem, while 

ensuring compatible human uses. CBEP’s work is guided by the following five goals in the Casco 

Bay Plan: support projects to conserve and restore habitat, manage stormwater, monitor water 

quality, reduce toxic contamination, and promote active stewardship in the Casco Bay. CBEP’s 

focus area is the Casco Bay watershed, which covers 986 square miles and includes 42 

municipalities. CBEP provides financial support, collects scientific data, catalyzes project 

development and implementation, provides technical assistance, and promotes citizens 

involvement and awareness.

FMI - http://www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu/index.html

Maine Lakes Society (MLS)

MLS, formerly known as Maine Congress of Lake 

Associations, was formed in 1970 as a non-profit, charitable organization focused on protecting 

water quality and promoting sound land-use practices for the protection and preservation of 

Maine’s lakes. MLS serves as an information clearinghouse and conducts education to lake 

associations through its website, annual conference, newsletter, floating classroom program,

and other avenues. MLS also conducts legislative advocacy related to lake management issues. 

In 2012 the LakeSmart program was transferred from DEP to MLS. LakeSmart was established 

in 2002 to recognize lake-friendly properties and promote a new norm for lakefront 

development. 

FMI - www.mainecola.org

Maine Marine Trades Association (MMTA)

MMTA is a not-for-profit trade association with over 200 members that 

promotes Maine’s marine industry and assists in the development of best 

practices with a focus on the environment, and health and safety. MMTA 

sponsors the Clean Marinas and Boatyards Program in partnership with DEP, 

MCP and other partners. The program provides technical assistance, resources to help marinas

and boatyards reduce pollution, and recognition to facilities that meet program standards.

FMI - http://www.mainemarinetrades.com/
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

63

Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (PREP)

PREP is part of EPA’s National Estuary Program. PREP’s mission is to carry out the 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, which outlines 98 Action Items 

to improve water quality in the Great Bay Estuary and the Hampton-Seabrook 

Estuary. PREP provides financial assistance to partners and projects, conducts water 

quality and environmental monitoring, and conducts education and outreach 

programs. In 2007 the PREP Management Committee expanded PREP’s focus area to the entire 

Great Bay Estuary watershed, including the 24 percent of the watershed in Maine. In total, the 

watersheds include 42 municipalities in New Hampshire and 10 municipalities in Maine. PREP 

receives its funding from the EPA and is administered by the University of New Hampshire. 

FMI - http://www.prep.unh.edu/

Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program (VLMP)

VLMP is a nonprofit organization that trains, certifies, and provides technical 

support to over 1,000 volunteers who monitor a wide range of indicators of 

water quality, assess watershed health and function, and screen over 500 lakes 

for invasive aquatic plants and animals. VLMP volunteers monitor assigned lakes 

twice a month from April through September, and the resulting data is used by DEP to help 

determine lake health and attainment status. VLMP also conducts outreach about water 

quality issues and watershed stewardship through its annual meeting, website, trainings, 

newsletters, and annual report.

FMI - http://www.mainevlmp.org/

Watershed Organizations

Local watershed organizations are key partners in NPS work including water quality monitoring, 

outreach, and watershed stewardship. Several regional groups focused on water resource 

protection include Friends of Casco Bay, Lakes Environmental Association, Belgrade Region 

Conservation Alliance, Cobbossee Watershed District, 30 Mile River Watershed Association, 

Raymond Waterways Protective Association, Acton Wakefield Watersheds Alliance, China 

Region Lakes Alliance, and Friends of the Cobbossee Watershed. These organizations tend to 

have some paid staff and often serve as resources for smaller organizations. In addition to 

these larger groups, there over 200 lake associations that focus on individual lakes, and a 

smaller number of groups focused on rivers, streams, and marine areas.

Wells National Estuarine Reserve

Wells Reserve is one of 28 national estuarine reserves that partners with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to study and protect vital 

marine and estuarine resources. Wells Reserve conducts marine research and 

water quality monitoring and coordinates the volunteer monitoring efforts of the Mousam and 

Kennebunk River Alliance. They also conduct education through school programs, decisionmaker training, and work with partners to promote watershed protection in coastal watersheds 

in Southern Maine. 

FMI - http://www.wellsreserve.org/
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

64

Table 8. Partner Organizations and Roles.

Partner Organizations and Roles

Education & 

Outreach

Financial 

Assistance

Technical 

Assistance

Technology 

Transfer

Monitoring

Policy & 

Planning

Casco Bay Estuary Partnership X X X X X

Maine Lakes Society X X

Maine Marine Trade Association X X

Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership X X

Volunteer Lakes Monitoring Program X X X

Watershed Organizations X X X

Wells National Estuarine Research 

Reserve

X X X

D. Program and Partnership Strategies

Technical Assistance Programs

DEP will provide technical assistance to support watershed groups, municipalities and others

with local efforts to identify and fix NPS sources in their communities. This support will be 

provided through ongoing work including:

 Assist with volunteer training and provide technical assistance for locally-funded watershed 

surveys, planning and implementation.

 Provide information to municipalities working on Comprehensive Plans and review plans for 

consistency and completeness. 

 Promote long-term, ongoing watershed stewardship through the use of the NPS Site 

Tracker and help partners and local groups use the tool.

 Provide technical manuals, information about grant opportunities and other available 

resources.

NPS Outreach Programs

DEP will build public awareness of NPS issues and promote positive actions through 

communication of the issues and solutions. In addition, DEP aims to provide partners and 

citizens with skills and expertise to implement BMPs to reduce NPS pollution. Actions include:

 Provide services and technical support for successful implementation of outreach efforts 

identified in WBPs, 319-funded efforts and key partner efforts.

 Work with partners to promote effective outreach strategies based on principles outlined in 

EPA’s Getting In Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns (2010).
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

65

 Serve as a catalyst for more effective behavior change and BMP promotional outreach 

efforts.

 Provide technical transfer, training opportunities and certification programs to key 

audiences utilizing the NPS Training and Resource Center.

 Develop and promote DEP online training modules to serve municipal NPS education and 

assistance needs. 

Partnerships

Maine’s NPS program will build and strengthen partnerships at the program and project level to 

maximize effectiveness and efficiency of NPS mitigation efforts. These partnerships will be 

fostered through numerous actions including:

 Establish a NPS Lead Agency workgroup that will meet twice a year to report on progress 

with implementation of the Maine NPS Management Plan and seize opportunities for 

further collaboration.

 Continue to work with EPA and NRCS to carry out the National Water Quality Initiative in 

Maine. DEP will select a watershed and develop an assessment plan that collects data to 

evaluate the success of the work in the watershed in addressing the lake or stream’s 

impairment. 

 Continue to conduct the annual Watershed Roundtable to bring together watershed 

professionals to share information, network and collaborate.

 Continue to work with other government agencies to address and improve areas of 

environmental concern (e.g., impaired waters, compliance with instream flow and water 

level rules, fragile waters in need of protection, and a watershed approach). 

319 Grant Administration Strategies

DEP will administer the Section 319 grant funds to comply with EPA program requirements and 

help ensure success of statewide NPS programs and NPS watershed projects.

 Carry out priorities and commitments outlined in the EPA-DEP Performance Partnership 

Agreement (e.g., GRTS reporting, annual reports, annual work plan). 

 Conduct sub-recipient monitoring according to program standard operation procedures.

 Administer the NPS grants program to meet fiscal management guidelines.

 Ensure that at least 50 percent of the annual Section 319 award is allocated to implement

accepted WBPs and the other funds are allocated for eligible NPS program activities.

 Complete and close out all active grant projects within the contract period.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

66

IX. Funding

Many sources of funding are available to conduct NPS assessment and mitigation work. These

include grants, loan programs, direct funding, and in-kind contributions. Many of these sources 

are highly competitive and have specific purposes and requirements. As a result, it is a 

significant challenge to garner the resources needed to restore and protect Maine’s vast water 

resources. Successful NPS mitigation efforts often leverage multiple funding sources and also 

work to raise ongoing funding from the local community. Some of the main NPS funding 

sources are described in the following section.

A. Funding Sources

Clean Water Act, Section 319 and 604(b) Grants

DEP administers a competitive grants program using Section 319 and 604(b) funding from EPA 

to help communities identify NPS sources, prepare WBPs, and take action to reduce or prevent 

NPS pollution. Maine public organizations such as state agencies, Soil and Water Conservation 

Districts, regional planning agencies, watershed districts, municipalities, and nonprofit (501c3) 

organizations are eligible to receive grants. An annual RFP process offers grants for developing 

watershed plans and implementing projects identified in the plans. Local project sponsors are 

required to provide a minimum of a 40 percent match to the grant funds. Projects are typically 

conducted over a two-year period. 

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/grants/319.html

Clean Water State Revolving Fund

As noted by EPA, the CWSRF under Title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is the

largest water quality financing source in the nation. Through the CWSRF program, each state 

and Puerto Rico maintain revolving loan funds to provide independent and permanent sources 

of low-cost financing for a wide range of water quality infrastructure projects. Funds to 

establish or capitalize the CWSRF programs are provided through federal government grants 

and state matching funds (equal to 20 percent of federal government grants). States may 

choose from a variety of assistance options, including loans, refinancing, purchasing, or 

guaranteeing local debt and purchasing bond insurance. States can also set specific loan terms, 

including interest rates from zero percent to market rate, and repayment periods up to 30 

years or the useful life of the project, whichever is less. States have the flexibility to target 

resources to their particular environmental needs, including polluted runoff from urban and 

agricultural areas, wetlands restoration, groundwater protection, brownfields remediation, 

estuary management, and wastewater treatment. Additional information on the CWSRF

program is available at http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/cwsrf/cwsrf_index.cfm

In Maine, CWSRF funds nonpoint source projects through three different loan mechanisms; 

direct loans, pass-through loans, and a linked-deposit loans. In an effort to provide additional 

funding for private nonpoint source projects, DEP expanded the traditional CWSRF direct loan 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

67

program into the other two loan programs. DEP and the Maine Municipal Bond Bank (MMBB) 

jointly administer the CWSRF. DEP administers the technical aspects of the program and project 

eligibility; the Maine Municipal Bond Bank (MMB) is the financial manager of the fund. 

 Direct Loans - Through direct loans from the CWSRF to municipal and quasi-municipal 

entities, low interest funding is provided for NPS abatement projects. The DEP funds NPS 

projects for stormwater (e.g. tree gardens, infiltration basins, green roofs, bio-swales, and 

bio-retention cells); the capping and other water-quality related closure activities for nondischarging municipal landfills; and the covering of contaminated sand/salt storage areas.

 Pass-Through Loans - Maine’s CWSRF has two pass-through loan programs that provide low 

interest funding for private nonpoint source pollution controls. Under these programs the 

Maine’s CWSRF provides funding to other state agencies that in turn make low interest 

loans to private individuals for the projects. 

The DEP in partnership with the MMBB, the Finance Authority of Maine (FAME), and DACF, 

implemented the Nutrient Management Loan Program (NMLP) for the construction of 

containment and handling facilities for manure and milk room waste. The NLMP program 

was recently expanded to fund NPS abatement projects that reduce or treat agricultural 

runoff, conserve irrigation water use, and reduce the impact of agricultural irrigation water 

withdrawals to stream flows and aquatic life by constructing irrigation reservoirs. The 

eligible projects now approved for funding align with agricultural NPS BMPs and projects 

need to comply with the Department’s Chapter 587: In-Stream Flows and Lake and Pond 

Water Levels rule. Under this arrangement, the DACF will review the projects for program 

eligibility and ensure that the projects are completed in accordance with USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) design criteria. FAME provides the low interest 

loans to the borrowers. 

In partnership with the MMBB and the Maine State Housing Authority, the DEP 

implemented the Septic System Replacement and Overboard Discharge Removal Loan 

Program to abate pollution from NPS decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Under 

this arrangement the Housing Authority provides the low interest loans to the borrowers.

 Linked Deposit Loans – To provide these low interest CWSRF loans, the MMBB works with a 

private lending institution to fund the NPS control by accepting a reduced rate on a 

certificate of deposit (CD) investment and the lending institution agrees to provide a loan to 

the borrower at a similarly reduced rate. The Maine Forestry Direct Link Loan Program

provides incentive financing to loggers that reduce NPS pollution risk on timber harvests. 

This program, which works in partnership with the MMBB and the Maine Forest Service, 

provides low interest loans for silviculture best management practices. Recent changes in 

this program have expanded the pool of eligible borrowers and increased the loan limit in 

an effort to provide funding for more NPS controls. 

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/grants/srfparag.html
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

68

Casco Bay Estuary Partnership Grant Programs

CBEP carries out two grant programs focused on NPS and water quality in the Casco Bay 

watershed. Non-profit conservation groups, towns, and state and federal conservation

programs are eligible to apply for funds. The Casco Bay Water Quality Monitoring Equipment 

Loaner Program provides partners with CBEP water-quality monitoring equipment to collect 

water quality data during the May through October field season. The Casco Bay Community 

Based Habitat Enhancement Program supports local, community-based, projects that combine 

habitat enhancement activities with strong education and stewardship components.

FMI - http://www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu/grants.html

Farm Service Agency (FSA) Conservation Reserve Program 

The FSA carries out the Conservation Reserve Program, a voluntary program that provides 

funding for conservation practices on sensitive lands addressing water quality and wildlife 

management concerns. NRCS provides the technical assistance for the program.

FMI - http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/me/programs/financial/

Lake Stormwater Phosphorus Compensation Fee Program

Under the Maine Storm Water Management Law, projects located in eligible lake watersheds 

may satisfy permit requirements for phosphorus reduction by paying a compensation fee into a 

Lakes Stormwater Phosphorus Compensation Fund for that same eligible lake watershed. The 

development project needs to be designed to provide at least 60 percent reduction in off-site 

export of phosphorus required by the permit. The fee rate is $25,000 per pound of phosphorus. 

Compensation fund monies are used to implement Stormwater Compensation Projects to 

reduce phosphorus export from existing high phosphorus export land uses in the lake 

watershed. DEP staff works annually with seven partner organizations to identify and 

implement phosphorus mitigation projects in these watersheds. 

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/grants/stormwatercomp/

Local Funding

Local funding is key to fixing NPS problems and is often the source of match required by grant 

programs. Since grant funding is limited, it can also be the sole source of funding for projects 

that are important to local community but that don’t fit in well with grant programs. Local 

funding can be in the form of in-kind services or directed funding, and come from 

municipalities, local organizations, private businesses, and individual citizens. Given the high 

costs associated with some restoration projects, certain communities are also exploring and 

pursuing stormwater utilities and other ways to raise dedicated funds for watershed restoration 

work.

Maine Coastal Program Grants

Towns and regional organizations in Maine’s coastal zone are eligible to apply for small grants 

through the Maine Coastal Program. The Coastal Communities Grant Program provides funds 

to towns and regional organizations for projects designed to improve water quality, increase 

resiliency and adaptation to erosion and flooding, conserve coastal habitat, promote 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

69

sustainable development, and enhance the coastal-dependent economy while preserving 

natural coastal resources. In Fiscal Year 2013, $143,000 was awarded through this program. 

Grantees are required to provide at least 25 percent non-federal match. Education Grants 

provide up to $10,000 to educational efforts relating to Maine coastal issues and projects that 

relate to greater ocean literacy. 

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/doc/commissioner/landuse/financial/index.shtml

Maine Natural Resource Conservation Program

The MNRCP was created to manage the allocation of funds collected through DEP’s In Lieu Fee 

Compensation Program. This voluntary program allows entities that are impacting natural 

resources, primarily wetlands, to make a payment directly to the DEP as an alternative to the 

traditional mitigation process. Fees collected by DEP are deposited in a Natural Resource 

Conservation Fund administered by The Nature Conservancy. Public agencies, non-profit 

conservation organizations, and private entities can apply through a competitive process, for 

funds to restore, enhance, preserve, and create high quality natural resources throughout the 

State of Maine. Funding is available for land acquisition, habitat enhancement and restoration, 

and projects that restore watershed health.

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/nrpa/ILF_and_NRCP/MNRCP/

Maine Small Community Grants Program

The program provides grants to towns to help replace malfunctioning septic systems that are 

polluting a waterbody or causing a public nuisance. Grants can be used to fund from 25 to 100 

percent of the design and construction costs, depending upon the income of the owners of the 

property, and the property's use. An actual pollution problem must be documented in order to 

qualify for funding. The highest priority is given to problems that are polluting a public drinking 

water supply or a shellfishing area. 

FMI - http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/grants/scgpara2.html

Natural Resource Conservation Service Programs

The NRCS carries out several programs that provide funding for conservation practices on 

agricultural lands. This includes the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) the Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). 

The EQIP program aligns especially well with NPS mitigation. EQIP is a voluntary program that 

provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers to help plan and implement 

conservation practices that address natural resource concerns and for opportunities to improve 

soil, water, plant, animal, air, and related resources. Projects located in watersheds selected 

through USDA and EPA’s National Water Quality Initiative are designated as high EQIP funding 

priorities. The NWQI is a national program started in 2012 that provides targeted EQIP funding 

to help farmers install practices to reduce water quality impacts in priority watersheds. States 

work with NRCS to identify focus areas and conduct assessment to track restoration progress. 

FMI –

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/eqip/?cid=stelprdb1047761 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

70

Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership Grant Programs

PREP offers several grant programs to municipalities, community groups, watershed 

associations, and other organizations that conduct conservation work in PREP’s coastal 

watershed. The annual Local Grants Program must relate to at least one Action Item from 

PREP's Management Plan. Eligible activity areas include water quality, land use and habitat 

protection, shellfish resources, habitat restoration, and public outreach. A request for 

proposals is issued each fall. The Community Technical Assistance Program provides assistance 

to communities on a wide range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to natural 

resources protection. The program is intended to be simple for communities; PREP pays for the 

assistance and manages the contract agreement with the Technical Assistance Providers. 

FMI - http://www.prep.unh.edu/programs/grant-programs.htm

State General Fund

The State of Maine provides funding for two staff positions in the DEP’s NPS Program. Funding 

is provided through the State’s General Fund and fulfills part of the State’s requirement to 

match EPA 319 funding. 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

71

X. NPS Program Five-year Objectives, Actions, and Annual Milestones 

This section provides the five-year objectives, actions, and milestones for Maine’s NPS program for the years 2015 through 2019. 

Table 9 focuses on DEP’s watershed approach to improve and protect water quality. Tables 10 to 15 list objectives for Maine’s 

statewide approach to address six major NPS pollution categories: developed areas, agriculture, transportation, forestry, subsurface 

wastewater disposal, and hydrologic modification. Table 16 lists objectives for partnerships, funding and NPS program 

administration.

Table 9. Watershed Approach Lead Agency: Maine DEP Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

1. Prioritization: 

Complete revisions to 

the evaluation criteria 

and the methodology 

used for prioritizing 

lakes, streams and 

marine waters (NPS 

Priority Watersheds list)

Partners: DACF, DMR

 For lakes, evaluate use of aluminum sediment core data in the 

lake vulnerability index when data is available. Update 

priority watersheds list incorporating results, if appropriate. 

 For streams, evaluate use of Recovery Potential Screening tool 

(EPA) to assist with prioritization of impaired and threatened 

streams. Update priority watersheds list incorporating model 

results, if appropriate. 

 For marine waters, work with DMR, Healthy Beaches Program 

and other partners to investigate ways to improve the 

prioritization as new data or methods becomes available.

 Improve methodology to assign priority among NPS priority 

watersheds to progressively address protecting or restoring

NPS priority watersheds.

1. Revised NPS priority 

watersheds list evaluation 

criteria and methodology

X

2. Prioritization: 

Evaluate NPS priority 

lists annually as new 

information becomes 

available.

 Annually evaluate NPS priority watersheds lists. Announce 

public opportunity to submit requests and support for 

waterbodies to be added to the priority lists. 

 Update priority lists as needed - add or remove individual 

waterbodies as new information becomes available.

2. Updated NPS priority 

watershed list

X X X X X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

72

Table 9. Watershed Approach Lead Agency: Maine DEP Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

3. Planning: Approve 5 

nine element watershed 

based plans (WBP) for 

restoration of impaired 

waters.

 Provide to decision makers the information needed to 

develop sound WBPs including data necessary to determine 

the dominant stressors contributing to the impairment and 

sufficient watershed and stream corridor information to 

identify and prioritize specific implementation activities 

needed to restore the waterbody.

 Provide technical support, guidance and when available 

funding for development of effective WBPs.

3. Nine element WBPs 2 1 1 1

4. Planning: Approve 10 

alternative WBPs for 

protection of unimpaired 

waters.

Working with partners, provide technical assistance and funding 

for watershed surveys to support the development of lake 

watershed-based protection plans. Coordinate to secure EPA 

approval of alternative WBPs.

4. Alternative WBPs 2 2 2 2 2

5. Planning: Approve 

updates of 3 existing 

nine element WBPs.

Working with partners, provide technical assistance to support 

updates of nine-element WBPs.

5. Updated nine-element 

WBPs

1 1 1

6. Planning: Develop 

guidance document to

identify stream stressors.

Develop a guidance document to help partners identify stream 

stressors and develop WBPs for urban impaired streams.

6. Stream stressors guidance 

document

X

7. Planning: Develop 

guidance document to 

update WBPs.

Develop guidance for updating WBPs that will be more than ten 

years old between 2015 and 2019 and share with groups 

associated with these plans.

7. Guidance document for 

updating WBPs

X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

73

Table 9. Watershed Approach Lead Agency: Maine DEP Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

8. Restoration: Fully or 

partially restore 2 NPS 

impaired waterbodies; 

Prepare NPS Success 

Stories that document 

the restorations.

 Provide technical support and funding through NPS Section 

319 grant program to support implementation of WBPs for 

waters with high potential to be restored.

 Work with local municipalities and interest groups to resolve 

pathogen contamination problems on bacteria-impaired 

waterbodies (includes marine and freshwaters).

 Collect targeted water quality and biological health 

information to determine the effectiveness of implementation 

efforts and guide modifications to the WBP.

 Evaluate available data to determine if water classification 

standards have been met or if there has been substantial 

incremental improvement in water quality and/or ecological 

condition.

8. NPS success stories about 

partially or fully restored 

waterbodies

(WQ-10)

2

9. Restoration:

Collaborate with EPA and 

NRCS in the NWQI 

program to make 

progress restoring 

impaired waters.

 Coordinate with EPA and NRCS to select watersheds for the 

National Water Quality Initiative program (NWQI).

 Conduct ambient water quality monitoring of Oliver Brook, 

within the Nickerson Lake - Meduxnekeag River subwatershed 

selected under the NRCS NWQI

9. Water quality monitoring 

results for Oliver Brook.

X X X X

10. Target efforts to 

maintain open shellfish 

harvesting areas or 

restore closed shellfish 

harvesting areas.

 MCP, DMR and DEP will identify priority target watersheds. 

MCP, DMR and DEP will help municipal and watershed groups 

adopt regulatory or non-regulatory measures, complete 

targeted projects, or implement recognized BMPs to reduce 

impacts to coastal water quality in target watersheds of 

priority shellfish growing areas. 

 This work will be conducted to make progress opening closed 

shellfish growing areas. 

10. Number of municipalities 

that adopt: new plans and 

policies; regulatory or nonregulatory measures;

complete targeted projects 

or implement BMPs

X X X X X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

74

Table 9. Watershed Approach Lead Agency: Maine DEP Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

11. Substantial 

Improvement: 

Demonstrate substantial 

Improvement in water 

quality and/or ecological 

condition in 3 NPS 

impaired waterbodies.

 Provide technical support and funding through NPS Section 

319 grant program to support implementation of WBPs for 

waters with high potential to be restored.

 Work with local municipalities and interest groups to resolve 

pathogen contamination problems on bacteria-impaired 

waterbodies (includes marine and freshwaters).

 Collect targeted water quality and biological health 

information to determine the effectiveness of implementation 

efforts and guide modifications to the WBP.

 Evaluate data to determine if water classification standards 

have been met or if there has been substantial incremental 

improvement in water quality and/or ecological condition.

11. NPS success stories

that show progress toward 

achieving water quality goals 

or about ecological 

restoration

1 1 1

12. Protection: Develop 2

guidance documents to 

estimate effectiveness of 

watershed protection 

efforts. 

Develop metrics and methods to evaluate effectiveness of 

efforts to protect unimpaired threatened waters.

 2015 For lake watersheds

 2016 for stream and marine watersheds

12. Demonstrating 

protection guidance 

documents

X X

13. Protection: 

Demonstrate effective 

protection of 8 

unimpaired threatened 

waters.

 Provide technical support and funding through NPS Section 

319 grant program to support implementation of WBPs.

 Evaluate the effectiveness of the protection projects.

13. Watershed protection 

success stories

2 2 2 2

14. Provide technical 

support to help 

watershed groups 

conduct NPS watershed 

surveys.

Provide training and technical assistance for NPS watershed 

surveys to help protect or restore NPS priority watersheds.

14. Completed NPS 

watershed surveys

3 3 3 3 3
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

75

Table 10. Statewide Approach - Developed Areas Lead Agency: Maine DEP Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

1. Incorporate additional 

low impact development 

(LID) design practices 

into Maine’s stormwater 

statutes and rules.

 Review Chapter 500 Stormwater Management Rules and 

proposed changes to Chapter 500 for opportunities to 

encourage or incentivize use of LID strategies and design 

practices. 

1. By 2015, issue proposed 

revised Chapter 500 rules

X

2. Regularly update the 

Maine Stormwater Best 

Management Practices 

(BMP) manual to reflect 

the current best 

management practices.

 Solicit input annually from consulting community and other 

interested parties. 

 Evaluate proposals for new or modified BMPs (including 

proprietary systems) for approval for use under Chapter 500 

Stormwater Rules.

 When reviewing the effectiveness of current BMP practice 

standards and specifications, consider the impacts of more 

frequent extreme wet weather events.

 Propose updates to manual as warranted, solicit input 

through public comment.

2. Update manual as new or 

modified BMPs are approved

X X X X X

3. Maintain the number 

of Contractors Certified 

In Erosion & Sediment 

Control BMPs.

DEP NPS Training and Resource Center will continue to 

administer the Erosion and Sediment Control Contractor 

Certification Program and track the number of certified 

contractors (increased from 1,630 in 2012 to 2,700 in 2014).

3. Number of Contractors 

Certified In Erosion & 

Sediment Control BMPs

X X X X X

4. Provide municipalities 

with NPS training and 

resources to prompt and 

improve local water 

resource protection.

DEP NPS Training and Resource Center will use Adobe Connect 

to produce 20-minute educational programs and on-line 

resources for NPS training for municipal officials on topics such 

as NPS pollution prevention and low impact development.

4. Adobe Connect

educational programs 

completed

2 2
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

76

Table 10. Statewide Approach - Developed Areas Lead Agency: Maine DEP Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

5. Document chloride 

salt impacts on streams.

Prepare a report summarizing DEP findings about how excessive 

chloride salt use in developed areas has adversely impacted

aquatic life of some streams in Maine. Chloride salts degrade 

water quality, soil quality, and ecosystems. Specific effects vary 

by location.

5. Chloride salt impact on 

streams (document) 

X

6. Provide municipalities 

with technical assistance 

on protection and 

restoration of local 

waterbodies. 

Provide information to municipalities working on 

Comprehensive Plans and review plans for consistency and 

completeness.

6. Comprehensive Plan 

reviews completed

4 4 4 4 4

7. Prevent and mitigate 

NPS impacts from 

unpaved camp roads.

The NPSTRC will provide training workshops and/or online 

resources.

7. Number of participants 

receiving training

X X X X X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

77

Table 11. Statewide Approach - Agriculture Lead Agency: Maine DACF Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

1. Monitor agricultural 

operations to ensure 

compliance with the 

requirement to 

implement approved 

nutrient management 

plans (NMP). 

 Evaluate agricultural operations (AOs) to determine if they 

need to develop and implement an approved NMP.

 Track existing AOs with an approved NMP to ensure that their 

NMP is up-to-date. 

 Provide guidance for initial development of a NMP or for 

facilitating updates as needed.

 Continue to identify AOs that need an NMP and help AOs 

comply with the obligation to operate according to a NMP.

1. Each year report:

The number of AOs that 

maintain and implement an 

approved NMP;

An estimate of the number 

of AOs that need a NMP.

X X X X X

2. Monitor agricultural 

operations to ensure 

compliance with 

requirement to operate 

according to a Livestock 

Operations Permit (LOP).

 Evaluate new or expanded agricultural operations (AOs) to 

determine their requirement for obtaining a LOP.

 Continue to identify AOs that need a LOP and help AOs 

comply with the obligation to operate according to a LOP. 

 Evaluate farms to determine if they are considered a CAFO as 

defined by state or federal regulations.

 Initiate steps for appropriate permitting of these entities as 

needed.

 Conduct annual inspections of CAFOs to determine 

compliance with terms of the LOP.



2. Each year report:

The number of AOs that 

operate according to a LOP; 

and

An estimate of the number 

of AOs that need an LOP. 

X X X X X

3. Update the Nutrient 

Management Program 

Rules

 Evaluate soil test time frame validity, evaluate NMP variance 

operational timeline; 

 Incorporate Maine Phosphorous Index criteria if feasible; 

 Address carcass disposal issues; Incorporate Compost 

Management Plan criteria; 

 Update certification requirements for planners; 

 Address livestock access to waterbodies

3. By 2015, complete draft of 

rules; by 2016 hold public 

hearing; and by 2017 adopt 

the revised rules.

X X X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

78

Table 11. Statewide Approach - Agriculture Lead Agency: Maine DACF Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

4. Continue to 

implement the 

Agricultural Compliance 

Program to resolve 

water quality related 

complaints.

 Investigate complaints concerning farm operations that 

involve threats to human or animal health and safety, and to 

the environment.

 Prescribe new or modified site-specific best management 

practices where needed to resolve the issue, particularly 

water-quality-related matters.

 Develop and maintain a database or spreadsheet to track and 

categorize agriculture complaints received and resolutions

 Prepare a concise annual summary of water quality related 

complaints received, investigated and resolved.

4. Annual summary of water 

quality related complaints 

received, investigated and 

resolved 

X X X X X

5. Develop a brochure 

for farmers outlining 

NPS pollution BMPs for 

farming operations.

 Consider Maine agricultural BMP guidelines, select ten or 

more of the most significant BMPs and develop an 

informative quick-read brochure for farmers.

 Promote adoption of the BMPs by distributing the brochure 

at trade shows, meetings, educational events and direct 

contact with farmers.

6. NPS BMPs brochure for 

farmers

X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

79

Table 12. Statewide Approach - Transportation Lead Agency: MaineDOT Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

1. Continue using 

Erosion and 

Sedimentation Control 

BMPs on applicable 

MaineDOT projects.

 Continue to implement and enforce MaineDOT Standard 

Specification 656.

 Continue ongoing ESC training for MaineDOT staff and 

contractors.

 Report on summary of MaineDOT activities as required by the 

Stormwater MOA between DEP and MaineDOT

1. Annual Stormwater MOA 

report to MDEP

X X X X X

2. Regularly update the 

MaineDOT Erosion and 

Sedimentation Control 

BMPs manual to reflect 

the current BMPs.

 Receive input annually from vendors, contractors, and 

professionals as appropriate. 

 Evaluate proposals for new or modified BMPs (including 

proprietary systems) for approval for use.

 When reviewing the effectiveness of current BMP practice 

standards and specifications, consider the impacts of more 

frequent extreme wet weather events.

 Propose updates to manual as warranted.

2. Update BMPs manual as 

new or modified BMPs are 

approved by MaineDOT

X X X X X

3. Promote chloride salt 

reduction BMPs to 

protect water quality 

while maintaining safe 

roads for travelling 

public.

 Continue Maine Local Roads Center (MLRC) training and BMP 

Task Force to promote snow and ice control BMPs to 

municipal PWs. 

 MaineDOT will continue to investigate new products, 

technologies, or efficiencies to reduce the use of chlorides.

3. MLRC will track number of 

towns that received training.

MaineDOT will document its 

research or use of new 

products or technologies for 

winter maintenance on its 

Winter Maintenance 

Research Reports web page.

X X X X X

4. Promote reduction in 

the number of outdoor

sand/salt piles.

 MaineDOT will reduce the number of outdoor sand/salt piles.

 MLRC will continue technical assistance to towns regarding 

town salt storage facilities, and will continue its funding for 

improvement of salt storage facilities until 2016.

4. MaineDOT will reduce the 

number of outdoor sand/salt 

piles from 30 to 22 (25%).

X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

80

Table 13. Statewide Approach - Forestry Lead Agency: Maine Forest Service Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

1. Increase overall 

effective BMP 

application on harvests 

from 83% to 90% or 

greater. Effective BMPs 

include all appropriately 

applied BMP practices, 

effective planning and 

avoiding waterbody 

crossings. 

 Offer BMP training programs, with partners including the 

Maine Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Certified Logging 

Professional, Qualified Logging professional program and 

Northeast Master logger.

 Deliver existing or develop new and topic specific trainings as 

needed to address problem areas when identified by 

monitoring, compliance inspections and industry consultation.

 Work with DEP and Maine Municipal Bond Bank and EPA to 

maintain CWSRF funding and promote the Maine Forestry 

Direct Link Loan Program financing to reduce NPS risk at 

timber harvest sites.

 Apply northeast regional forestry BMP monitoring protocol on 

a biennial basis to assess use & effectiveness of forestry BMPs.

1. Maine Forestry BMPs Use 

and Effectiveness report that 

documents the achievement 

of the objective by 2018 

(and interim progress by

2016)

X X

2. Maintain the Forest 

Ranger-approved water 

quality inspections of 

timber harvest sites at 

over 90%.

 Forest rangers will continue routine inspections of timber 

harvests for environmental compliance. 

 MFS field foresters will continue to provide technical 

assistance to prevent problems from occurring and quickly fix 

problems encountered during inspections.

2. Percentage of approved 

water quality inspections & 

number of inspections 

referred for enforcement 

action

X X X X X

3. By 2018, improve 

consistency for the 

regulated community by 

increasing the number of 

critical mass 

municipalities that have 

adopted statewide 

standards for timber 

harvesting in shoreland 

areas from 182 to 252. 

 Work with DEP to make significant progress toward adoption 

of statewide standards for timber harvesting in shoreland 

areas. Focus on the list of municipalities with the highest 

average timber harvest acreage. When critical mass is met, 

statewide standards will take effect in the unorganized areas. 

 Provide outreach to municipalities that have not yet adopted 

statewide standards for timber harvesting in shoreland areas.

 Encourage DEP to adopt ordinances for towns that do not act 

by 2017.

3. By January 2016, 35 new 

municipalities adopt 

statewide timber harvesting 

standards, or DEP adopts 

ordinances for them.

By January 2017, an 

additional 35 new 

municipalities adopt 

statewide timber harvesting 

standards or DEP adopts 

ordinances for them.

X

X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

81

Table 14. Statewide Approach - Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Lead Agency: MaineDHHS, Environmental Health Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

1. Ensure municipalities 

properly implement 

Subsurface Wastewater 

Disposal (SSWD) rules.

 Conduct at least one municipal review of subsurface 

wastewater disposal activities for each municipality over the 

5-year period ending 2019. There are 490 municipalities in 

Maine. About 100 reviews per year will be completed.

 Respond to requests for assistance from municipalities.

 Assist in the training and licensing of Local Plumbing 

Inspectors.

1. Number of municipal 

reviews completed in the 

year and number of 

municipal reviews found 

satisfactory

X X X X X

2. Improve the State’s 

Voluntary Onsite Sewage 

Disposal System (OSDS) 

Inspection Program. 

 Evaluate the current voluntary OSDS inspection program and 

certification process. Propose ways to strengthen the 

voluntary OSDS inspection program. These could take the 

form of statutory changes to make certification mandatory or 

through rule changes to clarify what must be included as part 

of an inspection.

 Update Inspection Form to reflect changes implemented.

 Modify training program to incorporate results of review and 

changes

2a. Feasibility report 

completed by 12/31/2016

2b. Proposed 

Statutory/Regulatory 

changes by 12/31/2017

2c. Revise Inspection Criteria 

by 6/30/2019

X

X

X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

82

Table 15. Statewide Approach - Hydrologic Modification Lead Agency: Maine DEP Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

1. Adopt new standards 

for stream crossings 

(new, repair, 

replacement) designed 

to improve fish passage, 

hydraulic capacity and 

resiliency to larger storm 

events.

 DEP will continue to participate, along with DOT, other state 

natural resource agencies, and private sector groups, in the 

development of an Aquatic Resource Management Strategy to 

reestablish the connectivity of stream systems. DEP will 

propose new standards for stream crossings under the Natural 

Resources Protection Act. 

 Identify funding mechanisms, develop training programs and 

to assess/prioritize watersheds where removing passage 

impediments will result in the greatest connectivity of 

fisheries habitats.

1a. By 2016, draft standards 

for public comment.

1b. By 2017, complete 

aquatic resource 

management strategy. 

1c. By 2017, adopt new 

standards for stream 

crossings.

X

X

X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

83

Table 16. DEP Programs, Partnerships and Funding Lead Agency: Maine DEP Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

1. Partnerships: Build 

and strengthen 

partnerships of the lead 

state agencies to 

coordinate efforts and 

effectively implement 

the Maine NPS 

Management Plan 

implementation. 

Establish a NPS Lead Agency workgroup that will meet twice a year to report 

on progress with implementation of the Maine NPS Management Plan and 

seize opportunities for further collaboration. 

1. NPS lead 

agency 

workgroup 

established 

X

2. Partnerships: Build 

and strengthen 

partnerships at the 

program and project 

level to maximize 

effectiveness and 

efficiency of NPS 

mitigation efforts. 

 Conduct the annual Watershed Roundtable to bring together watershed 

professionals to share information, network and collaboration.

 Coordinate and improve the watershed managers’ listserve to efficiently 

distribute and promote sharing of information and resources between 

partners.

2. Annual NPS 

Watershed 

Roundtable

X X X X X

3. Funding: Facilitate 

CWSRF funding for NPS 

projects by exploring 

new funding avenues 

and publicizing funding 

opportunities.

 Look for opportunities to expand the eligibility of NPS controls that can be 

funded through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and 

mechanisms that can deliver that funding. 

 Determine if there are barriers to prioritization of NPS projects, and if so, 

develop recommendations and coordinate with the CWSRF program to 

encourage approval of NPS projects. 

 Track CWSRF projects and funding awarded to NPS projects and produce an 

annual summary report.

 Publicize funding opportunities on the watershed managers’ listserve.

3. Provide a 

summary of 

CWSRF funding 

on NPS projects

in the annual 

NPS Program 

Report. 

X X X X X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

84

Table 16. DEP Programs, Partnerships and Funding Lead Agency: Maine DEP Schedule

Five-Year Objectives Actions Milestones

20152016201720182019

4. NPS Management 

Program Administration

Continue to manage 

and implement the NPS 

program to meet 

program goals and work 

towards addressing the 

state’s water quality 

problems as effectively 

and expeditiously as 

possible. 

 DEP employs appropriate programmatic and financial systems that ensure 

section 319 dollars are used efficiently and consistent with fiscal and legal 

obligations (Section 319 grant program guidelines, EPA-DEP Performance 

Partnership Agreement).

 In keeping with Clean Water Act Section 319 (h)(8) and (11), provide EPA 

with sufficient information, reports and data about Maine’s 319 program 

to determine whether the state’s progress for the previous fiscal year was 

satisfactory.

4. Maine’s NPS 

Program 

continues to 

achieve 

satisfactory 

progress

X X X X X

5. NPS Program 

Administration: 

Update the Maine NPS 

management program 

plan by 2019.

Consult lead agencies and gather public input to update the Maine NPS 

management program for the next cycle (including milestones for 2020-

2024).

5. EPA approved 

Maine NPS 

Management 

Program Plan by 

10/1/19.

X
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

85

XI. Measuring Progress and Evaluating Maine’s NPS 

Program

A. Measuring Environmental Success

The long term goals of Maine’s NPS program are:

 Restoration of Waters - To restore the waterbodies which are impaired by nonpoint 

sources so that they meet water quality standards. 

 Protection of Waters - To prevent nonpoint source related impairments of unimpaired 

waterbodies. 

Evaluation of the effectiveness of Maine’s NPS program must be based on assessments that 

quantify the progress the program has made in restoring and protecting waters. Discussion of 

evaluation strategies associated with the two long term goals follows.

Restoring Waters

DEP’s ambient water quality monitoring programs for lakes, rivers and streams, wetlands, and 

marine waters provide the data necessary to evaluate success in restoring impaired waters. 

The Integrated Report reports the findings of monitoring and assessment programs.

 Lakes - The large majority of lake impairments are due to violations of the lake trophic 

standards which state that lakes must be free of culturally induced blue green algal blooms 

and must have either stable or decreasing trophic states. The Maine Volunteer Lake

Monitoring Program (VLMP) in combination with the DEP’s annual targeted baseline 

monitoring provide a strong data set for evaluating compliance with these standards. The 

combination of the VLMP’s bimonthly secchi disk readings and baseline sampling 

chlorophyll and phosphorus concentrations are very effective in detecting blue green algal 

blooms. This monitoring also provides a long term data set that can be used to monitor 

trends in a lake’s trophic state. Lakes that have been impaired due to the presence of blue 

green algal blooms are considered restored if they are free of blooms for at least five years 

out of the most recent ten year period. Additionally, trend analysis can show that even 

though a lake may still support occasional blooms, the water quality is improving because 

the frequency and duration of blooms is decreasing. Lakes that have never supported algal 

blooms but are impaired due to a documented trend of increasing trophic state are 

considered restored when the long term data set shows a reversal of the trend.

 Rivers and Streams - The most critical impairments of rivers and streams are violations of 

the aquatic life criteria. With the exception of the bacteria standards, all other water 

quality criteria have the goal of supporting aquatic life. The DEP’s Biomonitoring Program 

assesses rivers and streams on a five year rotating schedule, and determines their status in 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

86

terms of compliance with the aquatic life criteria. This evaluation indicates not only 

whether the river or stream segment in question meets the appropriate criteria for the 

segment’s class, but also what class’s criteria it does meet, if any. An impaired stream is 

considered restored if it meets its class’s criteria and is considered improved if it meets a 

higher class’s criteria than it had previously met. For instance, if a Class B stream segment 

historically had failed to meet even Class C criteria, but now consistently meets Class C 

criteria, it would be considered substantially improved. Assessment of impairments due to 

violations of the bacteria standards are treated similarly. If long term monitoring indicates 

that the standard is being met, the segment is considered restored. If the frequency and 

magnitude of the violations is significantly reduced, it is considered improved.

 Wetlands - The wetland monitoring program is relatively new, so the number of 

documented impairments is limited. Wetlands are also evaluated by the Biomonitoring 

Program and the means of determining restoration and/or improvement is parallel.

 Marine waters - The most widespread impairment of marine waters are violations of 

bacterial standards for shellfish harvesting. Bacterial monitoring is done by several agencies 

including Department of Marine Resources to determine shellfish closures, Cooperative 

Extension (Maine Healthy Beaches program) and DEP.

Protecting Waters

The same data sets discussed above can be used to evaluate whether DEP is successful in 

preventing unimpaired waterbodies from becoming impaired. Simply stated, if no new 

waterbodies, particularly waterbodies that have historical records of meeting water quality 

standards, are added to the list of impaired waters, the State has succeeded in meeting this 

goal. If new waterbodies are added to the NPS impaired list, as will likely happen since many 

are considered threatened, evaluation of the success of protection efforts is more challenging.

Program success must be based on an evaluation of how many waterbodies would have 

become impaired if preventative measures had not been taken. Evaluation of the success of 

protection efforts therefore requires not only documentation that degradation has not 

occurred, but also the more challenging quantification of the threat and the relative mitigation 

value of the protection measures that are taken. The mitigation value of protection measures 

can often be quantified through pollutant load reduction models and similar metrics. It is much 

more difficult, if not impossible, to project the changes that would have happened in the 

receiving water, and particularly in its biological community, if for example, the pollutant loads 

had not been reduced or the stream corridor had not been protected. One of this Plan’s 

objectives is to develop metrics and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of protection 

measures.

Defining Success

As stated above, the long term goals of Maine’s NPS Program are to restore NPS impaired 

waterbodies so that they meet applicable water quality standards and to prevent nonpoint 

source related impairments of unimpaired waterbodies. In most cases, attainment of the 

restoration goal is feasible, though in many instances it may take a long time and require 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

87

commitment of a large amount of resources. The following discusses some of the particular 

challenges associated with restoring some lakes and urban streams, and the need to recognize 

not only the value of full restoration, but also the value of interim improvements in water 

quality and ecological condition. 

The potential for restoration of impaired waters in Maine is influenced by a number of factors 

which must be considered when establishing realistic objectives. First, Maine’s Water

Classification system is a goal oriented system that establishes high water quality standards. 

While the State aims to have its water meet those standards, it may not always be feasible to 

do so, especially in the short term. For example, the trophic state standard for lakes requires 

that lakes have stable or decreasing trophic states and that they be free of culturally-induced 

algal blooms that reduce water clarity below two meters. Meeting the first part of this 

standard, reversing a trend of increasing trophic state, is almost always feasible and can be 

accomplished with a combination of BMP implementation for existing phosphorus sources in 

the watershed and the adoption of a program that minimizes the phosphorus inputs from new 

development in the watershed. However, the second part of the standard, elimination of algal 

blooms, is not always feasible. This is because some algal blooms are fed not by phosphorus 

from the watershed, but by recycling of accumulated phosphorus in the lake’s sediments. 

While in these cases addressing NPS sources in the watershed can result in reduction in the 

intensity and duration of the algal blooms, it often cannot eliminate the blooms without 

measures being taken to directly control the recycling of phosphorus from the bottom 

sediments. Such measures include treatment of the sediments with aluminum salts and 

enhanced seasonal flushing of the epilimnion during the peak of the algal bloom. These 

measures can be prohibitively expensive, and though aluminum treatments nearly always result 

in dramatic reductions in the intensity and duration of blooms, they may not always completely 

eliminate blooms.

The aquatic life standard for streams presents some different limitations, particularly for urban 

streams. When streams and rivers were originally classified in the 1970s and 1980s, the larger 

rivers with point discharges, for which much data had been collected, were classified with 

realistic goals. However, most smaller streams were given the default classification of B, unless 

they were located in pristine areas, in which case they were designated Class A or AA. This was 

appropriate in most cases, but in some urban and agricultural areas it may be unrealistic to 

expect the stream to be able to meet such a high aquatic life standard. If the only reason for 

the aquatic life impairment is the contribution of stormwater pollutants from the watershed, 

then attaining Class B standards is likely achievable through BMP retrofits, though it may be 

quite expensive. As is often the case, if the stream and its corridor have been significantly 

altered through physical manipulations (e.g., straightening and widening, channel hardening, 

and filling of flood plains) or simply as a result of the greatly increased storm flows that the 

stream must pass, the habitat may be so compromised that even when the pollutant loads are 

attenuated, the stream may not be able to meet Class B standards. Fixing stream channel and 

corridor issues may not be technically feasible or may be prohibitively expensive.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

88

In both of the cases cited above – lakes with internal recycling of phosphorus and urban and 

agricultural streams with serious alteration of the channel and corridor – it is always feasible to 

make the waterbody much healthier than it was. Even if algal blooms cannot be completely 

eliminated, their intensity and duration can be greatly reduced, and the people who use and 

enjoy these lakes greatly appreciate the change. Pollutant load reductions, storm flow 

attenuation, and simple habitat restoration measures can result in significant improvements in 

the composition and structure of the biological community in urban streams, even though the 

community may not fully meet aquatic life standards. Though the goal is to have these waters 

meet standards, it is important that the measures of success for the State’s NPS program not 

only recognize the value of restoring an impaired waterbody to fully meeting standards, but 

also appreciate the value of making significant improvements in an impaired water that

enhance its ecological integrity and its value to the public when full restoration is not feasible, 

at least in the short term. 

It is at least equally important to recognize the value of protecting threatened healthy waters 

so that they are not degraded to the point of violating water quality standards. However, since 

the goal of protection is to maintain current good water and habitat quality, it is more difficult 

to document success of protection efforts. One cannot document that watershed protection 

efforts have been effective because a waterbody has not been degraded without assuming that 

changes occurring in the watershed would have resulted in degradation if the watershed 

protection measures had not been taken. Evaluation of the success of protection efforts 

therefore requires not only documentation that degradation has not occurred, but also the 

more challenging quantification of the threat and the relative mitigation value of the 

implemented protection measures. The mitigation value of protection measures can often be 

quantified through pollutant load reduction models and similar metrics. It is much more 

difficult, if not impossible, to project the changes that would have happened in the receiving 

water, and particularly in its biological community, if, for example, the pollutant loads had not 

been reduced or the stream corridor had not been protected.

It is essential that the difficulties in documenting the success of protection efforts do not 

become a reason for lowering the priority that is given to protection. Many of the impaired 

streams in the State are in areas that have been urbanized relatively recently and were healthy 

resources two or three decades ago. There is no doubt that if protective measures had been 

taken as these watersheds were developed that much of the degradation could have been 

avoided. The same pressures for urbanization are still in play, in other watersheds, so it is 

crucial that protection efforts be given highest priority or we will replace restored waters with 

newly impaired ones. The effort required to restore a waterbody is always much greater than 

that required to avoid impairment.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

89

B. NPS Program Evaluation

In addition to tracking progress with water quality restoration and protection goals, DEP will 

conduct other program evaluation on an ongoing basis as required by EPA’s 319 guidance (EPA, 

2013). The following reporting requirements will help EPA measure Maine’s progress in 

meeting annual milestones and NPS Plan success. 

 Milestone Tracking Database – DEP will set up a database similar to one used by DEP for 

the PPG and use this database to track milestone progress and completion. Reports will be 

submitted to EPA on an annual basis.

 Annual Report – Since 2004, DEP has completed an annual NPS Program Report to report 

on NPS program activities, successes and completed grant projects. The report will be 

tailored to report on completed goals, objectives and measurable milestones from this Plan. 

Past annual reports are available at http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/grants/319-

documents/reports/.

 Grant Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) – DEP will continue to enter program 

information into EPA’s GRTS database. Pollutant load reduction estimates resulting from 

project activities will be entered on an annual basis. 

 Federal Financial and Performance Reports – Annual financial and performance reports will 

be completed annually as required by 40 CFR 31.40(b)(1) and 31.41(b).

 Sub-recipient Monitoring - DEP will continue to monitor grantees using established 

Standard Operating Practices including annual Office Visits and site visits to a subset of 

construction projects. 

 Satisfactory Progress Determination – DEP will provide information EPA needs to conduct 

its annual progress and performance review under Section 319(h)(8).

 NPS Plan Updates – Maine’s NPS Management Plan will be updated at least every five 

years. The next update will be prepared for 2020-2024.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

90

References

Casco Bay Estuary Partnership. 2012. Expanding and Sustaining the Shellfisheries of Casco Bay.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2013. Guidance for Maine Lake Watershedbased Protection Plans. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/grants/319-

documents/guidance_lake_watershed-based_protection%20_plans.pdf

Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2012. Integrated Water Quality Monitoring 

and Assessment Report. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2012/reportfinal.pdf

Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2011. Citizen’s Guide to Volunteer Lake 

Watershed Surveys. 

http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/watershed/materials/lakewsurveyguide.pdf

Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. People and Nature: Adapting to a 

Changing Climate – Charting Maine’s Course. 

http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=369026&an=1

Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Outreach Guidance for NPS Watershed 

Implementation Projects http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/grants/319-

documents/outreach_guidance.pdf

Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Brightwork: Best Management Practices 

for Maine’s Boatyards and Marinas. 

http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/watershed/marina/bmp.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines 

for States and Territories. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/cwact.cfm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Section 319 Program Guidance: Key Components 

of an Effective State Nonpoint Source Management Program

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/key_components_2012.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to 

Restore and Protect Our Waters. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Getting In Step: A Guide for Conducting 

Watershed Outreach Campaigns. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/getnstep.pdf
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

91

Appendix 1. EPA’s Key Components of an Effective State 

NPS Management Program

Key Program Components Maine NPS Plan 

Location

1. The state program contains explicit short- and long-term goals, 

objectives and strategies to restore and protect surface water and 

ground water, as appropriate.

Sections II, VII 

and X

2. The state strengthens its working partnerships and linkages to 

appropriate state, interstate, tribal, regional, and local entities 

(including conservation districts), private sector groups, citizens groups, 

and federal agencies.

Section VIII

3. The state uses a combination of statewide programs and on-theground projects to achieve water quality benefits; efforts are wellintegrated with other relevant state and federal programs.

Sections VI, VII 

and VIII

4. The state program describes how resources will be allocated between

(a) abating known water quality impairments from NPS pollution and 

(b) protecting threatened and high quality waters from significant 

threats caused by present and future NPS impacts.

Section III

5. The state program identifies waters and watersheds impaired by NPS 

pollution as well as priority unimpaired waters for protection. The state 

establishes a process to assign priority and to progressively address 

identified watersheds by conducting more detailed watershed 

assessments, developing watershed-based plans and implementing the 

plans.

Section IV and V

Appendix 2

6. The state implements all program components required by section 

319(b) of the Clean Water Act, and establishes strategic approaches 

and adaptive management to achieve and maintain water quality 

standards as expeditiously as practicable. The state reviews and 

upgrades program components as appropriate. The state program 

includes a mix of regulatory, nonregulatory, financial and technical 

assistance, as needed.

Sections III, VI, 

VII and XI

7. The state manages and implements its NPS management program 

efficiently and effectively, including necessary financial management. Section X and XI

8. The state reviews and evaluates its NPS management program using 

environmental and functional measures of success, and revises its NPS 

management program at least every five years.

Section XI
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

92

Appendix 2 - NPS WatershedPrioritization and NPS 

Priority Lists

Maine’s first NPS priority watersheds list was developed in 1989 and revised substantially in 

1998. The list was updated as part of development of this NPS management plan. NPS 

impaired or threatened 5waters with significant regional or statewide value were placed on the 

list. The list was developed to help prioritize DEP NPS water pollution control efforts and attract 

local communities to take action to restore or protect waters impaired or threatened by NPS 

pollution. Since then, DEP has provided Section 319 grant funds for NPS water pollution control 

projects with preference for projects in NPS priority watersheds. Most of the NPS projects 

proposed and selected under the annual competitive RFP have funded work to help restore or 

protect NPS priority watersheds. 

In addition to the NPS Priority Watersheds List, there are several other lists that help guide 

MDEP efforts and regulatory programs. This includes the list of waterbodies with approved 

TMDLs, listed as impaired on the 303d list, listed in Chapter 502 Lakes Most at Risk from New 

Development, and Urban Impaired Streams. These lists will continue to be used for their 

respective purposes, and used to assist with the development of the prioritization criteria for 

NPS Priority List.

A. Guiding Principles for Selection of NPS Priority Watersheds

The purpose of the priority list is to guide 319 NPS grant funds and assistance, and to encourage 

NPS abatement work in these watersheds. The 1998 NPS Priority Watersheds List was updated 

as part of this NPS Management Plan. Watersheds were evaluated using several guiding 

principles. As such, the first overall requirement is that NPS priority waters must have NPS 

pollution as the primary source of impairment or threat. Watersheds with point sources or 

legacy pollutants as the primary source of pollution were not selected as priorities since the 

point source or legacy pollutant would have to be addressed for water quality to significantly 

improve. Second, watersheds were evaluated for the likelihood that NPS grant funds and

support could make a difference in the water quality. Another principle was to keep the extent 

of NPS priority watersheds reasonably focused so that the resources available to devote to 

control NPS pollution resources are invested where they are most needed and there is 

opportunity to effectively improve or protect waters vulnerable to NPS pollution.

The goal of developing the prioritization criteria was to make the selection as objective as 

possible, using monitoring data, analysis, and reports. The priority lists of partner agencies and 

 

5

 The use of the term, ‘threatened’, in this document refers to unimpaired waters that are subject to potential 

impacts from NPS pollution. The term is not intended to be used as described in Maine’s Integrated Report, where 

waters are listed as ‘threatened’ for Clean Water Act §303(d) listing purposes if those waters are anticipated to fall 

into non-attainment with the next listing cycle of two years.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

93

organizations were used to assist with the prioritization process. There was also an effort to 

keep the NPS Priority Lists as focused as possible so that limited resources would not be spread 

too thin and there would be the best opportunity for restoring and protecting the highest 

priorities. 

To determine the specific criteria to guide the evaluation of which watersheds should be 

prioritized, work groups consisting of DEP water resource professional staff. Staff are 

knowledgeable in statewide lake, stream, or marine water quality and management issues and 

they reviewed available waterbody data and information. Partner agencies and regional 

monitoring organizations were also consulted in some cases. Specific criteria were determined 

by waterbody type, and are listed in the table below and described in the following waterbodyspecific sections. 

Table 17. NPS Priority Watershed Selection Criteria Summary.

Waterbody 

Type

Selection Criteria Exclusion Criteria

Impaired 

Lakes

 Category 4A and 5A  Category 4C

 Limited existing development

 Legacy nutrient accumulations

 Naturally eutrophic

Threatened 

Lakes

 DEP Watch List

 Public water system

 Negative water clarity trend

 Sensitive to additional phosphorus 

inputs

 Priority watershed of partners

 Outstanding water quality with 

watershed threats

 Recent increased impacts or threats 

from agriculture or development

 Negative water clarity trend 

not indicative of water quality 

shift

 Watershed protected

 Small lakes (≤50 acres) with 

limited development

Impaired 

Streams

 Impaired (Categories 4A, 5A, and 5B) 

due to NPS, and:

 Has TMDL report:

o Individual TMDL

o IC TMDL or NPS TMDL

o Bacteria TMDL and had only 

source of impairment as bacteria

 Priority watershed of partners

 High growth area

 High risk for development due to 

proximity to highway access

 Categories 4B, 4C, 5C, 5D

 Impaired due to natural 

reasons

 Legacy pollutant 

accumulations

 Impaired due to point sources

 Large rivers
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

94

Threatened 

Streams

 Watch List (Category 3)

 Recent increased impacts or threats 

from agriculture or development

 Priority watershed of partners

 High risk for development due to 

proximity to highway access

 Wastewater discharges

 Large rivers

Impaired and

Threatened 

Marine

Waters

 Priority NPS-impacted watersheds of 

partners:

o Maine Department of Marine 

Resources (DMR) 

o Maine Healthy Beaches (MHB)

o Casco Bay Estuary Partnership 

(CBEP)

o Maine Municipal Separate Storm 

Sewer Program (MS4)

 Documented negative water quality 

indicators

 Impaired due to natural 

reasons

 Legacy pollutant 

accumulations

 Large or exposed areas with 

high flushing

 Point sources such as 

wastewater discharges

 Small watersheds with just a 

few failing septics or 

overboard discharges

 Sources not clearly NPS

B. Updating the Priority Watersheds List

DEP-Driven Updates

DEP plans to evaluate ways to further improve the prioritization criteria as new evaluation 

techniques become available. For lakes, DEP plans to investigate incorporating sediment 

aluminum content into the lake vulnerability model. These data have not historically been 

available, but sediment samples have recently been collected from 250 lakes to analyze the 

aluminum content. When these data are available, DEP will investigate its use to further 

determine which lakes are threatened from further phosphorus input due to the low amount of 

aluminum in the sediment. For streams, DEP plans evaluations using the EPA Recovery 

Potential Screening Tool to assist with prioritization of impaired and threatened streams. For 

marine waters, DEP will continue to investigate ways to improve the prioritization method as 

new data or methods becomes available. Additionally, DEP will add or remove waterbodies as 

new information becomes available, following the timeline for the annual public opportunity.

Annual Public Input Opportunity

There will be an opportunity annually for organizations and individuals to submit requests and 

supporting documentation for waterbodies to be added or removed from the priority lists. An 

annual timeline will be developed and announced. 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

95

C. Lake Watersheds Prioritization

Impaired Lakes 

As a starting point, all lakes on the 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment 

Report Impaired List (Categories 4A: Impaired Use other than Mercury, TMDL Completed; & 5A: 

Needing TMDLs) due to nonpoint source pollution were considered for inclusion on the priority 

list. Lakes on 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Impaired List 

due to hydrologic reasons (Category 4C: Impairment not Caused by a Pollutant) were excluded 

from the priority list. These lakes are impaired primarily due to hydrologic reasons, such as a 

major dam, and the hydrologic impairment. Lakes falling under this category are: Aziscohos 

Lake, Brassua Lake, Flagstaff Lake, Graham Lake, and Scopan Lake. 

Several lakes were then removed from the priority list if they are believed to have a low 

feasibility for restoration due to having limited existing watershed development or legacy 

nutrient accumulations in sediments. Lakes removed from the list for this reason are Arnold 

Brook Lake in Presque Isle, Lovejoy Pond in Albion, and Sewall Pond in Arrowsic.

Table 18. Impaired Lakes Priority List (21 lakes).

Lake Town

Annabessacook Lake Winthrop

China Lake China

Christina Reservoir Ft Fairfield

Cochnewagon Lake Monmouth

Cross Lake T17 R5 Wels

Daigle Pond New Canada

East Pond Smithfield

Great Pond Belgrade & Rome

Lilly Pond Rockport

Long Pond Rome & Belgrade

Monson Pond Fort Fairfield

Pleasant Pond Richmond

Sabattus Pond Greene

Sebasticook Lake Newport

Threemile Pond Windsor

Togus Pond Augusta

Toothaker Pond Phillips

Trafton Lake Limestone

Unity Pond Unity

Webber Pond Vassalboro

Wilson Pond Wayne
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

96

Threatened Lakes

Unimpaired lakes were assessed based on threats to water quality and value of the resource. 

Threatened lakes include lakes on the DEP Watch List, lakes having a recent or long-term 

significant negative trend in water clarity, lakes determined as being sensitive to additional 

phosphorus inputs, and lakes having a recent increased threat to the watershed by 

development or agriculture. Lake value was designated as ‘high’ if a drinking water supply, if 

designated a priority water body by a partner agency, or if determined to have outstanding 

water quality and being in need of protection. Lakes which had either a significant threat to 

water quality and/or significant value were added to the priority list. The details of these 

selection criteria are below.

Unimpaired lakes were determined to have priority threatened lake watersheds if they met one 

of the following criteria: 

 Listed on the DEP’s watch list. Lakes are included on the watch list if they were recently 

impaired and therefore still sensitive, or data suggests their water quality is near the 

impairment threshold.

 Licensed by the Maine CDC Drinking Water Program as a public water system with a lake a 

pond as the surface water source. 

 Has a strong long or short-term negative water clarity trend. This was determined by 

running the lake water clarity trend analysis model for lakes with secchi disk transparency 

readings for a significant number of years. The model was run for the whole dataset for 

each lake to determine the long-term trend, and for the past 10 years for the short-term 

trend. Data was needed for eight years or more to run the short term trend model. Results 

of -0.5 or lower were deemed to be a significant negative trend. Lakes with a significant 

negative trend were then further analyzed to determine if the negative trend was likely the 

result of a natural cycle or an overall shift in water quality. See the section below for a 

description of what was not included. 

 Are sensitive to additional phosphorus inputs due to the lake’s hydrology and threats in the 

watershed. A lake was determined to be sensitive if DEP’s vulnerability modeling predicts 

the number of years for the lake’s phosphorus concentration to increase by 1 ppb is 25 

years or less. The vulnerability model predicts changes in lake phosphorus concentration 

using watershed growth projections to estimate changes in phosphorus loading and the 

1976 version of Vollenweider’s lake model to convert load to concentration. The model 

compensates for the influence of upstream lakes. If these sensitive lakes were determined 

to have watershed threats, they were then added to the priority list. 

 Identified as a priority watershed by the Maine Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) National Water Quality Incentive or by 

Maine Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) community plans. 

 Having outstanding water quality in need of protection from threats in the watershed. The 

list of lakes with outstanding water quality was determined from review of long term water 

quality data. Lakes with outstanding water quality were added to the priority list if they 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

97

were on 1998 NPS Priority List or their watershed was known to have a significant threat of 

development. 

 Have recent increased impacts or significant potential threats from agriculture or 

development. This was determined through use of best professional judgment of the 

impact or significant threat of impact due to recent activities in the watershed. The 

sensitivity of the lake to more phosphorus inputs, extent and location of the agriculture or 

development, and cumulative effect of other watershed activities were considered in this 

determination. The Lakes added due to these criteria have had significant DEP involvement 

with the lake and the associated agriculture or development.

 Some lakes were not included on the priority list even if they met some of the above criteria 

due to the following reasons:

 The water quality data for some lakes with a significant negative water clarity trend (-0.5 or 

lower) indicated it was not indicative of a water quality shift. Each lake that had a long- or 

short-term significant negative water clarity trend was analyzed to determine if the 

negative trend was likely an overall negative shift in water quality or not. This was 

determined by analyzing any available water quality history data, including water clarity, 

phosphorus, chlorophyll, and dissolved oxygen readings. Lakes having a short-term 

negative trend as a result of water clarity returning to a stable state after drought 

conditions in the early 2000’s resulted in artificially ‘improved’ water quality, were not put 

on the priority list. Lakes whose negative trend were based on insufficient data or included 

multiple Secchi readings which hit the lake bottom were not put on the priority list.

 Lakes having a significant portion of their watershed protected either by being part of 

Acadia National Park or by having other watershed protection were also not included on the 

priority list, since there did not seem to be a significant threat.

 Small lakes (less than or equal to 50 acres) with limited existing watershed development 

were not included on the priority list, unless there was a compelling reason to add it to the 

list. Compelling reasons were if it is a public water supply, or has outstanding water quality 

and is in need of protection from threats in the watershed. 

Table 19. Threatened Lakes Priority List (147 lakes).

Lake Town Priority List Reasoning

Abrams Pond Eastbrook Watch List

Adams Pond Boothbay Public Water System, Sensitive

Alamoosook Lake Orland Agriculture (Aquaculture) Threat

Allen Pond Greene Sensitive

Anasagunticook Lake Canton Public Water System

Androscoggin Lake Leeds Watch List

Battle Ave Ponds Castine Public Water System

Bauneg Beg Pond Sanford Sensitive

Bay Of Naples/Brandy Naples Public Water System, Sensitive
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

98

Lake Town Priority List Reasoning

Beaver Pond Bridgton Sensitive

Beech Hill Pond Otis Outstanding Water Quality

Berry Pond Winthrop Sensitive

Big Wood Pond Jackman Public Water System

Bonny Eagle Lake Buxton Sensitive

Boyden Lake Stream Imp Perry Public Water System

Branch Lake Ellsworth Public Water System

Branch Pond China Sensitive

Brettuns Pond Livermore Sensitive

Buker Pond Litchfield Sensitive

Bunganut Pond Lyman Sensitive

Burnt Land Pond Stonington Public Water System

Carlton Pond Winthrop Public Water System

Chases Pond York Public Water System

Chickawaukie Pond Rockport Sensitive

Clary Lake Whitefield Negative clarity trend

Cobbossecontee Lake Winthrop Watch List, Sensitive

Coffee Pond Casco Sensitive

Cold Stream Pond Enfield Outstanding Water Quality

Crawford Pond Warren Sensitive

Crescent Pond Raymond Sensitive

Crystal Lake Gray Sensitive

Damariscotta Lake Nobleboro Sensitive

Dexter Pond Winthrop Sensitive

Dodge Pond Rangeley Sensitive

Duckpuddle Pond Waldoboro Watch List

Eagle Lake Bar Harbor Outstanding Water Quality, Public Water 

System

Echo Lake Presque Isle Watch List

Estes Lake Sanford Watch List, Sensitive

Ferguson Lake Millinocket Public Water System

Floods Pond Otis Public Water System

Folly Pond Vinalhaven Public Water System

Forest Lake Windham Sensitive

Fresh Pond North Haven Public Water System

Georges Pond Franklin Watch List

Granny Kent Pond Shapleigh Negative clarity trend

Grassy Pond Rockport Public Water System, Sensitive

Great East Lake Acton Outstanding Water Quality, 

Development Threat

Hall Pond Paris Public Water System
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

99

Lake Town Priority List Reasoning

Hancock Pond Embden Public Water System

Harriman Pond Dedham Outstanding Water Quality, 

Development Threat

Hatcase Pond Dedham Public Water System

Highland Lake Bridgton Watch List

Highland Lake Windham MS4 Priority Water, Watch List, Sensitive

Hogan Pond Oxford Sensitive

Holland Pond Limerick Sensitive

Horne Pond Limington Sensitive

Hosmer Pond Camden Sensitive

Ingalls Pond Bridgton Sensitive

Island Pond Waterford Sensitive

Jimmie (Jamies) P Manchester Sensitive

Kennebunk Pond Lyman Sensitive

Knickerbocker Pond Boothbay Public Water System

Lake Auburn Auburn Negative clarity trend, Watch List, Public 

Water System

Little Cobbossee Winthrop Watch List, Sensitive

Little Ossipee Waterboro Sensitive

Little Pond Damariscotta Public Water System

Little Sebago Lake Windham Sensitive

Little Wilson Pond Turner Sensitive

Long Lake Bridgton Watch List

Long Lake T17 R4 Wels Watch List, Agriculture Threat

Long Pond Parsonsfield Negative clarity trend

Long Pond Bucksport Sensitive

Long Pond Sullivan Public Water System

Lower And Upper Ponds Skowhegan Public Water System

Lower Hadlock Pond Mt Desert Public Water System

Lower Narrows Pond Winthrop Sensitive

Lower Range Pond Poland Sensitive

Madawaska Lake Westmanland Watch List

Maranacook Lake Winthrop Sensitive

Mcgrath Pond Oakland Sensitive

Meduxnekeag Lake Oakfield Development Threat

Megunticook Lake Lincolnville Sensitive

Messalonskee Lake Sidney & Belgrade Watch List

Middle Range Pond Poland Sensitive

Mirror Lake Rockport Public Water System

Moose Hill Pond Livermore Falls Public Water System

Moose Pond Bridgton Development Threat
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

100

Lake Town Priority List Reasoning

Mousam Lake Shapleigh Watch List

Nequasset Pond Woolwich Public Water System, Sensitive

Nickerson Lake New Limerick EQIP Priority Water

No Name Pond Lewiston Sensitive

Nokomis Pond Newport Public Water System

North Pond Norway Sensitive

North Pond Sumner Public Water System

North Pond Smithfield Agriculture Threat

Norton Pond Lincolnville Sensitive

Notched Pond Raymond Sensitive

Otter Pond Bridgton Sensitive

Panther Pond Raymond Sensitive

Papoose Pond Waterford Watch List

Paradise Pond Damariscotta Negative clarity trend

Parker Pond Casco Sensitive

Parker Pond Jay Public Water System

Pattee Pond Winslow Sensitive

Pemaquid Pond Waldoboro Sensitive

Pennesseewassee Norway Sensitive

Pleasant Lake Otisfield Outstanding Water Quality

Pleasant Pond Turner Sensitive

Pleasant Pond T4 R3 Wels Outstanding Water Quality

Province Lake Parsonsfield, S. 

Effingham, NH

Development Threat (Listed as Impaired 

by New Hampshire DES)

Pushaw Lake Orono Development & Agriculture Threat

Quimby Pond Rangeley Sensitive

Raymond Pond Raymond Sensitive

Roberts Wadley Pond Lyman Sensitive

Round Pond Rangeley Sensitive

Round Pond Vinalhaven Public Water System

Roxbury Pond Roxbury Watch List

Sabbathday Lake New Gloucester Sensitive

Salmon L (Ellis P) Belgrade Watch List

Salmon Stream Pond Guilford Public Water System

Sand Pond Monmouth Sensitive

Sawyer Pond Greenville Negative clarity trend

Sebago Lake (including 

Crooked River)

Sebago Outstanding Water Quality, Public Water 

System

Shaker Pond Alfred Sensitive

Silver Lake Bucksport Public Water System

Spectacle Pond Vassalboro Sensitive
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

101

Lake Town Priority List Reasoning

Square Lake T16 R5 Wels Watch List, Development Threat

St George Lake Liberty Outstanding Water Quality

Swan Pond Lyman Sensitive

Taylor Pond Auburn Sensitive

Thomas Pond Casco Sensitive

Thompson Lake Oxford Outstanding Water Quality, Sensitive

Threecornered Pond Augusta Watch List, Sensitive

Torsey (Greeley) Pond Mount Vernon Agriculture Threat

Trickey Pond Naples Outstanding Water Quality, Sensitive

Tripp Pond Poland Sensitive

Upper Narrows Pond Winthrop Public Water System, Watch List, 

Sensitive

Upper Range Pond Poland Sensitive

Varnum Pond Wilton Public Water System

Ward Pond Sidney Sensitive

Wassookeag Lake Dexter Negative clarity trend, Public Water 

System

Watchic Pond Standish Sensitive

Whetstone Pond Kingsbury Twp Negative clarity trend

Whitney Pond Oxford Sensitive

Wood Pond Bridgton Sensitive

Woodbury Pond Monmouth Sensitive

Youngs Lake Westfield Public Water System
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

102

D. Stream Watershed Prioritization

Impaired Streams 

As a starting point, all rivers and streams on the 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and 

Assessment Report Impaired List due to nonpoint source pollution (Categories 4-A: Rivers and 

Streams with Impaired Use, TMDL Completed; 5-A: Rivers and Streams Impaired by Pollutants 

Other Than Those Listed in 5-B Through 5-D (TMDL Required); & 5-B: Rivers and Streams 

Impaired for Bacteria Only, TMDL Required) were considered for inclusion on the priority list. 

To determine if a stream or river was impaired primarily due to NPS sources, the DEP water 

quality monitoring database (EGAD) was queried as to what were the major sources of the 

impairments. A stream was considered impaired primarily by NPS if the sources were listed as 

NPS, agriculture, stormwater, impervious surfaces, habitat modification, post-development 

erosion and sedimentation, or source unknown.

Streams on 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Impaired List 

which are expected to result in attainment (Category 4-B: Rivers and Streams Impaired by 

Pollutants - Pollution Control Requirements Reasonably Expected to Result in Attainment) were 

not included on the priority list. These streams are believed to be impaired primarily due to 

non-NPS reasons, and are being addressed by regulatory programs and remediation work. 

Streams on the 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Impaired List 

due to hydrologic reasons (Category 4-C: Rivers and Streams with Impairment not Caused by a 

Pollutant), mercury (Category 5-C: Waters Impaired by Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury), or 

legacy pollutants (Category 5-D: Rivers and Streams Impaired by Legacy Pollutants), were not 

included on the priority list. These streams are believed to be impaired primarily due to 

sources beyond the scope of the 319 NPS program. 

Once the streams impaired by NPS were identified, they were determined to be priority stream 

watersheds if they met one of the following criteria: 

 Had a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report completed or in development. This 

includes streams with an individual NPS-based TMDL and those included in the Maine 

Impervious Cover TMDL or Maine Statewide NPS TMDL (currently under development). 

These streams are impaired primarily due to NPS pollution and the TMDLs provide an 

analysis of the causes of the impairment, and therefore a first step in determining what 

needs to be done to improve the water quality. For streams included in the Maine 

Statewide Bacteria TMDL, only those whose impairment was only due to bacteria that was 

not caused by a point source were listed as priority streams. 

 Identified as a priority watershed by the Maine Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) National Water Quality Incentive, by 

Maine Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) community plans, or by the Maine 

Healthy Beaches (MHB) program. 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

103

 High risk of future development in watershed due to its location near a highway exit. These 

streams were determined by completing a risk assessment of the likelihood of development 

near each Maine Turnpike, Interstate 95, and Route 295 exit that had stream watersheds 

within a one mile radius. Streams were categorized as having a high, medium, or low risk of 

development in their watershed due to Access-related development. Streams with a high 

risk of development were added to the priority list.

 Some streams were not included on the priority list even if they met some of the above 

criteria due to the following reasons: 

o Believed to be impaired due to ‘natural’ reasons such as being a backwater stream 

or having wetland effects which cause the stream to not meet its class.

o Streams or rivers impaired mostly due to legacy pollutants, particularly legacy 

toxins. It is believed that the legacy pollutants would have to be addressed in order 

for the stream to meet class, so addressing the NPS sources would not be sufficient 

to have it meet class and therefore the stream is not added to the NPS priority list. 

o Large rivers (e.g. Kennebec River, Androscoggin River, Presumpscot River) were not 

included as priorities since the large size of their watershed makes measureable 

improvement in water quality due to implementation of NPS watershed based plans 

very unlikely. Instead, tributaries to these larger watersheds were considered for 

the priority list based both on their own characteristics and their impact on the 

larger impaired watersheds. 

o Rivers whose impairment is primarily due to point sources such as combined sewer 

overflows or wastewater discharges were also not included on the priority list. It is 

believed that the point sources would need to be addressed for the water quality of 

these rivers to be improved significantly. 

Table 20. Impaired Streams Priority List (71 streams).

Stream Town Priority List Reasoning

Adams Brook Berwick TMDL

Arctic Brook Bangor TMDL, Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Barberry Creek South Portland TMDL

Birch Stream Bangor TMDL, MS4 Priority Water

Black Brook Windham TMDL

Bond Brook Augusta Highway Access-related

Development Threat, Development 

Threat

Brackett Brook Palmyra TMDL

Burnham Brook Garland TMDL

Capehart Brook Bangor TMDL

Capisic Brook Portland TMDL, MS4 Priority Water
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

104

Stream Town Priority List Reasoning

Card Brook Ellsworth TMDL

Chamberlain Brook Whitefield TMDL

Chandler River including East 

Branch

Pownal TMDL

Cold Stream Skowhegan High Growth Area

Colley Wright Brook Windham TMDL

Coloney Brook Fort Fairfield TMDL

Concord Gully Freeport TMDL, Highway Access-related

Development Threat, MS4 Priority 

Water

Crooked Brook Corinth TMDL

Dole Brook Portland TMDL

Duck Brook Arundel Bacteria TMDL

Dudley Brook Chapman TMDL

Dyer River Newcastle Bacteria TMDL

Everett Brook Fort Fairfield TMDL

Fish Brook Fairfield TMDL

French Stream Exeter TMDL

Frost Gully Brook Freeport TMDL

Goodall Brook Sanford TMDL

Goosefare Brook Saco TMDL, Bacteria TMDL, Highway 

Access-related Development Threat

Hart (Dill) Brook Lewiston TMDL, MS4 Priority Water

Hobbs Brook Cumberland TMDL

Inkhorn Brook Westbrook TMDL

Jock Stream Wales TMDL

Kennebunk River Arundel, 

Kennebunk

Bacteria TMDL, MHB Priority Water

Kennedy Brook Augusta TMDL

Kennedy Brook Presque Isle High Growth Area

Kimball Brook South Portland TMDL

Logan Brook Auburn TMDL, MS4 Priority Water

Long Creek South Portland Highway Access-related

Development Threat, Development 

Threat

Mere Brook Brunswick TMDL

Meadow Brook Bangor Highway Access-related 

Development Threat

Meduxnekeag River Houlton EQIP Priority Water

Merrit Brook Presque Isle TMDL

Mill Stream Albion TMDL
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

105

Stream Town Priority List Reasoning

Mosher Brook Gorham TMDL

Nasons Brook Portland, 

Westbrook

TMDL

No Name Brook Lewiston TMDL

Otter Brook Windham TMDL

Otter Stream Milford, Bradley Bacteria TMDL, MS4 Priority Water

Penjajawoc Stream Bangor Highway Access-related

Development Threat, MS4 Priority 

Water

Penley Brook Auburn TMDL

Phillips Brook Scarborough TMDL

Pleasant River Windham TMDL

Prestile Stream (Upper) Mars Hill TMDL

Red Brook Scarborough, South 

Portland

TMDL, Highway Access-related

Development Threat, MS4 Priority 

Water

Shaw Brook Bangor, Hampden TMDL, Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Stetson Brook Lewiston High Growth Area

Sucker Brook Hampden TMDL, Highway Access-related

Development Threat, MS4 Priority 

Water

Thatcher Brook Biddeford TMDL, Highway Access-related

Development Threat, MS4 Priority 

Water

Thayer Brook Gray TMDL, Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Topsham Fair Mall Stream Topsham TMDL, Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Topsham Fairgrounds Stream Topsham TMDL, Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Trout Brook South Portland TMDL, MS4 Priority Water

Unnamed Stream (Rte 196) Lisbon Falls TMDL, MS4 Priority Water

Unnamed Trib to 

Androscoggin River (near 

Jordan Ave)

Brunswick TMDL

Unnamed Trib to 

Androscoggin River (near 

River Rd)

Brunswick TMDL
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

106

Stream Town Priority List Reasoning

Unnamed Trib to 

Androscoggin River (near 

Water St)

Brunswick TMDL

Unnamed Trib to Bond Brook 

(entering below I-95)

Augusta TMDL, Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Warren Brook Belfast TMDL

West Brook North Berwick TMDL

Whitney Brook Augusta TMDL

Whitten Brook Skowhegan TMDL

Threatened Streams

Non-impaired streams were assessed as to whether they are being significantly impacted or 

have the threat of significant impact from NPS pollution and whether the use of NPS 319 funds 

was likely to improve or protect water quality over the long term. 

Non-impaired streams were determined to be priority threatened stream watersheds if they 

met one of the following criteria: 

 Streams listed on the 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report 

‘Watch List’ Category 3 (Waters with Insufficient Data or Information to Determine if 

Designated Uses are Attained) for NPS issues. For streams, Category 3 is used as a ‘Watch 

List’ for streams of concern. Included on this list are streams that were recently impaired, 

and are therefore still sensitive, or if data shows it will likely be impaired in the future.

 Have recent increased impacts or significant potential threats from agriculture or 

development. This was determined through use of best professional judgment of the 

impact or significant threat of impact due to recent activities in the watershed. The 

sensitivity of the stream, extent and location of the agriculture or development, and 

cumulative effect of other watershed activities were considered in this determination. 

 Identified as a priority watershed by partner organizations, such as the Maine Natural 

Resources Conservation Service Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) National 

Water Quality Incentive, by Maine Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)

community plans, or by the Maine Healthy Beaches (MHB) program. 

 High risk of future development in watershed due to location near a highway exit. These 

streams were determined by doing a risk assessment of the likelihood of development near 

each Maine Turnpike, Interstate 95, and Route 295 exit that had stream watersheds within 

a one mile radius. Streams were categorized as having a high, medium, or low risk of 

development in their watershed due to Access-related development. Streams with a high 

risk of development were added to the priority list.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

107

 Even if streams or rivers met some of the above criteria, they were not included on the 

priority list if they are large rivers and/or the impairment is due to wastewater discharges. 

For these streams or rivers it is believed that larger scale and/or point source-related work 

is necessary and smaller tributary work is a better fit with the current NPS program. 

Table 21. Threatened Streams Priority List (77 streams).

Stream Town Priority List Reasoning

Abagadasset River Tribs Gardiner Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Alder Stream Corinna EQIP Priority Water

Amsden Brook Ft. Fairfield Agriculture Threat

Beaver Brook Scarborough Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Birch Brook Presque Isle Agriculture Threat

Blacksmith Brook Wells Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Bobbin Mill Brook Auburn Watch List

Cape Neddick River York MS4 Priority Water

Caribou Stream Caribou Watch List

Cemetery Brook (unnamed trib to 

Penjajwoc/Meadow)

Veazie MS4 Priority Water

Chenery Brook Falmouth Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Chickering Creek Kittery Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Currier Brook Skowhegan Bacteria TMDL

Deep Brook Saco Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Depot Stream Wells Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Duck Stream Waterville Development Threat

East Branch Piscataqua Falmouth Watch List, MS4 Priority Water

Factory Brook Caribou Agriculture Threat

Farnham Brook Pittsfield Watch List

Felts Brook Brewer MS4 Priority Water

Great Works River South Berwick MS4 Priority Water

Grey Brook Ft. Fairfield Agriculture Threat

Hacker Brook Ft. Fairfield Agriculture Threat

Hardwood Brook Caribou Agriculture Threat

Hockenhull Brook Ft. Fairfield Agriculture Threat

Libby Brook Ft. Fairfield Agriculture Threat

Little River York Highway Access-related
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

108

Stream Town Priority List Reasoning

Development Threat

Maxwell Brook Sabattus Highway Access-related

Development Threat

McDonald Brook Ft. Fairfield Agriculture Threat

Meader Brook Falmouth Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Meadow Brook Gray Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Medomak River Waldoboro Agriculture Threat

Merrill Brook Freeport Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Mill Brook Westbrook MS4 Priority Water

Mill Creek Falmouth Highway Access-related

Development Threat, MS4 

Priority Water

Moose Brook Auburn Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Moulton Brook York Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Nichols Brook Caribou Agriculture Threat

North Branch McLean Brook St Agatha Watch List

Norton Brook Falmouth Watch List, Highway Accessrelated Development Threat

Ogunquit River Ogunquit MHB Priority Water

Oliver Brook Houlton EQIP Priority Water

Pattie Brook Ft. Fairfield Agriculture Threat

Pearce Brook Houlton Agriculture Threat, 

Development Threat

Perley Brook Fort Kent Watch List

Piscataqua River (Falmouth) Falmouth Watch List

Prestile Brook Caribou Agriculture Threat

Richardson Brook Presque Isle Agriculture Threat

Riggs Brook Augusta Watch List

Rockwood Brook Augusta Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Rocky Brook Mars Hill Watch List

Rolling Dam Brook Gardiner Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Salmon Brook Washburn Watch List

Scitterygusset Creek Falmouth Highway Access-related

Development Threat
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

109

Stream Town Priority List Reasoning

Spinney Creek Eliot MS4 Priority Water

Spring Brook Caribou Agriculture Threat

Spruce Creek Kittery MS4 Priority Water

Spurwink River Cape Elizabeth MHB Priority Water

Stone Brook Augusta Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Stroudwater River Portland, 

Westbrook

Watch List

Sunday River Newry, Bethel Watch List

Swan Pond Brook Tributary Dayton, Biddeford Watch List

Tannery Brook Gorham Watch List, MS4 Priority Water

Tanning Brook Manchester Watch List

Unnamed Stream at I-95 Exit 2, 

tributary to Spruce Creek

Kittery Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Unnamed Stream at I-95 Exit 7, 

tributary to Moulton Brook

York Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Unnamed Stream at I-95 Exit 19, 

tributary to Webhannet River

Wells Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Unnamed Stream at I-95 Exit 75, 

tributary to Androscoggin River

Auburn Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Unnamed Stream at I-95 Exit 75, 

tributary to Moose Brook

Auburn Highway Access-related 

Development Threat

Unnamed Stream at I-95 Exit 113, 

tributary to Kennebec River

Augusta Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Unnamed Stream at I-95 Exit 150, 

northwestern tributary to Farnham 

Brook

Pittsfield Highway Access-related 

Development Threat

Unnamed Stream at I-95 Exit 150, 

northern tributary to Farnham Brook

Pittsfield, Palmyra Highway Access-related

Development Threat

Unnamed Stream at I-95 Exit 150, 

downtown tributary to Farnham 

Brook

Pittsfield Highway Access-related 

Development Threat

Unnamed Trib below Merrit Presque Isle Agriculture Threat

Unnamed Tribs to Long Lake near golf 

course

Madawaska Agriculture Threat

Violette Stream Van Buren Development Threat

Willowdale Brook Scarborough Highway Access-related

Development Threat
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

110

E. Marine Waters Watershed Prioritization Description

Marine areas were assessed on the impact or threat of NPS pollution, and the likelihood that 

NPS abatement work or support could make a short- or long-term improvement to water 

quality. The impact or threat was determined by whether there were impacted shellfish 

harvest areas of interest, beach closures, or documented negative water quality indicators. It 

was considered likely that NPS abatement work or support could be effective if the primary 

pollutant sources were nonpoint and non-natural, and if the watershed likely had a significant 

water quality impact due to a low degree of flushing.

Impaired and Threatened Marine Waters6

Unlike the lake and stream prioritization, the marine waters listed as impaired waters on the 

2012 Integrated Report were not used as a starting point for the NPS Priority list. Marine 

waters have fewer numeric criteria and rely more on narrative criteria (i.e. best professional 

judgment). The 2012 Integrated Report impaired marine waterbodies list does not align 

geographically with the DMR shellfish harvest closure lists and it does not clearly distinguish 

between NPS and point source contributions. To keep prioritization criteria objective, the work 

group instead focused on data associated with bacterial closures and relied on data, 

knowledge, and priorities from other organizations. This resulted in a more exclusive and 

smaller list for marine waters than for lakes and streams. Additions to the marine priority list 

are anticipated as more information becomes available.

Marine watersheds were added to the priority list if they met at least one of the following 

criteria:

 Marine waters or beaches that Maine Healthy Beaches (MHB) has identified as likely areas 

with NPS sources of bacteria at levels that are concerning for primary contact recreation. 

 Marine waters that the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership (CBEP) has identified with 

high/moderate value shellfish beds, high/moderate harvester interest, and associated NPS 

sources documented in the CBEP report, Expanding and Sustaining the Shellfisheries of 

Casco Bay 2011 (2012). 

 Marine waters associated with a Maine Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Program (MS4) 

priority watershed.

 Nearshore waters and intertidal clam flats where partners (e.g., CBEP, Friends of Casco Bay, 

Marine Environmental Research Institute, Wells Reserve) have documented water quality 

indicators with suspected links to NPS pollution. Indicators included documented eelgrass 

loss (only limited availability) or recurring macroalgae blooms, chronically high nitrogen 

 

6

The use of the term, ‘threatened’, in this document refers to unimpaired waters that are facing potential impacts 

from NPS pollution. The term is not intended to be used in the way described in Maine’s Integrated Report, where 

waters are listed as ‘threatened’ for Clean Water Act §303(d) listing purposes if those waters are anticipated to fall 

into non-attainment with the next listing cycle of two years.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

111

relative to comparable ambient conditions and/or chronically low dissolved oxygen (<5 

mg/l). 

 Marine waters that the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) has identified as 

having shellfish harvest closures related primarily to NPS threat, and that are protected 

embayments with limited assimilative capacity. Information available from sanitary 

surveys, watershed surveys, and local research and knowledge were used to determine if 

NPS threats were the dominant contributors to documented impairment or anticipated 

future impairment. 

Some marine waters were not included on the priority list even if they met one or more of the 

above criteria due to the following reasons. 

 Believed to have negative water quality indicators for ‘natural’ reasons, such as high 

bacteria from wildlife, or having low dissolved oxygen as a result of high sediment oxygen 

demand in shallow, productive, low flushing coves.

 Believed to be impaired by legacy pollutants, particularly legacy toxics. If legacy pollutants 

would have to be addressed in order for the waterbody to meet class, then reducing NPS 

sources would not be sufficient for attainment of standards. 

 Large or exposed estuaries, coastal embayments, or coastal shorelines with relatively high 

degree of flushing likely. The large scale of the area and influence of tides and surface 

currents make measureable improvement in water quality due to implementation of NPS 

watershed based plans very unlikely. 

 Source of pollution is tied primarily to wastewater discharges, a small number of failing 

septic systems or overboard discharges, or other point sources. While failing septic 

systems and overboard discharges are in the realm of NPS, NPS grant program does not 

fund replacing sewage systems, so small watersheds with just a few septic issues are a 

better fit to be addressed by the town. 

 Sources of pollution are not clearly of nonpoint origin. More information on probable 

sources is needed in order for prioritization for NPS.

Table 22. Impaired Marine Waters Priority List (11 marine waters).

Marine Water Town Priority List Reasoning

Cape Neddick River York MS4 Priority Water

Goosefare Bay Kennebunkport MHB Priority Water, MS4 Priority 

Water

Kennebunk River Kennebunk MHB Priority Water

Maquoit Bay Brunswick CBEP Priority Water

Medomak River Estuary Waldoboro DMR/NPS Threat

Ogunquit River Estuary Ogunquit MHB Priority Water, DMR/NPS Threat

Salt Pond Blue Hill/Sedgwick DMR/NPS Threat, MERI
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

112

Marine Water Town Priority List Reasoning

Scarborough River Estuary Scarborough DMR/NPS Threat

Spurwink River Scarborough MHB Priority Water, DMR/NPS Threat

St. George River Estuary

from Rte 1 crossing to head 

of tide

Warren, 

Thomaston

DMR/NPS Threat, Negative Water 

Quality Indicators

Weskeag River S. Thomaston DMR/NPS Threat

Table 23. Threatened* Marine Waters Priority List (16 marine waters).

Marine Water Town Priority List Reasoning

Anthoine Creek South Portland Negative Water Quality Indicators (FOCB)

Biddeford Pool Biddeford Negative Water Quality Indicators

Bunganuc Creek Brunswick CBEP Priority Water

Churches Rock So. Thomaston DMR/NPS Threat

Harpswell Cove Brunswick CBEP Priority Water

Harraseeket River Freeport DMR/NPS Threat

Hyler Cove Cushing DMR/NPS Threat

Little River and Bay Freeport CBEP Priority Water

Mill Pond/Parker Head Phippsburg DMR/NPS Threat

Mussell Cove Falmouth CBEP Priority Water, DMR/NPS Threat

North Fogg Point Freeport CBEP Priority Water

Northeast Creek Bar Harbor DMR/NPS Threat

Oakhurst Island Harpswell CBEP Priority Water

Spinney Creek Eliot MS4 Priority Water, Negative Water 

Quality Indicators

Spruce Creek Kittery MS4 Priority Water, Negative Water 

Quality Indicators

Willard Beach South Portland MHB Priority Water

* Note: A subset of these marine waters are impaired due to shellfish harvest closures but are 

not listed as impaired in the DEP 2012 Integrated Report. Marine waters with shellfish harvest 

closures will be listed as impaired in the DEP 2014 Integrated Report and the NPS Marine 

Waters Priority List will then be adjusted accordingly.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

113

Appendix 3. Water Resource Monitoring and 

Assessment Strategies and Partners 

A. Types of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment

Monitoring and assessment work by DEP is conducted for a variety of purposes (Table 23). 

Much of DEP’s monitoring and assessment work is conducted to determine if the State’s 

waterbodies meet their designated classification. Other types of monitoring are also integral to 

the NPS program. Water quality problem identification and assessment of conditions is needed 

to target NPS program efforts. The methods, scale and the expertise needed to carry out 

monitoring and assessment depends on the objective, such as ambient water quality 

monitoring, development of a new assessment tool, stressor analysis, or determining the 

sources of pollution,. 

Table 24. Monitoring and Assessment Activities.

Activity Purpose

Monitoring/Assess

ment Methods Scale Activity Initiator

Ambient 

Water Quality 

Monitoring

 Identify water quality 

problems

 Evaluate waters of the 

State to determine if water 

quality standards are being 

met

 In-situ water 

quality 

monitoring

 Data 

assessment

 Statewidemay be done 

on rotating 

basis

 Watershed 

 DEP

 All Partners 

Trends 

Analyses

 Determine if water quality 

changing positively or 

negatively due to land use 

changes, natural 

conditions or restoration 

activities

 Statistical 

Analyses

 Statewide

 Waterbody

 DEP

Water Quality Monitoring: 

The repeated sampling of environmental conditions at predetermined locations in 

order to provide a set of data to conduct assessments.

Water Quality Assessment: 

The overall process of evaluating the physical, chemical, and/or biological nature of 

water in relation to natural quality, human effects, and intended uses. 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

114

Activity Purpose

Monitoring/Assess

ment Methods Scale Activity Initiator

TMDL 

Development

 Develop TMDL for 

impaired waters

 Define impairment, causes 

and sources of pollution, 

loading and reductions 

needed to restore 

waterbody

 Targeted 

Waterbodies

 DEP

 EPA

 Consultants

Water Quality 

Monitoring 

Tools and 

Assessment 

Methods

 Develop new or refine 

existing monitoring 

methods used to 

determine if water quality 

standards are being met

 Develop new water quality 

criteria

 In-situ water 

quality 

monitoring

 Statistical 

methods and 

models

 Statewide

 Regional

 DEP/EPA

 Universities

NPS Project 

Effectiveness

 Monitor and/or evaluate 

the effectiveness of NPS 

projects

 Watershed 

evaluation to 

track BMPs 

implemented 

and/or calculate 

pollutant load 

reductions

 In-situ water 

quality 

monitoring

 Trend Analyses

 Watershed  DEP and 

partners for 

watershed 

evaluation

 DEP for 

water quality 

monitoring

Watershed 

Assessment

 Determine specific sources 

of pollution or stressors in 

order to develop 

management plans and 

implementation projects

 Watershed or 

Stream Corridor 

Surveys that

identify sources 

of pollution

 Waterbody 

specific 

monitoring

 Watershed 

and 

waterbody

 DEP and 

partners for 

surveys

 DEP and 

consultants 

for 

monitoring

Research  Provide answers to specific 

theories, problems and 

questions

 Research 

methods 

 Statewide

 Regional

 Watershed

 Waterbody

 DEP

 Universities

 Consultants
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

115

B. Monitoring and Assessment for Different Types of Waters

Rivers and Streams

The DEP assesses the water quality of rivers and streams primarily through its Biomonitoring 

Program on a 5-year rotating basin schedule. The Program has had a macroinvertebrate 

biomonitoring program for 30 years and more recently began an algal biomonitoring program. 

Stream macroinvertebrate communities are assessed using a statistical model that predicts the 

likelihood of a waterbody attaining the aquatic life criteria of its assigned class of AA/A, B, or C. 

Numeric biocriteria that describe the macroinvertebrate classification decision process were 

adopted into rule (Chapter 579) in 2003. Biological assessment methods and statistical model 

for algal communities have been completed, but not yet implemented. The algal data is 

however being interpreted to determine narrative aquatic life criteria for the integrated report. 

The primary causes of impairment for rivers and streams are toxic contamination, nonattainment of aquatic life criteria, oxygen depletion, nutrients and pathogens. Toxic 

contamination, which includes legacy pollutants such as DDT, dioxin and PCBs accounts for the 

greatest number of impaired miles. Non-attainment of aquatic life criteria impairs 408 miles, 

oxygen depletion 464 miles, and pathogens 175 miles. 

The impairment sources are about equally divided between industrial point source discharges, 

unknown sources, and non-point sources with each affecting approximately 400 river miles. 

The primary non-point sources are agricultural affecting 358 river miles and development and 

urban stormwater affecting 199 river miles. (Source: 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring 

and Assessment Report)

The Volunteer River Monitoring Program (VRMP) provides technical support and resources to a 

network of volunteer groups. Currently there are nine watershed groups throughout the State 

that are part of the VRMP Program. In 2012 monitors covered an area of over 1,000 square 

miles of watershed, monitored 82 sites and completed 478 sampling events. Data collected 

included temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, bacteria, turbidity and total suspended 

solids.

Wetlands

DEP’s Biological Monitoring Program is primarily responsible for monitoring and assessing 

wetlands. In 1998, DEP began developing a biomonitoring program for wetlands which focuses 

on emergent and aquatic bed wetland habitat, including freshwater lacustrine and riverine 

fringe wetlands. Monitoring includes biological monitoring for macroinvertebrates, algae, and 

phytoplankton. In addition, ecological conditions are documented and a rapid assessment of 

stressors completed. A model that assesses freshwater wetland macroinvertebrate 

communities to predict attainment of tiered aquatic life use criteria in Maine’s water quality 

standards has been completed, but not implemented. The data are being interpreted to 

determine narrative aquatic life criteria for the Integrated Report. 

The primary causes of wetlands impairment are toxic contamination and benthic 

macroinvertebrate bioassessments accounting for 761 and 273 impaired acres respectively. 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

116

Sources of impairment are point and nonpoint sources (primarily agriculture, development and 

urban stormwater). 

Lakes

Monitoring and assessment of lakes is achieved primarily through the Maine Volunteer Lake 

Monitoring Program. Most of the water quality data is collected by volunteers and associated 

lake organizations/regional entities as described in the previous “Monitoring and Assessment 

Partners” section. The DEP Lakes Assessment Unit staff also undertake targeted and 

probability- based monitoring on a statewide basis annually. 

The causes of impairment are dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, secchi disk transparency, 

habitat assessment, and turbidity. The sources of impairment are mostly nonpoint sources. 

This includes agricultural sources affecting 16 lakes and development/urban stormwater 

affecting 27 lakes. Other sources of impairment include flow alterations and regulation, land 

treatment, landfills, internal recycling, and natural sources.

Estuaries/Marine Waters

Monitoring and assessment data for marine waters comes from a variety of sources to include 

DEP, other government agencies, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, and 

municipalities. DEP monitoring of toxic contamination is assessed using data collected through 

the DEP Surface Water Ambient Toxics (SWAT) program and the Gulf of Maine Council on the 

Maine Environment’s Gulfwatch project. The SWAT program analyzes blue mussel, softshell 

clam, and American lobster tissue as indicators of toxic contamination affecting human and 

ecological health. DEP also contributes to the Gulfwatch Contaminants Monitoring Program 

which is part of the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. Mussels collected 

through this program are analyzed for heavy metals, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs), PCB cogeners, and organochlorinated pesticides. Bacterial monitoring is done by 

several agencies including DEP for TMDL monitoring, DEP-Cooperative Extension (Maine 

Healthy Beaches program) for swimming beach quality, and Department of Marine Resources 

to determine shellfish closures. 

Causes of impairment include bacteria, low dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and other biological 

indicators of eutrophication and toxics. Bacterial contamination is a significant cause of 

impairment, affecting 159 square miles of estuarine waters (not including CSO affected waters). 

Toxics is also a primary cause of impairment (lobster tomalley consumption advisory). Sources 

of toxic contamination include industrial loads for dioxin, and for some harbor areas past 

activities have left dioxins, pesticides, metals, and PCBs. More recent toxic contamination 

originates from several sources. These sources include urban development (PAHs and metals), 

boat-related activities, combined sewer overflows, and atmospheric deposition.

Groundwater

The DEP, DHHS Division of Environmental Health, DACF Maine Geological Survey, and the U.S 

Geological Survey share responsibility for the protection and assessment of groundwater. 

Groundwater monitoring consists of two types of monitoring, site-specific or generalized. Most 

groundwater data is site-specific and is gathered as part of permit conditions, enforcement, or 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

117

impact assessments. General ambient monitoring is done by the Maine Geological Survey and 

U.S. Geological Survey. These two agencies monitor changes in water quality and quantity 

through a network of observation wells. DHHS also maintains a database of public water supply 

well water quality data. 

Maine’s groundwater efforts emphasize resource protection through three efforts. These are 

coordination of groundwater programs, assessment of protection problems that include 

enhancement of the Environmental and Geographic Analysis Database (EGAD), and increased 

groundwater protection and risk reduction. 

Assessment of groundwater impairment is not currently done as part of the DEP “Integrated 

Report” assessment. Contamination however likely threatens a significant area of Maine’s 

groundwater in developed areas of the State. Nonpoint source pollution is responsible for most 

groundwater pollution. Primary sources are agriculture, hazardous substance sites, spills, 

landfills, leaking underground storage tanks, septic systems, and shallow well injection. 

C. Collaborators and Partners

Much of the water quality data that is collected and assessed for the integrated report is 

collected through DEP monitoring programs. However, data are also provided from numerous 

other agencies, organizations and volunteer monitoring groups. Data collected by volunteer 

monitoring groups or conservation organizations must meet quality assurance/quality control 

requirements to be accepted by DEP. Volunteer groups that are part of the Maine Lake 

Volunteer Monitoring Program or Volunteer River Monitoring Program work under a Quality 

Assurance Project Plan and their data is directly managed by DEP. Conservation groups not 

under the umbrella of one of these programs must have an EPA approved QAPP or Department 

approved sampling plan. 

Rivers and Streams

DEP generates much of the State’s river and stream water quality data through its 

Biomonitoring Program, Surface Water Ambient Toxics (SWAT) Monitoring Program, Atlantic 

Salmon Recovery Plan as well as specific studies done for waste load allocations and TMDLs. 

Monitoring partners include the following:

 State agencies: Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Health and 

Human Services, University of Maine

 Federal agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, National 

Park Service

 Other governmental agencies: Saco River Corridor Commission, St. Croix International 

Waterway Commission

 Tribes: Penobscot Indian Nation, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians

 Volunteer and watershed groups working under the Volunteer River Monitoring Program

 Conservation organizations: Watershed Councils of the Dennys, East Machias, Machias, 

Pleasant, Narraguagus, Ducktrap and Sheepscot Rivers; Sheepscot Valley Conservation 

Association, Royal River Conservation Trust, Nature Conservancy
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

118

Lakes

Lake monitoring and assessment is done by the DEP Lakes Program. However, most data is 

generated from the Maine Lake Volunteer Monitoring Program. DEP partners with this 

nonprofit organization providing quality assurance/quality control oversight and data 

management. Monitoring partners providing lake/pond data include the following:

 Local lake associations

 Regional entities: Cobbossee Watershed District, Lakes Environmental Association, St. Croix 

International Waterway Commission, Allagash Wilderness Waterway, Portland Water 

District, Auburn Water District, Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust

 State agencies: Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Maine

 Federal agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Acadia National Park 

 Tribes: Penobscot Indian Nation

 Academic institutions: Colby College, Unity College

 Private consultants: as part of regulatory requirements

Water Utilities

Marine and Estuarine Waters

The DEP Marine Program generates data from its own environmental and toxics monitoring 

programs-Surface Water Ambient Toxics and Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine 

Environment’s Gulfwatch project. Most of the data, however, is provided by a variety of 

partners including:

 State agencies: Department of Marine Resources, New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services, University of Maine

 Maine Healthy Beaches Program, Casco Bay Estuary Partnership

 Nonprofits: Biodiversity Research Institute, Kennebec Estuary Land Trust, Maine 

Environmental Research Institute, Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory, Wells 

National Estuarine Research Reserve

 Volunteer and watershed groups working under the Volunteer River Monitoring Program

 Other volunteer and watershed groups: Friends of Blue Hill Bay, Friends of Casco Bay, 

Georges River Tidewater Association, Spruce Creek Association

For wetlands, DEP provides most of the data through its Biological Monitoring Program.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

119

Appendix 4. Targeted Assessment and Stressor Analysis

The success of restoration and protection efforts hinges on understanding the environmental 

stressors that are causing or could cause the impairment, and the watershed conditions that 

are generating those stressors. The purpose of this step is to inform the development of an 

effective watershed based plan by identifying and characterizing the relevant stressors and 

watershed conditions. The information required to accomplish this varies with the waterbody 

type and in many instances, whether or not the waterbody is impaired. 

A. Lake Watersheds

The water quality standard that is most likely to be violated in lakes and ponds is the trophic 

standard, which states that lakes and ponds (a) shall have a stable or decreasing trophic state, 

subject only to natural fluctuations; and (b) shall be free of culturally induced algal blooms 

which impair their use and enjoyment. Since the limiting factor for algal production in Maine 

lakes is the concentration of phosphorus in the water, the stressor of most concern for lakes is 

phosphorus loading. Hence, assessment efforts are focused on evaluating the lake’s trophic 

state; characterizing important current and potential phosphorus sources to the lake from both 

the lake’s watershed and its bottom sediments; and, as specifically as possible, identifying 

opportunities to reduce phosphorus loading to the lake.

 Water Quality - Each year DEP’s Lake Assessment Section, in combination with volunteers in 

Maine’s Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program, collect information on the trophic state of 

many of the State’s developed lakes. The data are used to evaluate the stability of trophic 

state in each lake; the incidence of algal blooms; and, especially in cases of lakes with 

increasing trophic state or algal blooms, the amount of phosphorus being recycled into the 

water column from the lake’s bottom sediments.

 Watershed Surveys - The method most often used to identify watershed phosphorus 

sources is the Lake Watershed Survey, in which volunteers, under the guidance of 

professionals, canvas the watershed to find specific, usually stormwater-related sources of 

phosphorus (e.g. unstable roads, eroding ditches, agricultural operations). The identified 

sources are then evaluated by professionals for the severity of the problem and the 

probable cost of repair, creating a very specific prioritized list of opportunities to reduce 

phosphorus loading to the lake.

 Internal Recycling Evaluation - Ongoing evaluation of the lake’s trophic state and a 

watershed survey that identifies opportunities to reduce phosphorus load to the lake are 

likely the only assessment efforts that will be used if the lake currently meets trophic 

standards. If the lake does not meet standards, assessment is likely to include intensive 

monitoring of the phosphorus mass in the water column over the period from May through 

September, and also the phosphorus, iron and aluminum content in the bottom sediments. 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

120

The purpose of this monitoring is to quantify the amount of internal recycling of 

phosphorus from the lake’s bottom sediments. 

B. Stream Watersheds

Stream watersheds typically present more complex challenges than lakes, especially if they are 

in urban settings and the aquatic life standard is violated or threatened. In Maine, each Class of 

river and stream has an aquatic life standard that describes the health of the biotic community 

that the stream must achieve. For Class AA and A streams, the community must be as naturally 

occurs; for Class B streams, the stream must support all indigenous aquatic species without 

detrimental change to the resident biological community; and for Class C streams, the stream 

must support all indigenous species of fish and the structure and function of the biological 

community must be maintained. There are many stressors that can cause or contribute to 

violation of this standard, so effective restoration and/or protection requires identification of 

which stressors are most important, or could become important, for any given stream situation. 

Given this, the suite of water quality, biological condition, habitat, stream corridor and 

watershed assessment tools employed varies depending on the condition of the stream and its 

watershed, and which stressors are most likely to contribute to impairment of the community.

Stream Restoration

Several different assessment tools are utilized when the stream in question is impaired, and 

particularly when the stream fails to meet its aquatic life standard. In most cases the 

assessment work is performed by several entities, with some elements done by DEP staff and 

others by the municipality, their consultants, or other local partners.

 Water Quality - Water quality is always monitored to some degree, and usually includes a 

mix of base flow and storm event monitoring at several stations. Typical parameters 

include temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), specific conductance, chloride, phosphorus, 

heavy metals and hydrocarbons. Rising stage samplers are often used during storm events, 

and data sondes routinely used to obtain continuous measurements of temperature, DO

and specific conductance. In order to focus in on discrete sources, conductivity screening, 

where many measurements are taken along the stream, may also be used.

 Biological Assessment - As part of the DEP’s ambient water quality assessment program,

biological assessments of the macroinvertebrate and the periphyton communities are made 

to define the impairment. There is often a signature in the community composition that 

indicates which stressors are in play and this can influence the direction in which other 

assessment efforts are focused. Biological assessments usually continue at regular intervals 

throughout the restoration process to assess effectiveness.

 Stream Habitat and Corridor Assessment - In-stream habitat and the condition of the 

stream corridor are also usually evaluated. Various habitat assessment and riparian 

corridor assessment tools are used and often volunteers assist in these assessments. This 

helps local citizens become familiar with the issues affecting their stream. Habitat condition 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

121

is characterized and areas where habitat is damaged are identified. Bank stability, flood 

plain integrity and the condition of riparian vegetation is also assessed. In cases where the 

stream receives excess storm flow from impervious surfaces in the watershed or where 

historic alterations have affected habitat integrity or flow regime, a fluvial 

geomorphological assessment is performed. This assessment describes the processes that 

are dominant in each reach of the stream channel, identifies and characterizes areas of 

channel instability, provides direction for watershed storm flow management and identifies 

opportunities for in stream habitat improvement projects.

 Watershed Assessment - Targeted assessment always includes some level of watershed 

assessment. It is important to understand where the water in various reaches of the stream 

comes from and what it comes into contact with on its way to the stream. In urban 

settings, it is often necessary to map the drainage infrastructure in order to accurately map 

the boundaries of the watershed, as well as the boundaries of catchments that drain to 

each stormwater outfall. Analysis of land use, particularly imperviousness, in each outfall 

catchment is helpful when identifying and prioritizing BMP retrofit opportunities in the 

watershed. In addition to watershed mapping, watershed surveys are often employed, 

sometimes using volunteers. The types of sources surveyed will vary depending on the 

dominant land uses in the watershed and which stressors are likely contributing to the 

impairment. In a rural impaired watershed, agricultural hotspots might be the focus of the 

survey, while in an urban setting hotspots such as road intersections, gas stations, and highturnover parking areas may be the focus.

Stream Protection

When the stream in question is threatened but not yet impaired, the assessment regime is 

usually limited and aimed at (a) ongoing evaluation of the biological community to insure it 

continues to meet appropriate aquatic life standards and (2) identifying the stressors most 

likely to become issues in the watershed. The latter is often accomplished with conductivity 

screening and continuous measurement of temperature, dissolved oxygen and specific 

conductance with data sondes and loggers. Stream corridor and habitat assessments may also 

be performed, with particular emphasis on identifying areas critical for riparian protection. A 

limited watershed survey may be performed to identify opportunities for retrofits of existing 

sources, but the main focus of assessment is often to guide development of local policies, 

ordinances, practices, and infrastructure improvement strategies that can be incorporated into 

an effective watershed protection plan.

C. Marine Watersheds

Coastal watersheds demonstrate considerable diversity in physical, chemical, and biological 

characteristics as they encompass estuarine waters ranging from barely measurable salinity to 

fully saline seawater in marine areas. Marine waters are influenced to varying degrees by 

freshwater inflows from rivers and streams as well as marine waters during flood tides and 

periods of offshore wind. Urban settings and large watersheds provide different sources, types, 

concentrations, and mechanisms of pollutant loading than do rural settings or small 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

122

watersheds. Additionally, characteristics of biological communities in marine waters differ 

based on tolerance to the physical and chemical environment. Because of this diversity, and 

also the variety of standards that may apply in certain situations, assessment strategies for 

marine waters will vary depending on the nature of the impairment or threat.

 Shellfish closures - The Maine Department of Marine Resources’ Shellfish Growing Area 

Program determines shellfish growing area classifications in all shellfish harvesting areas to 

ensure that only pollution-free areas are open to harvesting. Classifications are set through 

sanitary surveys that include a shoreline survey to identify pollution sources that may 

impact water quality; marine water sampling to determine fecal coliform bacterial levels in 

the marine water; and analysis of how weather conditions, tides, currents, and other factors 

may affect the distribution of pollutants in the area. Water samples are collected monthly 

from January through December. DMR sanitary surveys have identified NPS pollution as the 

likely sources of bacterial contamination in numerous shellfish harvesting areas in the state. 

DMR’s assessments are supported and complimented by a number of other organizations 

including the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership, the Friends of Casco Bay, the Marine 

Environmental Research Institute, the Wells Reserve, the Maine Clammers Association and 

many of the coastal municipalities.

 Contact Recreation - The Maine Healthy Beaches Program is a partnership between the 

University of Maine Cooperative Extension/Sea Grant, DEP, and local municipalities that 

brings together communities to perform standardized monitoring of beach water quality 

and notifies the public if health risks are detected. In cases where repeated. Each year the 

program selects a few beaches with chronic bacterial contamination do supplemental 

assessments to identify the source of the contamination. These “special projects” 

incorporate several assessment tools including circulation studies, bracket sampling for 

bacteria and whiteners, and in rare cases, microbial source tracking.

 Algal Blooms - In recent years there have been an increasing number of localized blooms of 

the macroalgae, Ulva (formerly Enteromorpha.spp, on coastal mudflats. These blooms can 

be detrimental to the native biological community. In some instances the blooms are fed 

by land-based nutrient sources from the watershed that drains to the flats. Assessments 

similar to the lake watershed survey can be effective in identifying the likely sources of 

nitrogen and/or phosphorus that are driving the blooms.

 Other Impairments of the Biological Community - As with rivers and streams, each class of 

estuarine and marine waters has narrative biological criteria. The criteria are the same for 

the marine Classes SA, SB and SC as they are for the riverine Classes A, B and C respectively. 

There are many different stressors that can cause a biological impairment so assessment 

strategies must be aimed first at identifying the stressors responsible for the impairment 

and next, at identifying the watershed conditions that are contributing to the impairment. 

When the marine waterbody in question is impaired, threatened, or in need of protection, 

many different assessment tools and methods may be employed. These include water 
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

123

quality monitoring, biological assessments habitat assessments and source identification. 

Additionally, comparisons with historical data may indicate meaningful changes over time, 

and local knowledge of landowners, municipal officials and fishermen can inform site 

selection and focused study. Furthermore, knowledge of waterbody characteristics can 

help to identify comparable waterbodies for use as reference.

 Water Quality - Monitoring efforts generally consists of measurement of temperature, 

salinity, D.O., pH, turbidity, chlorophyll a throughout the water column, water clarity, 

inorganic and total nitrogen, and phosphorus in the surface water. In the water column, 

light attenuation and organic nutrients, including carbon, can also be monitored to address 

specific research questions. Studies of sediments may include chemistry of pore water. 

Data sondes and sensors used discretely or unattended, permit acquisition of the above 

data types, and chemistry is completed with grab samples analyzed by qualified labs.

 Biological Assessments - Assessments of benthic floral and faunal communities assist in 

characterization of the impact on the resident biological community and can demonstrate 

communities where invasive species could dominate. Biological community assessments 

can include inventorying the distribution, abundance, and density of individuals as well as 

species and higher order level diversity of marine macrophytes (seagrasses, macroalgae), 

epifauna, and infauna. Presence and proliferation of particular organisms, especially those 

in areas of chronic or temporal high temperature, low pH, hypoxia or anoxia, and persistent 

nutrient or pollutant loading can indicate biological responses to stressors that support 

impairment of numeric or narrative criteria. The absence or low abundance and diversity of 

particular species can similarly indicate the influence of stressors.

 Habitat Assessments - Habitat assessments assist in determining suitability of water or 

sediment for the native biological community. Characterization of habitats can include 

chemical analysis of water or sediment pore water, particle size analysis, habitat 

complexity, and in-water structure including man-made (e.g. docks, anchors and mooring 

buoys) and natural features (e.g. cobble and boulders, macrophyte substrate). Mapping of 

habitat types relative to watershed characteristics and point and NPS influences can also 

explain sensitivity of habitats to change based on suspected anthropogenic influences. 

Degraded habitat is often identified by hypoxic or anoxic and acidic waters, surface 

sediments with high sulfide concentrations and corresponding bacterial community, 

scarring from dragging or erosion, fragmented macrophyte distribution with a high 

occurrence of invasive species, or the absence of life.

 Pollution Source Evaluation - Targeted assessment also includes some evaluation of 

watershed, offshore, and atmospheric influences to determine relative contributions of 

pollution sources. Watershed influences consider location and intensity of adjacent and 

upstream land use, change over time in land uses, minimization of impacts and use of 

BMPs, seasonal and year-round population, and proximity of point source discharges and 

their effluent quality and quantity. In-water influences consider extent of tidal magnitude 

and associated flows, and size and type of inflows, whether regulated or naturally flowing.
Maine NPS Management Program Plan 2015-2019 (September 15, 2014) Maine DEP

124

End of Document