Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

 (Total Maximum Daily Loads) 

August 2009 

Report # DEPLW-1002

Prepared by: 

ENSR 

Prepared for: 

Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Marine &

Estuarine Waters
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

i 

Table of Contents 

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................4

2.0 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................5

2.1 Bacteria ...................................................................................................................................5

2.2 Bacteria Sources .....................................................................................................................6

2.2.1 Point Source Pollution ..............................................................................................6

Illicit Discharges.......................................................................................................................6

Wastewater Discharges & Treatment Facilities ......................................................................6

Overboard Discharges.............................................................................................................6

Accidental & Unspecified Discharges......................................................................................6

Combined Sewer Overflows....................................................................................................6

Stormwater ..............................................................................................................................7

2.2.2 Non-point Source Pollution.......................................................................................8

Stormwater ..............................................................................................................................8

Septic Systems........................................................................................................................8

Pet Waste ................................................................................................................................8

Wildlife Waste..........................................................................................................................8

Agriculture ...............................................................................................................................9

Recreation ...............................................................................................................................9

2.3 Monitoring Bacteria for Compliance with Water Quality Standards & Source Identification...9

2.4 Waterbody Descriptions and Priority Ranking.......................................................................11

3.0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ..................................................................................................19

3.1 Applicable Water Quality Standards......................................................................................19

3.2 Numeric Water Quality Target...............................................................................................20

4.0 TMDL ..............................................................................................................................................23

4.1 TMDL Definition.....................................................................................................................23

4.2 Loading Capacity, MOS, and Allocations..............................................................................23

4.2.1 Concentration TMDLs.............................................................................................24

4.3 Seasonal Considerations ......................................................................................................28

4.4 Future TMDL Applicability .....................................................................................................28

5.0 MONITORING PLAN......................................................................................................................28

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.............................................................................................................28

6.1 Best Management Practices & Educational Resources........................................................29

6.1.1 Maine NPS Watershed Management.....................................................................30

6.2 Case Studies, for Real People ..............................................................................................31

6.2.1 Spruce Creek, Low Impact Development Retrofit Study........................................31

6.2.2 Spruce Creek, Neighborhood Septic Social ...........................................................33

6.2.3 Casco Bay, Shoreline Surveys ...............................................................................35

6.2.4 Casco Bay, Overboard Discharge Project..............................................................36

6.2.5 Seal Harbor Beach, Watershed Survey..................................................................38

6.2.6 Kenduskeag Stream (Bangor) ................................................................................40

7.0 REASONABLE ASSURANCE .......................................................................................................46

8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION..............................................................................................................46

9.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................48
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

ii 

List of Tables 

Table 2-1. Rivers and Streams Impaired by Bacteria and Pollutants Other Than Those Listed in 5-B 

Through 5-D (TMDL Required) [Maine Listing Category 5-A] (MEDEP 2008)............................14

Table 2-2. Rivers and Streams Impaired by Bacteria Contamination (TMDL Required) [Maine Listing 

Category 5-B] (MEDEP 2008) .....................................................................................................15

Table 2-3. Estuarine and Marine Waters Impaired only by Bacteria (TMDL Required) [Maine Listing 

Category 5-B] (MEDEP 2008). ....................................................................................................16

Table 2-4. Estuarine and Marine Waters Impaired by Pollutants Other Than Those Listed in 5-B Through 

5-D (TMDL Required) [Maine Listing Category 5-A] (MEDEP 2008). .........................................19

Table 2-5. Estuarine and Marine Waters Impaired by Bacteria from Combined Sewer Overflows [Maine 

Listing Category 5-B-2] (MEDEP 2008).......................................................................................19

Table 3-1. Bacteria Water Quality Standards Applicable to Maine Waters ..................................................21

Table 4-1. TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs for Fresh Water Bacteria (May 15 – September 30)............................25

Table 4-2. TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs for Estuarine and Marine Waters (non-shellfish harvesting areas) 

Bacteria (May 15 – September 30)..............................................................................................26

Table 4-3. Bacteria (Fecal Coliform) TMDLs WLAs, and LAs for Shellfish Harvesting Areas (applicable 

year round)...................................................................................................................................27

List of Figures 

Figure 2-1. Relationships among Indicator Organisms (USEPA 2001) with Maine’s indicator organisms 

highlighted......................................................................................................................................5

Figure 2-2. Combined Sewer Overflows Locations in Maine...........................................................................7

Figure 2-3. Maine Healthy Coastal Beach Program Monitoring Locations (MHB 2006). .............................10

Figure 2-4. Maine Bacteria Impaired Segments. ..........................................................................................11

Figure 2-5. Maine Major Watersheds (HUC8) ..............................................................................................13

Figure 3-1. Maine Shellfish Growing Areas Classification............................................................................22

Appendix I Freshwaters 

Appendix II Marine & Estuarine Waters 

Appendix III TMDL Calculations & Graphs 

Appendix IV Impaired Segments with TMDL Endpoints 

Appendix V Public Comments & DEP Response 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

iii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AFO Animal Feeding Operation 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CDBG Community Development Block Grant 

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZM Coastal Zone Management 

DDT Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane 

DECTA Division of Engineering, Compliance and Technical Assistance (ME) 

DLLR Division of Land Resource Regulation (ME) 

DMF Department of Marine Fisheries (ME) 

DMR Division of Marine Resources (ME) 

DWM Division of Watershed Management (ME) 

DWQM Division of Water Quality Management (ME) 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GMWQS Geometric Mean Water Quality Standard 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

LA Load Allocation 

MEDEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

MEP Maximum Extent Practicable 

MHB Maine Healthy Beaches 

MEPDES Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

MOS Margin of Safety 

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

MSD Marine Sanitation Device 

NDA No Discharge Area 

NDZ No Discharge Zone 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS Non Point Source 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRPA Natural Resource Protection Act 

NSSP National Shellfish Sanitation Program 

OBD Overboard Discharge 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

PS Point Source 

SCGP Small Community Grant Program 

SRF State Revolving Fund 

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow 

SSWQS Single Sample Water Quality Standard 

SWMP Storm Water Management Plan 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USFDA United States Food and Drug Administration 

VRMP Volunteer River Monitoring Program (ME) 

WLA Waste Load Allocation 

WLAc Waste Load Allocation from continuous sources 

WQS Water Quality Standards 

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

4 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) is designed to support action to reduce 

public health risk from waterborne disease-causing organisms. Specific types of non-pathogenic bacteria 

are used as indicator organisms, or surrogates, for these pathogens in water. Waterborne pathogens 

(bacteria, viruses, etc.) enter surface waters from a variety of sources, including human sewage and the 

feces of warm-blooded wildlife. These pathogens can pose a risk to human health due to gastrointestinal 

illness through different exposure routes, including contact with and ingestion of recreational waters, 

ingestion of drinking water, and consumption of filter-feeding shellfish (clams, mussels, etc.). 

Maine’s bacteria TMDL consist of two formats of targets for allowable levels of bacteria: 

 Concentrations of bacteria (expressed as bacteria counts/100mL of water) 

 Loads of bacteria (expressed as numbers of bacteria/day) 

Both formats express targets designed to attain the designated uses of swimming and shellfishing, and to 

meet the associated criteria in Maine’s water quality standards. These TMDLs set a goal of meeting 

bacteria water quality criteria at the point of discharge for all sources in order to meet water quality 

standards throughout the waterbody. Achievement of the goal will be assessed by ambient water quality 

monitoring. 

These maximum bacteria levels for both point and nonpoint sources provide pollutant targets with which 

Clean Water Act actions (such as discharge permits) must be consistent. The concentration-based targets 

are most useful for guiding implementation of bacteria controls because the target is easy to understand, 

and achievement of that target is more readily assessed by groups with limited resources. 

The Maine’s bacteria TMDL protections for recreational uses apply state-wide on a seasonal basis from 

May 15 through September 30, as required by Maine statute [MRSA §465]. Maine’s bacteria TMDLs for 

the protection of shellfish harvesting apply year-round, as required by Maine statute [MRSA § 6172]. The 

TMDLs apply specifically to 62 river segments, 143 estuarine & marine waters (including 13 affected by 

CSOs) that are impaired for bacteria and are listed on Maine’s 2008 §303(d) list of impaired waters needing 

TMDL development (as required under §303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act)(MEDEP 2008). As future 

monitoring identifies additional bacteria-impaired segments of Maine waters, these bacteria TMDLs may be 

applied to those waters and made available for public comment through Maine’s publicly reviewed §303(d) 

listing process every two years. 

This bacteria TMDL report provides documentation of impairment and information on pollutant sources that 

are not only required for TMDL approval, but are also intended to provide a guide for future TMDL 

implementation by watershed stakeholders, as well as protection for waters that are not currently impaired 

or not assessed for bacteria. TMDL information applicable to all waters appears in the main body of the 

report, and more detailed waterbody-specific information is organized by watershed in the appendices. 

Although not required for TMDL approval, this report also provides a broad array of tools to get 

communities, watershed groups, and other stakeholders started implementing bacterial controls. This 

report is intended to promote, encourage, and inform local community action for water quality improvement 

and protection of public health by addressing sources of bacterial contamination. 

 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

5 

2.0 BACKGROUND 

2.1 Bacteria 

Bacteria are used as indicators of the presence of pathogens in water. Direct ingestion of pathogencontaminated water or the consumption of filter-feeding shellfish from contaminated waters can cause 

gastrointestinal illness. Waterborne pathogens enter surface waters from a variety of sources including 

human sewage and the feces of other warm-blooded animals. These pathogens include a broad range of 

bacteria and viruses that are difficult to identify, isolate and quantify. Nonpathogenic bacteria have been 

identified that are typically associated with harmful pathogens, and are used as indicator bacteria or 

surrogates for assessing the presence of pathogens. High numbers of indicator bacteria increase the 

probability of pathogenic organisms also being present in the water. 

Maine uses E. coli as indicator organisms of potential harmful pathogens in fresh waters and enterococci 

for estuarine or marine recreational waters (38 MRSA Ch. 3 §465). To determine risk in shellfish 

harvesting areas, total coliform or fecal coliform organisms are used (criteria recommended under the 

National Shellfish Sanitation Program; NSSP 2005). The relationship of indicator organisms is 

diagrammed in Figure 2-1, and Maine’s indicators are highlighted. Specific indicator criteria are provided in 

the Water Quality Standards Section 3.0 of this report. 

Figure 2-1. Relationships among Indicator Organisms (USEPA 2001) with Maine’s indicator 

organisms highlighted. 

Indicator Organism 

Total Coliform 

Bacteria 

Fecal Streptococci 

Fecal Coliform 

Bacteria 

Escherichia coli 

Enterococci Streptococcus 

bovia 

Streptococcus 

equinus 

Streptococcus 

avium 

Enterococcus 

faecalis

Enterococcus 

faecium
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

6 

2.2 Bacteria Sources 

Sources of indicator bacteria and the pathogens they represent can generally be categorized into two major 

groups: point sources (PS) and non-point sources (NPS). A PS, as defined in the Clean Water Act 

§502(14), is much broader than the commonly recognized point source discharges from municipal 

wastewater or industrial treatment plants, and includes federally regulated stormwater: 

... means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, 

ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal 

feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. 

This term does not include agricultural storm water discharges and return flows from irrigated 

agriculture. 

2.2.1 Point Source Pollution 

Point sources are subject to permitting requirements under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) program (CWA §402). In Maine, the MEDEP is authorized to administer this permit 

program which regulates and ensures compliance with Maine’s water quality standards. The Maine 

program is referred to as the MEPDES program. Permit limits issued for a discharge to an impaired 

waterbody must be consistent with any relevant TMDLs approved for that waterbody. 

Bacteria Point Sources include; 

Illicit Discharges

• Illicit discharges include any discharges to stormwater systems that are not entirely composed of 

stormwater. These include intentional or unknown illegal connections from commercial or residential 

buildings, failing septic systems, and improper disposal of sewage from campers and boats. These 

sources can contribute significantly to the load of bacteria in stormwater, particularly during periods of 

dry flow. Removal of illicit discharges to storm sewer systems, particularly of sanitary wastes, is an 

effective means of reducing bacteria loading to receiving waters 

Wastewater Discharges & Treatment Facilities

• The Division of Water Resource Regulation (DWRR) is responsible for the licensing and re-licensing of 

all surface water discharges of pollutants (industrial, commercial, municipal and residential). 

Overboard Discharges

• Overboard Discharge applies to small cluster developments where no municipal system is available 

and subsurface disposal is unsuitable. The OBD law allows for inspection, funds to eliminate 

discharges, and has opened over 17,000 acres of shellfish harvesting areas. 

Accidental & Unspecified Discharges

• The Division of Water Resource Regulation is responsible for all formal enforcement actions regarding 

complaints about wastewater discharges that are taken by MEDEP. Staff also conducts sanitary 

surveys and takes remedial actions needed to identify and remove sources that are contributing to the 

closure of shellfish harvesting areas or other water quality impairments. 

Combined Sewer Overflows

• Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) discharge a combination of untreated sanitary sewer and 

stormwater to wastewater treatment facilities and can be a significant source of bacterial pollution 

during wet weather. Thirty-five Maine communities are now served by combined sewer systems, which 

convey a combination of sanitary and storm water flows to wastewater treatment facilities. During dry 

weather, all of the sewage in a combined system is conveyed to the treatment plant for adequate 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

7 

treatment. However, during rainstorms or snow-melt periods, stormwater mixes with the sanitary 

sewage, causing flows that exceed the capacity of the sewer system. This results in combined sewer 

overflows (CSOs), which vary extensively in pollutant types, concentrations and loads, as well as in 

volume of overflow and severity of impact to the receiving waterbodies. See Figure X for a state-wide 

map showing the location of CSOs in Maine. 

Maine has established an aggressive program, coordinated with EPA's CSO program, to assist 

communities in evaluating the design, condition, activity, and effects of combined sewer systems and 

overflows. Since the program started in 1989, Maine has achieved significant reductions, including a 

55-65% decrease in the number of overflow days, and a 60-70% reduction in the volume of CSO 

discharges. Abatement of CSOs is costly, with $304M reportedly spent by Maine CSO communities 

through 2007. Continued public support for this program is essential to future progress towards 

improving water quality. For more information, including an annual overflow status report, go to: 

[http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/doceng/csotech.htm]. 

Figure 2-2. Combined Sewer Overflows Locations in Maine. 

Stormwater 

• Stormwater runoff is a leading contributor towards impairment of our nation’s waters and often contains 

high concentrations of bacteria from watershed sources. Urbanization and associated impervious 

surfaces have a significant impact on the hydrology within a watershed by increasing the amount of 

runoff to receiving surface waters. Runoff that enters municipal stormwater drainage systems and are 

discharged directly to surface waters are permitted under the NPDES Phase I and Phase II programs, 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

8 

but are not subject to numeric permit limits. Municipalities that operate separate storm sewer systems 

(MS4s) are subject to Phase I or II requirements and must develop and implement a stormwater 

management plan (SWMP) to address problems. In Maine, all construction sites disturbing one or 

more acres must apply for a Maine Construction General Permit (MCGP) in accordance with 38 MRSA 

Ch. 3 §420-D Storm Water Management, and 11 sectors of industries cannot discharge stormwater 

without a multisector general permit (MSGP) 

 Regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), 

 Regulated Construction sites , 

 Regulated Industrial Sectors, and 

 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) 

2.2.2 Non-point Source Pollution 

Nonpoint source discharges are diffuse and result from the transport of pollutants to receiving waters by 

rainfall or snow melt, either from groundwater leachate or overland runoff (e.g., agricultural runoff, or 

stormwater runoff in unregulated suburban and rural areas). NPS discharges can be difficult to manage, 

but, some of the same principles for mitigating point source impacts may be applicable. 

Bacteria Non-Point Sources include: 

Stormwater 

 Non-point source (NPS) stormwater discharges are generally characterized as diffuse or sheet flow 

runoff and are not categorically regulated under the NPDES program. This is polluted stormwater 

runoff from areas outside of the federally designated MS4 urbanized areas 

(http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/docstand/stormwater/maps/index.htm). 

Septic Systems

 Failing private septic systems can be a significant source of bacteria. When properly installed, 

operated, and maintained, septic systems effectively reduce bacteria concentrations in sewage. 

However, age, overloading, or poor maintenance can result in failure of septic systems and the release 

of bacteria and other pollutants (USEPA 2002). To reduce the release of bacteria, practices can be 

employed to maximize the life of existing systems, identify failed systems, and replace or remove failed 

systems. Alternatively, the installation of public sewers may be appropriate. 

Pet Waste

 In residential areas, pet waste can be a significant contributor of bacteria in stormwater. Each dog is 

estimated to produce 200 grams of feces per day, and pet feces can contain up to 23,000,000 fecal 

coliform colonies per gram (Center for Watershed Protection 1999). If the waste is not properly 

disposed of, these bacteria can wash into storm drains or directly into water bodies and contribute to 

bacteria impairment. Encouraging pet owners to properly collect and dispose of pet waste is the 

primary means for reducing the impact of pet waste. 

Wildlife Waste

 Fecal matter from wildlife is a significant source of bacteria in some watersheds. This is particularly true 

when human activities, including the feeding of wildlife and habitat modification, result in the 

congregation of wildlife. Concentrations of geese, gulls, and ducks are of particular concern because 

they often deposit their waste directly into surface waters. Therefore, they can be major sources of 

bacteria, particularly in lakes and ponds where large resident populations have become established 

near beaches (Center for Watershed Protection 1999). 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

9 

Agriculture

 Agricultural land includes dairy farming, raising livestock and poultry, growing crops and keeping 

horses and other animals for pleasure or profit. Activities and facilities associated with agricultural land 

use can be sources of bacteria impairment to surface waters. Communities, farmers, horse owners 

and others who confine animals are largely responsible for mitigating bacteria pollution. Activities and 

facilities with the potential to contribute to bacteria impairment include: 

 Manure storage and application, 

 Livestock grazing, 

 Animal feeding operations and barnyards, and 

 Paddock and exercise areas for horses and other animals. 

Recreation

 Recreational uses of waters can contribute to bacteria loads. Swimming beaches, marinas, and areas 

frequented by boats may be impacted by any of the bacteria sources discussed in the preceding 

sections of this document. In addition, there are a number of bacteria sources that are specific to these 

areas: 

 Bacteria from swimmers 

 Sewage & graywater from boats 

 Shore-based marina facilities 

2.3 Monitoring Bacteria for Compliance with Water Quality Standards & Source 

Identification 

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) is responsible for assessing Maine’s water 

quality and attainment of water quality standards. Every two years, this information is compiled into 

Maine’s Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. The impaired waters list (required 

under §303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act) is now combined with the broader “305b” water quality 

assessment report to fulfill reporting requirements of US EPA and the Maine State Legislature. 

[http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/impairedwaters/index.htm] 

Assessment of impairment due to bacteria is based on repeated measures collected and processed 

according to quality assurance protocols. Waters are listed as impaired in Category 5 of Maine’s Integrated 

Report when the geometric mean exceeds the standards. Additionally, waters are listed and need a TMDL 

according to the following guidelines (MEDEP 2008): 

1. Current data (collected within five years) either indicates impaired use, or a trend toward expected 

impairment within the listing period, and where quantitative or qualitative data/information from 

professional sources indicates that the cause of impaired use is from a pollutant(s), 

2. Water quality models predict impaired use under current loading for a standard, and where 

quantitative or qualitative data/information from professional sources indicates that the cause of 

impaired use is from a pollutant(s), or, 

3. Those waters have been previously listed on the State’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, based on 

current or old data that indicated the involvement of a pollutant(s), and where there has been no 

change in management or conditions that would indicate attainment of use. 

For bacteria assessments, “there must be a plausible human or domestic animal source of bacteria for an 

impairment determination to be made (38 MRSA Section 465, 465-A, 465B)” (MEDEP 2008). 

In general, monitoring bacteria indicator organisms for source identification involves sampling ambient 

water quality under both dry and wet conditions because many sources of bacteria are diffuse and 

intermittent (rather than flowing from an identifiable pipe on a regular basis). High levels of bacteria during 

dry conditions indicate the presence of direct wastewater discharges, or contamination from groundwater 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

10 

leachate (from agriculture, leaking sewer pipes, illicit connections to stormdrains), from recreational 

activities (swimmers and boaters), or from wildlife (including birds). High levels of bacteria during wet 

conditions (rainfall) indicate contamination from wildlife and domesticated animals (including pets), 

stormwater runoff (including municipal separate storm systems or MS4s), or discharges from combined 

sewer overflows (CSOs). Trying to monitor bacteria sources directly for accurate quantitative estimates of 

contributions from various sources is extremely difficult, time consuming, and expensive. A more 

reasonable monitoring approach is to use ambient data collected during both wet and dry conditions to 

estimate the bacteria levels from all contributing sources. 

MEDEP relies heavily on volunteer monitoring of bacteria to protect recreational uses. MEDEP 

enforcement staff gathers data when investigating complaints and inspecting potential sources of 

contamination where problems are suspected. Additional potential sources for bacteria monitoring data 

include: watershed organizations, volunteer monitoring programs, other state, local, or federal agencies 

and Indian Tribes. Volunteer monitoring programs with MEDEP-approved monitoring plans (to assure 

quality data) include the Maine Volunteer Lakes Monitoring Program 

[http://www.mainevolunteerlakemonitors.org] and the Maine Healthy Beaches (MHB) Program 

[http://www.mainehealthybeaches.org]. 

Figure 2-3. Maine Healthy Coastal Beach Program Monitoring Locations (MHB 2006). 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

11 

Public coastal swim beaches are monitored for indicator bacteria during the beach season, which is 

from Memorial Day to Labor Day, using EPA-approved quality control and quality assurance 

methods. Municipalities, state parks, and volunteer groups monitor water quality and provide public 

notification of unhealthy conditions. An online database provides beach managers, town and state 

park officials, and MHB program staff with immediate access to water monitoring data, allowing 

them to make decisions about posting advisories more efficiently. The public may view the status 

and data for each beach at [www.MaineHealthyBeaches.org] (MHB 2008). 

Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) is the state shellfish control authority and is solely 

responsible for the classification (and maintenance of classification) of shellfish growing areas in 

accordance with guidelines defined in the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conferences (ISSC) National 

Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) Model Ordinance (MO) which establishes the minimum requirements 

necessary to protect public health of shellfish consumers (MEDMR 2007). 

There are generally two types of monitoring performed to protect shellfish growing areas. First, DMR 

conducts extensive water quality monitoring and evaluation of potential and actual pollution sources using 

sanitary and shoreline surveys in order to prevent illness from shellfish consumption. “All shoreline 

properties adjacent to growing areas are inspected for evidence of existing or potential sources of fecal 

matter, such as on-site septic systems, municipal sewage treatment facilities, agricultural/livestock 

operations, and wildlife. Shoreline surveys are conducted on a regular basis, and growing areas are 

classified accordingly.” (MEDMR 2007). DMR also conducts regular water quality testing in shellfish 

growing areas for the presence of fecal coliform bacteria to ensure that shellfish harvest areas are 

classified correctly. Secondly, water quality sampling is conducted on classified shellfish areas to identify, 

investigate, and remediate pollution sources. The DMR has limited resources for this work and relies 

heavily on volunteer monitoring that are trained by DMR’s volunteer coordinator and shellfish area water 

quality staff. 

Protocols of the Shellfish Growing Area Classification Program were revised April 26, 2007 

[http://www.maine.gov/dmr/rm/public_health/FinalGrowingAreaSOP4-26-2007.pdf] and uses sampling 

methods outlined in NSSP MO. Maine uses Systematic Random Sampling to monitor the classification of 

growing areas and Adverse Sampling to evaluate pollution source impact on shellfish growing areas 

(MEDMR 2007). 

2.4 Waterbody Descriptions and Priority Ranking 

There are 62 river and stream segments and 143 estuarine and marine segments listed on Maine’s 2008 

303(d) list (MEDEP 2008) as impaired due to bacteria1.. These 205 bacteria-impaired segments are 

located in 13 of the 21 major watersheds (8 digit hydrologic unit code basins) within the State of Maine and 

are shown in Figure 2-4 and Figure 3-1. Detailed descriptions, maps and calculations to support the TMDL 

for impaired waters are provided in Appendix I, Freshwaters and Appendix II, Marine & Estuarine Waters. 

These 21 major basins (HUC 8) in the State of Maine (Figure 2-5) contain approximately 1 million acres of 

lakes, ponds and reservoirs, 3.2 million acres of wetlands, 45,000 miles of rivers and streams and 5,300 

miles of coastline (MEDEP 2008). Maine supports a population of 1.3 million people, which is not very 

dense given the overall size of Maine (35,000 square miles; 37 people per square mile). Much of the 

population is concentrated along the coastline and in the southern portion of Maine. It is these populated 

areas that generally correspond with the bacteria-impaired waterbodies listed on Maine’s CWA § 303(d) 

list. 

1. Monitoring data identifying bacteria-impaired segments in the Meduxnekeag Watershed (see Appendix I, Section III) were 

inadvertently overlooked during Maine’s 2008 §303(d) listing process. This Bacteria TMDL will be applied to those waters 

determined to be impaired and will be included in Maine’s2010 publicly reviewed §303(d) listing process. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

12 

Figure 2-4. Maine Bacteria Impaired Segments. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

13 

Figure 2-5. Maine Major Watersheds (HUC8) 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

14 

In Maine’s Integrated List of Waters, waters that are threatened or impaired due to non attainment of one or 

more designated uses and that require a TMDL are listed in Category 5. The following are four 

subcategories within Category 5 (MEDEP 2008), each representing different impairment sources and 

priority for TMDL development: 

3⁄4 5-A: Impairment caused by pollutants (other than those listed in categories 5-B through 

5-D). 

3⁄4 5-B: Impairment is caused solely by bacteria contamination. 

3⁄4 5-C: Impairment caused by atmospheric deposition of mercury and a regional scale. 

3⁄4 5-D: Impairment caused by “legacy” pollutant. 

These freshwaters are impaired only by PCBs, dioxins, DDT, or other substances 

already banned from production or use. These coastal waters have a consumption 

advisory for the tomalley of lobsters due to the presence of persistent 

bioaccumulating toxics found in that organ. 

Maine’s bacteria TMDLs address subcategories 5-A and 5-B. Development of TMDLs for bacteria impaired 

waters in categories B has been moved up in priority partially in response to local interest in addressing this 

risk to human health, especially in coastal areas subject to development. Tables 2-1 through 2-6 provide a 

listing of waterbodies currently listed as impaired by bacteria in the State of Maine. 

Water quality data used in the assessment process for each segment impaired by bacteria is provided in 

Appendix I, Freshwaters and Appendix II, Marine & Estuarine Waters. Appendix IV contains an expanded 

version of Tables 2-1 through 2-5 with additional information and TMDL endpoints. 

Table 2-1. Rivers and Streams Impaired by Bacteria and Pollutants Other Than Those Listed in 

5-B Through 5-D (TMDL Required) [Maine Listing Category 5-A] (MEDEP 2008). 

Assessment Unit ID Segment Name 

Segment 

Size 

(Miles) 

Segment 

Class 

Category 5-A 

ME0101000105_103R01 Shields Branch of Big Black R mainstem 8.16 Class AA 

ME0102000110_205R03 Millinocket Stream (Millinocket) 3.03 Class C 

ME0102000506_222R01 Costigan Str (Costigan) 0.78 Class B 

ME0103000306_320R03 Whitten Brook (Skowhegan) 1.12 Class B 

ME0103000309_332R 

Sebasticook River main stem, below confluence with E and W 

branches 30.83 Class C 

ME0104000208_413R01 Jepson Brook (Lewiston) 2.43 Class B 

ME0104000208_413R03 Stetson Brook (Lewiston) 6.82 Class B 

ME0104000208_413R04 Logan Brook, Auburn 0.96 Class B 

ME0104000208_413R07 Gully Brook (Lewiston) 1.91 Class B 

ME0104000210_418R02 No Name Brook (Lewiston) 10.02 Class C 

ME0104000210_419R02 Hart Brook (Lewiston) A.K.A Dill Brook and including Goff Bk 4.15 Class B 

ME0105000213_514R_01 Card Brook (Ellsworth) 1.2 Class B 

ME0105000305_528R03 Dyer River below Rt 215 9.35 Class B 

ME0106000103_607R03 Colley Wright Brook (Windham) 8.16 Class B 

ME0106000103_607R06 Hobbs Brook (Cumberland) 1.54 Class B 

ME0106000103_607R07 Inkhorn Brook (Westbrook) 4.32 Class B 

ME0106000103_607R08 Mosher Brook (Gorham) 2.03 Class B 

ME0106000103_607R09 Otter Brook (Windham) 2.16 Class B 

ME0106000103_607R12 

Pleasant River (Windham) mainstem of Pleasant River from Thayer 

Brook to confluence with Presumpscot 8.8 Class B 

ME0106000106_602R01 Frost Gully Brook 4.04 Class A 

ME0106000211_616R05 Thatcher Bk (Biddeford) 5.67 Class B 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

15 

Table 2-2. Rivers and Streams Impaired by Bacteria Contamination (TMDL Required) [Maine 

Listing Category 5-B] (MEDEP 2008) 

Assessment Unit ID Segment Name 

Segment 

Size 

(Miles) 

Segment 

Class 

Category 5-B 

ME0101000121_117R St. John River at Madawaska 0 * Class C 

ME0101000413_146R01 Webster Brook 12.1 Class B 

ME0102000402_219R_02 Piscataquis River at Dover Foxcroft 0 * Class B 

ME0102000403_215R_02 Sebec River at Milo 0 * Class B 

ME0102000509_226R01 Otter Stream 6.27 Class B 

ME0102000509_226R02 Boynton Brook 2.64 Class B 

ME0102000509_233R_02 Penobscot River at Orono 0 * Class B 

ME0102000509_233R_03 Penobscot River at Old Town-Milford 0 * Class B 

ME0102000510_224R02 Kenduskeag Stream 1.5 Class B 

ME0102000513_234R Penobscot River 0 * Class B 

ME0103000306_320R02 Currier Brook 3.19 Class B 

ME0103000306_338R_02 Kennebec River at Fairfield 0 * Class C 

ME0103000306_338R_03 Kennebec River at Skowhegan 0 * Class B 

ME0103000312_333R02 Whitney Brook (Augusta) 2.68 Class B 

ME0103000312_339R_02 Kennebec River at Waterville 0 * Class B 

ME0103000312_340R_02 

Kennebec River at Augusta, including Riggs 

Brook 0 * Class B 

ME0103000312_340R_03 Kennebec River at Hallowell 0 * Class B 

ME0103000312_340R_04 Kennebec River at Gardiner-Randolph 0 * Class B 

ME0104000209_417R_02 Little Androscoggin River at Mechanic Falls 0 * Class C 

ME0104000210_425R_02 Androscoggin River 0 * Class C 

ME0105000108_505R_02 St. Croix R, (Calais) 0* 

ME0105000203_508R02 Pottle Brook (Perry) 0.5 Class B 

ME0105000220_522R01_01 Megunticook River (Camden) 3.56 Class B 

ME0105000220_522R02_01 Unnamed Brook (Camden) 0.7 Class B 

ME0105000220_522R03 Unnamed Brook (Rockport) 0.5 Class B 

ME0105000220_522R04 Unnamed Brook (Rockland) 0.5 Class B 

ME0105000305_528R01 Sheepscot River at Alna 4.01 Class AA 

ME0106000103_607R04 Piscataqua River (Falmouth) 12.53 Class B 

ME0106000103_607R11 Nason Brook (Gorham) 2.7 Class B 

ME0106000103_609R_02 Presumpscot River at Westbrook 0 * Class C 

ME0106000106_612R01_02 Bear Brook, Saco 0 * Class B 

ME0106000106_616R04 Bear Bk 0.5 Class B 

ME0106000204_618R01 Saco R 5 Class AA 

ME0106000209_614R01 Ossippee R 5 Class B 

ME0106000211_616R02 Tappan Bk 0.5 Class B 

ME0106000211_616R03 Sawyer Bk 0.5 Class B 

ME0106000211_616R06 Swan Pond Brook at South Street (Biddeford) 1 Class B 

ME0106000211_619R01 Saco River at Biddeford-Saco 0 * Class B 

ME0106000301_622R01 Kennebunk River 3.07 Class B 

ME0106000302_628R02 Mousam River at Sanford 0 * Class C 

ME0106000305_630R01 Salmon Falls R 7.43 Class B 

 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

16 

* Estimate of affected river miles is not provided since it is highly variable depending on an overflow event 

Table 2-3. Estuarine and Marine Waters Impaired only by Bacteria (TMDL Required) [Maine 

Listing Category 5-B] (MEDEP 2008). 

Waterbody 

ID 

DMR 

Area Segment Description 

Segment 

Size 

(Acres) 

Segment 

Class 

Category 5-B 

812-1 1 Piscataqua R. Estuary, Kittery, Eliot, So. Berwick 1144.2 SB/SC 

826-1 1B Jaffrey Point, N. H. to Brave Boat Harbor, York 1,211.90 SB 

826-2 2 York River 276.1 SB 

826-2 2A York Harbor 41.2 SB 

826-3 2B Lobster Cove 57.4 SB 

826-3 3 Cape Neddick 1425.7 SB 

824-1 4 Ogunquit River 32.7 SB 

824-3 5 Webhannet River 604.7 SB 

824-3 5A Little River 133.1 SB 

824-4 7 Kennebunk River 498.3 SB 

821-1 8 Cape Porpoise 126.6 SB 

821-2 8-A Cape Porpoise Harbor 130.7 SB 

821-2A 8-AA Goosefare Bay 7.8 SB 

811-1 9 Saco River 1245.4 SB/SC 

 10 Saco Bay 3404.4 SB 

811-2 11 Scarborough River 201.7 SB/SA 

811-4 13 Spurwink River 45.1 SB/SA 

804-1 14 Portland - Falmouth Area 12827.6 SB/SC 

804-2 14-A Falmouth – Cumberland 11.5 SB 

804-3 14-C Long Island - Cliff Island, Portland 617.2 SB 

802-25 16 Royal & Cousins R. Estuaries 108.8 SB 

802-5 17-B Maquoit Bay, Brunswick and Freeport 300.9 SB 

 17-E Basin, Ash and Stover Coves, Harpswell 280.1 SB 

 17-F Orrs and Bailey Island, Harpswell 200.4 SB 

 17-G Harpswell Sound, Harpswell 547.1 SB 

802-7 18 Potts Harbor 675.3 SB 

802-8 18-A Gurnet Strait, Harpswell 154.5 SB 

802-9 18-BB New Meadows River, Brunswick, West Bath, Harpswell 12.6 SB 

 18-B New Meadows Lake, Brunswick, West Bath 22.5 SB 

802-10 18-J Middle Bay 76.9 SB 

 18-CC Merepoint, Brunsick 14.5 SB 

802-11 18-D Eastern Bailey - Orr's Island, Western Quahog Bay, 1,256.60 SB 

802-12 18-F Card Cove and Orrs Cove, Harpswell 52.1 SB 

 18-G Northern Quahog Bay 257.3 SB 

802-19 18-X Little Hen Island and Big Hen Island, Harpswell 70.7 SB 

802-9 19-F Long Cove, West Bath 7.7 SB 

710-1 20 Upper Kennebec River and Tributaries 17,293.80 SB 

 20-G Middle Kennebec River 1,145.50 SB 

710-2 20-H Lower Kennebec, Phippsburg/Georgetown 1865.4 SB 

730-1 20-B Back River, Wiscasset and Westport 139.4 SB 

730-6 22-E Western Barters Island, Boothbay 225.9 SB 

730-10 23-A Ebencook Harbor, Southport 1226.9 SB 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

17 

Table 2-3 (continued). Estuarine and Marine Waters Impaired only by Bacteria (TMDL 

Required) [Maine Listing Category 5-B] (MEDEP 2008). 

Waterbody 

ID

DMR 

Area Segment Description

Segment 

Size 

(Acres)

Segment 

Class

729-2 24-A Lower Salt Bay 42.6 SB 

729-2 25 Damariscotta River, Newcastle – Damariscotta 694.5 SB 

726-10 26 Medomak River, Waldoboro and Friendship 155.6 SB 

724-2 26-A Monhegan Island 521.6 SB 

724-4 26-D Wiley Cove, Cushing 61.2 SB 

 26-E Dutch Neck and Back River 35.1 SB 

724-8 26-N Maple Juice Cove, Cushing 124 SB 

724-11 27-B Deep Cove - Otis Cove, St. George 318.2 SB 

722-1 27-A Eastern Wheeler Bay, St. George 35.1 SB 

 27-E Upper St. George and Mill River 317.6 SB 

722-2 28 Tenants Harbor to Mosquito Head, St. George 621.4 SB 

722-6 28-H Marshall Point - Mosquito Head, St. George 193.8 SB 

722-7 28-I Weskeag River, So. Thomaston and Owls Head 41.9 SB 

722-8 29 Rockland 2,459.90 SB/SC 

722-11 30 Rockport 2,036.30 SB 

722-13 30-D Vinalhaven 1,255.20 SB 

722-14 30-H Kent Cove, North Haven 180.8 SB 

722-16 30-J Vinal Cove - Starboard Rock, Vinalhaven 90.4 SB 

722-17 30-K Southern Harbor, North Haven 36.4 SB 

722-19 30-M Roberts Harbor, Vinalhaven 175.4 SB 

722-21 31-A Rockport Harbor to Ducktrap Harbor, Lincolnville 2,139.60 SB 

722-22 31-B Great Spruce Head - Kelleys Cove, Northport 1,237.30 SB 

722-23 32 Belfast Bay 4,172 SB 

722-24 33 Searsport - Stockton Springs 2789 SB/SC 

 34 Stockton Springs 460.6 SB/SC 

722-25 35 Penobscot River 12,743.00 SB/SC 

722-26A 36-A Northern Bay, Penobscot 786.3 SB 

722-26B 36-B Upper Baggaduce River 7 SA 

722-29A 37-D Long Cove, Deer isle 22 SB 

722-34 38 

Stonington Harbor & NW Crocket Cove, Deer Isle & 

Stonington 222 SB 

722-38 39-A Center Harbor – Brooklin 32 SB 

722-38 39-B Eastern Flye Point, Brooklin 11 SB 

722-39 39-F Benjamin River, Sedgwick 23 SB 

707-4 39-E Salt Pond, Sedgwick – Brooklin 80 SB 

 39-H Northwest Herrick Bay, Brooklin 38 SB 

 39-G Northern Morgan Bay 114 SB 

 39-I Bragdon Brook, Blue Hill 25 SB 

707-10 42-E Mackerel Cove, Swans Island 4 SB 

707-5 48-A Goose Cove, Trenton 121 SB 

707-11 48-B Pretty Marsh Harbor, Mount Desert 180 SB 

 48-C Northwest Cove, Bar Harbor 87 SB 

714-9 49-A Jellison Cove, Hancock 9 SB 

714-10 49-B Carrying Place, Hancock 25 SB 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

18 

Table 2-3 (continued). Estuarine and Marine Waters Impaired only by Bacteria (TMDL 

Required) [Maine Listing Category 5-B] (MEDEP 2008). 

Waterbody 

ID

DMR 

Area Segment Description

Segment 

Size 

(Acres)

Segment 

Class

714-11 49-C Kilkenny Cove, Hancock 43 SB 

 49-D Eagle Point, Sullivan 7 SB 

714-13 50-A US Rt. 1 Bridge, West Sullivan and Long Cove, Sullivan 30 SB 

714-14 50-B Springer Brook, Mill Brook and West Brook, W. Franklin 93 SB 

714-15 50-C Johnny's Brook and Card Mill Stream, Franklin 2 SB 

 50-D Evergreen Point, Sullivan 34 SB 

714-16 50-E Egypt Bay, Hancock and Franklin 106 SB 

 51-C Bunker Cove, South Gouldsboro 12 SB 

706-3 52-B Mill Pond Stream, Gouldsboro 8 SB 

706-6 52-E Dyer Harbor - Pinkham Bay, Steuben 73 SB 

706-7 52-F Birch Harbor, Gouldsboro 19 SB 

 52-G Joy Bay, Gouldsboro and Steuben 1024 SB 

706-8 52-J Dyer Harbor, Steuben 162 SB 

705-3 52-K Mitchell Point, Milbridge 32 SB 

705-1 53 Narraguagus River, Milbridge 821 SB 

704-2 53-D Curtis Creek, Flat Bay, Harrington 31 SB 

704-3 53-E Upper Harrington River 483 SB 

705-3 53-G Smith Cove, Narraguagus Bay, Milbridge 3 SB 

703-2 54 Jonesport and West Jonesport 459 SB 

703-3 54-A North End of Beals Island 95 SB 

703-4 54-B Indian River, Addison – Jonesport 68 SB 

703-5 54-K Southeastern Alley Bay & Pig Island Gut, Beals 24 SB 

703-6 54-M Lamesen Brook in West River, Addison 52 SB 

713-1 54-D 

East & West Branches, Little Kennebec Bay, Machias and 

Machiasport 68 SB 

713-2 54-G White Creek, Masons Bay, Jonesport – Jonesboro 47 SB 

713-3 54-H Chandler River, Jonesboro 119 SB 

709-5 55-I Indian Head, Machiasport 17 SB 

708-1 55-A Little River - Cutler Harbor 37 SB 

708-3 55-G Money Cove, Cutler 32 SB 

708-4 56-C Haycock Harbor, Trescott 16 SA/SB 

708-6 58 Lubec and South Lubec 70 SB 

701-1 56 

Denny's River and Northwest Denny's Bay, Edmunds – 

Pembroke 88 SA/SB 

701-2 56-A Pennamaquan Bay, Pembroke 80 SB 

708-4 56-B East Stream, Trescott 15 SA/SB 

 56-D Crane Mill Brook, Edmunds 94 SA 

 56-H Ox Cove, Pembroke 653 SA 

701-7 57-B Deep Cove, Eastport 154 SC 

 59 Hal Moon Cove, Eastport 46 SB 

701-8 58 Lubec and South Lubec 487 SB 

701-10 58-F The Haul-Up, South Bay, West Lubec 40 SB 

702-4 62 St. Croix River – Passamaquoddy Bay 7,933.00 SB/SC 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

19 

Table 2-4. Estuarine and Marine Waters Impaired by Pollutants Other Than Those Listed in 5-B 

Through 5-D (TMDL Required) [Maine Listing Category 5-A] (MEDEP 2008). 

Waterbody 

ID Segment Description 

Segment 

Size 

(Acres) 

Segment 

Class 

Category 5-A 

811-9 Mousam R. Estuary (DMR Area 6) 192 SB 

811-8 Saco R. Estuary 576 SC 

804-7 Fore R. Estuary 768 SC 

802-25 Royal R. Estuary 173.5 SB 

Table 2-5. Estuarine and Marine Waters Impaired by Bacteria from Combined Sewer Overflows 

[Maine Listing Category 5-B-2] (MEDEP 2008). 

Waterbody ID Location Permitted Facility Name 

811-6 Biddeford Biddeford WWTF 

811-7 Saco Saco WWTP 

804-7 Cape Elizabeth Portland Water District - Portland WWTF 

804-6 South Portland South Portland WPCF 

804-5 Portland Portland Water District - Portland WWTF 

710-03 Bath Bath WPCF 

722-40 Rockland Rockland WWTF 

722-41 Belfast Belfast WWTF 

722-42 Bucksport Bucksport WWTP 

722-43 Winterport Winterport Sewerage District 

722-44 Hampden Hampden, Town of 

714-21 Bar Harbor Bar Harbor, Town of 

709-6 Machias Machias WWTF 

3.0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 

3.1 Applicable Water Quality Standards 

The State of Maine has four tiers of water quality classifications for rivers and streams (AA, A, B, C), one 

for lakes (GPA), and three tiers for estuarine and marine waters (SA, SB, SC), each with varying 

designated uses and water quality criteria providing different levels of protection. Classifications range 

from the highest quality (AA and SA, “free flowing and natural”; A and GPA, “natural”) to classifications 

allowing some discharges as long as the water quality remains “unimpaired” (B and SB) to classifications 

allowing discharges with some impact as long as aquatic life habitat is maintained (C and SC). The highest 

quality classes have the most stringent water quality criteria. 

The designated uses in Maine Statute applicable to bacteria-impaired waters include: 

• Recreation in and on the water (e.g., swimming and boating) and 

• Propagation and harvesting of shellfish [MRSA 38 Chapter 3, §465]. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

20 

 

Maine’s bacteria criteria for the protection of primary contact recreation for Class B, C, SB, and SC waters 

include bacteria of human and domestic animal origin. Maine’s water quality standards include criteria for 

both instantaneous bacteria counts and geometric means of bacteria data. 

Maine’s bacteria criteria for the protection of shellfish harvesting follow the standards for fecal coliform 

developed under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) by the United States Food and Drug 

Administration. The statistical evaluation of water quality data for classifying shellfish areas must meet the 

following two criteria: a geometric average standard, and a variability standard. (MEDMR 2007). See Table 

3-1 for the various bacteria water quality standards applied to Maine’s waters. The shellfish harvesting 

area classifications listed in Table 3-1 are summarized as follows and impaired areas are presented in 

Figure 3-1: 

Approved – These areas are approved when sanitary and biotoxins surveys indicate that the 

area is free of measured pollutants described in the NSSP. Harvesting is allowed. 

Conditionally Approved and Conditional Restricted – These areas are approved for 

harvesting under a designated set of environmental conditions. These areas generally have 

some intermittent microbiological pollution. For conditionally approved locations, harvesting 

is allowed except during specified conditions. For conditionally restricted locations, 

depuration harvesting is allowed except during specified conditions. 

Restricted – These areas are subject to a limited degree of pollution where additional 

treatment can result in shellstock safe for consumption. Depuration harvesting only. 

Prohibited – These areas are prohibited from shellfish harvesting due to excessive 

concentration of pollutants. No harvesting allowed. 

In addition, Maine water quality standards have an antidegradation provision designed to protect and 

maintain all water uses and water quality whether or not stated in the waterbody’s classification as of 

November 28, 1975 [38 MRSA Ch. 3 §464]. Uses include aquatic life, wildlife that use the waterbody, 

habitat, recreation, water supply, commercial activity, and ecological, historical or social significance. The 

antidegradation provision ensures that waste discharge licenses, or a water quality certification are issued 

only when there will be no significant impact on the existing use or result in failure of the waterbody to meet 

standards of classification. 

3.2 Numeric Water Quality Target 

The Maine water quality criteria for bacteria are used as the numeric water quality targets for the bacteria 

TMDLs as shown in Table 3-1. Numeric bacteria targets vary depending on a specific waterbody’s use 

classification (e.g., recreational, or shellfish harvesting), level of protection (e.g., A, B, or C), and upon the 

applicable indicator organism (E. coli for freshwater, Enterococci for estuaries and marine recreational 

waters, and fecal coliform for shellfish harvesting areas. The TMDLs for recreational use apply from May 

15 – September 30 because that is the period when Maine’s water quality standards for bacteria are in 

effect [38 MRSA Ch.3 §464 & 465]. The TMDLs for shellfish harvesting areas apply year round [National 

Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations, Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas, USFDA]. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

21 

Table 3-1. Bacteria Water Quality Standards Applicable to Maine Waters 

Waterbody Class Bacteria Criteria 

Fresh water 

Class AA As naturally occurs1

Class A As naturally occurs1

Class B Between May 15th and Sept. 30th

E. coli of human and domestic animal origin shall not to exceed a geometric mean of 64/100mL or an 

instantaneous level of 236/100mL 

Class C May 15th – Sept. 30th

E. coli of human and domestic animal origin shall not to exceed a geometric mean of 126/100mL or 

an instantaneous level of 236/100mL 

Class GPA Between May 15th and Sept. 30th

E. coli of human origin shall not to exceed a geometric mean of 29/100mL or an instantaneous level 

of 194/100mL 

Estuarine and Marine Waters 

Class SA As naturally occurs 

Class SB Between May 15th and Sept. 30th

Enterococcus of human and domestic animal origin shall not to exceed a geometric mean of 

8/100mL or an instantaneous level of 54/100mL. 

Class SC Between May 15th and Sept. 30th

Enterococcus of human and domestic animal origin shall not to exceed a geometric mean of 

14/100mL or an instantaneous level of 94/100mL. 

Coastal Beaches Between May 15th and Sept. 30th

Failure results from single sample enterococcus level exceeding 104/100mL or a geometric mean of 

35/100mL for five samples within a 30-day period 

Shellfish Growing Area2

Area Fecal Coliform 

 

Approved 

(Growing Areas affected 

by Point Sources) 

Fecal Coliform: Geometric mean shall not exceed 14/100mL and estimated 90th percentile shall not 

exceed 31/100mL 

Conditionally Approved 

(Growing Areas affected 

by Nonpoint Sources) 

Systematic Random Sampling: 

 Geometric mean shall not exceed 14/100mL and estimated 90th percentile shall not exceed 

31/100mL (for open status) 

Restricted 

(Growing Areas affected 

by Point Sources and 

Used as a Source for 

Shellstock Depuration) 

Geometric mean shall not exceed 88/100mL and estimated 90th percentile shall not exceed 

163/100mL 

Conditionally Restricted 

(Growing Areas affected 

by Nonpoint Sources and 

Used as a Source for 

Shellstock Depuration) 

Systematic Random Sampling: 

 Geometric mean shall not exceed 88/100mL and estimated 90th percentile shall not exceed 

163/100mL (for classification) 

Prohibited Geometric mean exceeding 88/100mL and estimated 90th percentile exceeding 163/100mL 1 Defined in 38 MRSA §466(2): “As naturally occurs” means conditions with essentially the same physical, chemical and biological 

characteristics as found in situations with similar habitats free of measurable effects of human activity.” In practice, the Class GPA 

standard for E. coli may be used as a surrogate target if a freshwater’s “natural” bacteria levels are unknown. 

*Remote areas is defined where “A sanitary survey determines that the area has no human habitation, and is not impacted by any 

actual or potential pollution sources” 

2

 Standards from Standard Operating Procedures for the Division of Public Health Shellfish Growing Area Classification Program, 

Effective date: April 26, 2007. (Maine DMR 2007) 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL

22 

Figure 3-1. Maine Shellfish Growing Areas Classification 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

23 

4.0 TMDL 

4.1 TMDL Definition 

A TMDL identifies the amount of a pollutant the receiving water can assimilate without violating water 

quality criteria or impairing the designated use. It is the loading capacity of a waterbody including a margin 

or safety (MOS) to account for uncertainty in target-setting. The TMDL allocates pollutant loads among 

permitted point source (PS) discharges, under Section 402 of the CWA National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES), and nonpoint source (NPS) discharges. A TMDL can be represented as: 

 Where: 

= sum of the Waste Load Allocations (i.e., point sources including NPDESregulated stormwater) 

= sum of the Load Allocations (i.e., natural background, nonpoint sources, 

and stormwater not regulated by NPDES) 

= Margin of Safety 

The loading allocations can be expressed as a mass per unit time, toxicity or other appropriate measures 

(40 C.F.R. §130.2(i)). The WLA and LA both need to account for existing and future loads. 

The MOS accounts for any uncertainty or lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between pollutant 

loading and water quality. The MOS can either be implicit (i.e., incorporated into the TMDL analysis through 

conservative assumptions) or explicit (i.e., expressed in the TMDL as a reserved portion of the loadings), 

discussed in more detail below. 

4.2 Loading Capacity, MOS, and Allocations 

Maine’s bacteria TMDLs consist of two formats of targets for allowable levels of bacteria: 

 Concentrations of bacteria (expressed as bacteria counts/100mL of water) 

 Loads of bacteria (expressed as numbers of bacteria/day) 

Both formats express targets designed to attain the designated uses of recreation (e.g., swimming and 

boating) and shellfishing, and to meet the associated criteria in Maine’s water quality standards. Both 

formats of the TMDLs are considered by DEP to be daily targets. The targets apply on any given day to 

assure achievement of bacteria water quality criteria whenever the water quality standards are in effect. 

These TMDLs set a goal of meeting bacteria water quality criteria at the point of discharge for all sources in 

order to meet water quality standards throughout the waterbody. Of the two TMDL formats presented, 

Maine DEP believes that the concentration-based TMDL is most useful format for guiding both remediation 

and protection efforts in watersheds. A concentration target is more readily understandable to the public, 

and allows interested citizens and/or watershed groups to determine easily whether any particular source is 

exceeding its allocation. Appendix III, TMDL Calculations & Graphs covers calculation loads and 

relationships between constituents. 

As mentioned above, the MOS, which accounts for assumptions or lack of knowledge about linking loading 

allocations with water quality impairment, can be explicit or implicit. The two types or forms of the bacteria 

TMDL targets described in more detail below have different types of MOS due to the different calculations 

used for TMDL development. 

TMDL = Loading Capacity = ∑WLA + ∑LA + MOS

∑WLA

∑LA

MOS
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

24 

4.2.1 Concentration TMDLs 

The concentration bacteria TMDLs are expressed in terms of colony forming units or bacteria counts per 

100mL sample (counts/100mL) for the indicator bacterium of concern (e.g., E coli, Enterococcus, Fecal 

Coliform, or Total Coliform), and are equal to the loading capacity. 

The concentration bacteria TMDLs contain an implicit MOS by using the following conservative 

assumptions during the analysis: The TMDLs are set equal to the appropriate WQS for each waterbody 

segment and do not rely on in-stream processes, such as bacteria die-off, dilution and settling (which are 

known to reduce in-stream bacteria concentrations). The Maine bacteria TMDLs represent very 

conservative TMDL target-setting, so there is a high level of confidence that the TMDLs established are 

consistent with water quality standards, and the entire loading capacity can be allocated among sources. 

For these reasons, the MOS is implicit, and the explicit MOS shown in the general TMDL formula above is 

set equal to zero. For concentration TMDLs which are independent of flow, the standard formula changes 

to: 

TMDL = Loading Capacity = Water Quality Criterion 

(The TMDL or water quality criterion is applied to the WLA for allowable regulated sources, and to the LA for 

allowable nonpoint sources.) 

The concentration bacteria TMDL allocates the load among sources, identifying wasteload allocations 

(WLA) for NPDES-regulated sources, and load allocations (LA) for nonpoint sources and natural 

background. The numeric value of the TMDL, WLA, and LA depends on whether the source of bacteria is 

prohibited or allowable, and the appropriate water quality criterion for the receiving water, as follows: 

3⁄4 If the source of the bacteria load is prohibited (e.g., failing septic systems, or illicit discharges),

the WLA or LA is set equal to zero. 

3⁄4 If the source of the bacteria load is allowable, the WLA or LA is set equal to the applicable 

water quality criterion for bacteria in the receiving water (depending on its classification). 

The underlying assumption in setting a concentration TMDL for bacteria is that if all sources are at or below 

the WQS, then the concentration of bacteria within the receiving water will attain WQS. Table 3-1 in 

Section 3.2 provides a summary of the WQS applicable to Maine waters. There are two types of criteria for 

fresh and marine waters (non-shellfish harvesting areas) in the State: instantaneous sample and geometric 

mean. Shellfish harvesting waters have two additional standards that have been adopted by the State from 

the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. These additional shellfish area standards are based on 

geometric means or a statistical percentile under either a random sampling or adverse pollutant condition 

(e.g., wet weather, during effluent discharge, etc). 

Tables 4-1 through 4-3 presenting the loading allocations concentration bacteria TMDLs by waterbody 

class and potential bacteria source are provided below. These tables represent WLAs and LAs based on 

water quality standards current as of the publication date of these TMDLs. If the bacteria criteria change in 

the future, MEDEP intends to revise the TMDL to reflect the revised criteria, with opportunity for public 

review and comment. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

25 

Table 4-1. TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs for Fresh Water Bacteria (May 15 – September 30). 

 Instantaneous E. coli (#/100mL) Geometric Mean E. coli (#/100mL) 

Class Bacteria Source WLA LA WLA LA 

Non-Stormwater NPDES 0 0 

Illicit sewer connection 0 0 

Leaking sewer lines 0 0 

Stormwater (NPDES) As naturally occurs1 As naturally occurs1 

Stormwater (non- NPDES) As naturally occurs1 As naturally occurs1

Wildlife direct discharge As naturally occurs1 As naturally occurs1

AA 

Human or domestic animal 

direct discharge 0 0 

Non-Stormwater NPDES 0 0 

CSOs 0 0 

SSOs prohibited prohibited 

Illicit sewer connection 0 0 

Leaking sewer lines 0 0 

Stormwater (NPDES) As naturally occurs1 As naturally occurs1 

Stormwater (non- NPDES) As naturally occurs1 As naturally occurs1

Wildlife direct discharge As naturally occurs1 As naturally occurs1

A 

Human or domestic animal 

direct discharge 0 0 

Non-Stormwater NPDES 236 64 

CSOs 236 64 

SSOs 0 0 

Illicit sewer connection 0 0 

Leaking sewer lines 0 0 

Stormwater (NPDES) 236 64 

Stormwater (non- NPDES) 236 64 

Wildlife direct discharge As naturally occurs1 As naturally occurs1

B2

Human or domestic animal 

direct discharge 236 64 

Non-Stormwater NPDES 236 126 

CSOs 236 126 

SSOs 0 0 

Illicit sewer connection 0 0 

Leaking sewer lines 0 0 

Stormwater (NPDES) 236 126 

Stormwater (non- NPDES) 236 126 

Wildlife direct discharge As naturally occurs1 As naturally occurs1

C2

Human or domestic animal 

direct discharge 236 126 

Non-Stormwater NPDES 0 0 

CSOs 0 0 

SSOs 0 0 

Illicit sewer connection 0 0 

Leaking sewer lines 0 0 

Stormwater (NPDES) 194 29 

Stormwater (non- NPDES) 194 29 

Wildlife direct discharge As naturally occurs1 As naturally occurs1

GPA3

Human or domestic animal 

direct discharge 194 29 

Human direct discharge = swimmers 

1

 Defined in 38 MRSA §466(2): “As naturally occurs” means conditions with essentially the same physical, chemical and biological

characteristics as found in situations with similar habitats free of measurable effects of human activity.” In practice, the Class GPA 

standard for E. coli may be used as a surrogate target if a freshwater’s “natural” bacteria levels are unknown. 2 WLA and LA refer to E. coli of human and domestic animal origin. 3 WLA and LA refer to E. coli of human origin; No new direct discharge of pollutants allowed [38 MRSA §465-A(1)(C)]. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

26 

Table 4-2. TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs for Estuarine and Marine Waters (non-shellfish harvesting 

areas) Bacteria (May 15 – September 30). 

 Instantaneous 

Enterococcus (#/100mL) 

Geometric Mean 

Enterococcus (#/100mL) 

Class Bacteria Source WLA LA WLA LA 

Illicit sewer connection 0 0 

Leaking sewer lines 0 0 

Stormwater (MS4s) As naturally occurs2 As naturally occurs2 

Stormwater (non-MS4) As naturally occurs2 As naturally occurs2

Wildlife direct discharge As naturally occurs2 As naturally occurs2

SA1

Human or domestic animal 

direct discharge 0 0 

Non-Stormwater NPDES 54 8 

CSOs 54 8 

SSOs 0 0 

OBDs 54 8 

Illicit sewer connection 0 0 

Leaking sewer lines 0 0 

Stormwater (MS4s) 54 8 

Stormwater (non-MS4) 54 8 

Wildlife direct discharge As naturally occurs2 As naturally occurs2

SB1

Human or domestic animal 

direct discharge 54 8 

Non-Stormwater NPDES 94 14 

CSOs 94 14 

SSOs 0 0 

OBDs 94 14 

Illicit sewer connection 0 0 

Leaking sewer lines 0 0 

Stormwater (MS4s) 94 14 

Stormwater (non-MS4) 94 14 

Wildlife direct discharge As naturally occurs2 As naturally occurs2

SC1

Human or domestic animal 

direct discharge 94 14 

1

 WLA and LA refer to Enterococcus of human and domestic animal origin 

2 Defined in 38 MRSA §466(2): “As naturally occurs” means conditions with essentially the same physical, chemical and biological 

characteristics as found in situations with similar habitats free of measurable effects of human activity.” 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

27 

Table 4-3. Bacteria (Fecal Coliform) TMDLs WLAs, and LAs for Shellfish Harvesting Areas 

(applicable year round). 

 Geometric Mean 

Fecal Coliform (#/100mL) 

90th Percentile Statistical Measure 

Fecal Coliform (#/100mL) 

Class1 Bacteria Source WLA LA WLA LA 

 

Non-Stormwater NPDES 14 31 

CSOs 14 31 

SSOs 0 0 

OBDs 14 

31 

Illicit sewer connection 0 0 

Leaking sewer lines 0 0 

Stormwater (MS4s) 14 31 

Stormwater (non-MS4) 14 31 

Wildlife direct discharge As naturally occurs3 As naturally occurs 

Approved and 

Conditionally 

Approved 

Areas 

(affected by 

Point or 

Nonpoint2

Sources) 

& 

Restricted and 

Conditionally 

Restricted 

Areas 

(affected by 

Point or 

Nonpoint 

Sources2

 & 

used as a 

source for 

shellstock 

depuration) 

Human or domestic animal 

direct discharge 14 31 

1

 Classes defined by Maine DMR (2007) 

2

 Adverse Condition Allocations apply to areas affected by Point Sources 

Adverse Condition or Random Sampling Allocations apply to areas affected by Nonpoint Sources 

Adverse condition is defined as “... a state or situation caused by meteorological, hydrological or seasonal events or point source 

discharges that has historically resulted in elevated [bacteria] levels in a particular growing area. “ USFDA 2005 3

Defined in 38 MRSA §466(2): “As naturally occurs” means conditions with essentially the same physical, chemical and biological 

characteristics as found in situations with similar habitats free of measurable effects of human activity.” 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

28 

4.3 Seasonal Considerations 

Bacteria sources to waters arise from a mixture of continuous and wet-weather driven sources, and there 

may be no single critical condition that is protective for all other conditions. These bacteria TMDLs have 

set WLAs and LAs for all allowable known and suspected source categories equal to the WQ criteria or 

equal to loads which assure WQ criteria are achieved. The bacteria TMDLs apply over the entire seasons 

that the bacteria criteria apply. Furthermore, the measures implemented to meet the TMDL targets will 

reduce bacteria concentrations and daily loads to water quality criteria levels for all seasons for which the 

water quality standards apply. Therefore, the TMDL adequately accounts for seasonal variability. 

4.4 Future TMDL Applicability 

These bacteria TMDLs may apply to waters found to be impaired in the future, provided that DEP’s intent to 

modify the TMDL is made clear, the public has an opportunity to comment, and EPA approves the 

proposed TMDL modification. In appropriate circumstances in the future, DEP will submit a TMDL 

modification to EPA for specific waterbodies to be added for bacteria TMDL coverage, and will use the 

public notice process associated with the biannual Integrated Report review for public comment. Within the 

Integrated Report and in its public notice requesting review and comment, Maine will clearly state its intent 

to relist the newly assessed waterbodies as impaired and to apply the appropriate bacteria TMDLs. This 

means that future newly assessed bacteria-impaired waters may be proposed for re-listing in Maine’s 

Integrated List directly to Category 4A (impaired, TMDL completed) instead of in Category 5 (§303(d) 

portion; TMDL needed) . Once EPA approves the TMDL modification as part of the 303(d) list approval, 

the newly proposed waterbodies will be addressed by the bacteria TMDLs presented in this report. 

5.0 MONITORING PLAN 

MEDEP relies heavily on bacteria data from quality assured volunteer monitoring programs (Maine’s 

Volunteer River Monitoring Program, VRMP) to indicate problems and to evaluate progress towards 

attainment of Maine’s water quality standards. MEDEP will continue to investigate complaints and inspect 

potential sources of bacteria. Maine Healthy Beaches routinely collects bacterial samples on recreational 

beaches to determine safe swimming conditions and this information is widely disseminated through the 

MHB website. DMR will continue to conduct extensive year-round monitoring evaluations associated with 

assuring proper classification of shellfish harvest areas. DMR will also continue to rely on fecal coliform 

data from volunteers in order to identify, investigate, and remediate pollution sources. Adaptive 

implementation of the remedial measures listed in the Implementation section of this report should be 

pursued by stakeholders at the local level until water quality standards are met. 

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

The goal of this TMDL is to restore public confidence and facilitate the recreational enjoyment of local 

waters, while achieving compliance with Maine’s Water Quality Standards. Each bacteria contamination 

represents a unique problem that results from the interaction between watershed conditions and source 

activity. Substantial time, financial commitment and community drive will be required to attain the goals and 

load allocations in this TMDL. This section provides guidance on implementing bacteria TMDLs by 

identifying existing informational resources on Best Management Practices (BMPs) and through Maine 

case studies. The case studies are creative examples for communities to use as they search for cost 

effective solutions. Watershed specific information and monitoring results can be found in Appendix I, 

Freshwaters and Appendix II, Marine & Estuarine Waters. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

29 

This TMDL provides a framework to set goals that are needed to address the numerous and diverse 

sources of bacteria in the State of Maine. A comprehensive control strategy to address bacterial pollution 

requires these basic steps: 

• Community members make a commitment to fix bacterial contamination 

• Identify potential sources of contamination, through surveys and monitoring 

• Set specific bacterial pollution targets goals 

• Develop a plan to control sources using both BMPs and education 

• Implement the plan and continue to monitoring to determine effectiveness 

In addition, TMDL implementation should be an iterative process, with realistic goals over a reasonable 

timeframe and with ongoing adjustments based on monitoring results. 

6.1 Best Management Practices & Educational Resources 

Most of the bacterial sources identified in this TMDL are associated with stormwater, so in general, BMPs 

that are designed to address stormwater sources can be adapted to control bacteria laden runoff. Mitigation 

measures for stormwater are generally not designed to reduce bacteria concentrations. Instead, BMPs are 

typically designed to remove sediment and other pollutants, but perhaps the most effective means of 

reducing stormwater contributions to bacteria impairment is to reduce the volume of runoff. Therefore, 

treatment systems and BMPs that remove sediment may also provide reductions in bacteria 

concentrations. 

This document provides a starting point for education regarding bacterial assessment methods and 

implementation ideas. Communities throughout the United States are confronting the problems associated 

with waters contaminated with E. Coli and fecal coliform and states are developing TMDLs to address 

these problems. Stormwater and bacterial remediation is an actively developing and new approaches are 

continually emerging, therefore practical implementation planning will require a review of the latest BMPs 

(Clary, et al 2008). 

There are a variety of governmental and non-governmental agencies that have developed guidance on 

BMPs to assist municipalities, homeowners, watershed organizations and volunteer groups with mitigation 

approaches for bacteria sources. These resources all exist on the internet and are readily obtained by 

typing ‘Maine stormwater bacteria’ or ‘reduce bacteria bmps’ into an internet search engine, like Google. 

No comprehensive Maine specific guidance document exists to assist with mitigating bacterial sources, 

though much information is available at Maine’s Stormwater website (www.thinkbluemaine.org/) and Maine 

Healthy Beaches (http://www.mainehealthybeaches.org/). A major recommendation of this TMDL is to 

develop a Maine specific guidance manual on mitigating sources of bacteria. 

Here is a list of resources to review while considering options to address bacterial sources: 

General Resources – for Stormwater Mitigation

 MEDEP Stormwater Management Law: 

http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/docstand/stormwater/index.htm

 University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center: Effective stormwater management: 

http://www.unh.edu/erg/cstev/index.htm#

 Maine NEMO: Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials: http://www.mainenemo.org 

 Mitigation Measures to Address Pathogen Pollution in Surface Waters: A TMDL 

Implementation Guidance Manual for Massachusetts (MADEP 2005): 

http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/impguide.pdf

 Center for Watershed Protection: http://www.cwp.org/ 

 EPA’s Stormwater BMPs: http://www.epa.gov/guide/stormwater/
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

30 

 International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database 

http://www.bmpdatabase.org/

Illicit Discharges

 Illicit Discharge Fact Sheets, Ordinances, Detection & Elimination Methodology: 

http://www.thinkbluemaine.org/municipal.stm

 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Manual - A Handbook for Municipalities. 2003. New 

England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission: 

http://www.neiwpcc.org/PDF_Docs/iddmanual.pdf

Combined Sewer Overflows

 MEDEP Technical Assistance and Guidance on CSOs. Available at: 

http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/doceng/csotech.htm

Septic Systems

 Septic Systems, How They Work: http://maine.gov/dep/blwq//docgw/septic_systems.pdf.

 Maine Department of Health, Engineering: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/eng/plumb/index.htm

Pet Waste

 Pet Waster & Water Quality Brochure:

www.mainehealthybeaches.org/assets/pdfs/Pet_Waste_Brochure.pdf

 Clean Up Pet and Other Domestic Animal Waste http://www.thinkbluemaine.org/homeown.stm

Agriculture -Manure & Grazing

 Manual of Best Management Practices (BMP) For Maine Agriculture 

http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/narr/documents/index.html

Recreation- Swimming & Boating

 Boater Education & Brochure: http://www.mainehealthybeaches.org/HealthyBoating.pdf

 Boat Pump Out Program: http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docgrant/pumpout.htm 

 Healthy Beach Habits : http://www.mainehealthybeaches.org/resources.html

6.1.1 Maine NPS Watershed Management 

Maine's Nonpoint Source (NPS) Water Pollution Management Program 

(38 M.R.S.A. §410-I) helps restore and protect water resources from 

NPS pollution. MEDEP receives federal funds under Section 319 of the 

Clean Water Act from EPA and uses the funds to identify, prevent or 

reduce NPS pollution and promote the use of "best management 

practices" (BMPs) to address pollution. Maine's BMP guidance manuals 

are available at: www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/training/index.htm. Staff 

provides technical assistance to local watershed groups and run 

outreach programs for a variety of target audiences - developers, 

building contractors, municipal officials, landowners, teachers and the 

general public. Funds are also used to develop Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) assessment reports for waters impaired primarily by NPS 

pollution, including bacterial pollution. 

The program also issues 319 matching (40%) grants to local project 

sponsors to achieve restoration or improvement goals in watersheds are 

impaired or considered threatened: 

http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docgrant/319.htm. In 2006 - 2007, more 

than 60 active projects were funded under this program and more 

information is available at: 

http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docgrant/319_files/reports/index.htm
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

31 

6.2 Case Studies for Real People 

These case studies are taken out of Appendix I and Appendix II to highlight activities and approaches 

available to assess, investigate and reduce the impact of bacterial impairments. 

6.2.1 Spruce Creek, Low Impact Development Retrofit Study 

Waterbody: 

Spruce Creek Watershed is a 9.6 

square mile coastal southern Maine 

watershed located 90% within the 

Town of Kittery with the remaining 

10% of the headwaters located in the 

Town of Eliot. The watershed empties 

into the Piscataqua River 1.5 miles 

northerly from where the Piscataqua 

meets the Gulf of Maine. The Spruce 

Creek watershed is primarily fed by 6 

freshwater streams. It contains 

approximately 3 square miles of tidal 

area that consists of high salt marsh, 

ledge, and mud flats. 

Location: 

Towns of Kittery & Eliot, York County, 

Maine 

Facilitator: 

Town of Kittery and Spruce Creek 

Association

Timeframe: 

Spring 2005 to winter 2010 

Funding Provided by: 

Maine Department of Transportation 

Surface Water Quality Protection 

Program and Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Grant ("Section 319") 

Problem 

Excessive levels of fecal coliform bacteria have led to the closing of shellfish beds and the listing of Spruce 

Creek on the State of Maine’s 303d list. The project partners have completed several assessments to track 

bacteria sources and several more are planned for this TMDL waterbody. One source of high fecal 

coliform bacteria is through untreated stormwater from developed areas in the watershed. 

The retail outlets corridor stretching along US Route 1 in Kittery contains a large percentage of impervious 

surfaces and poses large stormwater treatment challenges and impacts directly on Spruce Creek. The 

Town and the Spruce Creek Association have teamed on several projects and with several funding sources 

to implement innovative stormwater retrofit and Low Impact Development (LID) projects in this area, both to 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

32 

help to reduce stormwater impacts, as well as to serve as demonstration sites to further educate other 

businesses, developers and homeowners. 

Project Description 

In the fall of 2004, the Maine State Planning Office (SPO), the Town of Kittery and the Maine DOT 

identified 21 possible stormwater retrofit sites within the commercial district of Route 1 in the lower Spruce 

Creek watershed. The study served as background to apply for the MDOT SWQPP funds (part of the 

Federal Transportation Enhancement Act for the 21st Century or TEA-21). 

In the fall of 2005, the Town and the Spruce Creek Association successfully nominated three rain garden 

sites to the MDOT SWQPP program and a long process of securing legal rights-of-way and agreements 

between MDOT and the retail outlet owners was commenced. 

In the intervening time, the Town of Kittery and the Spruce Creek Association secured funding from the 

Maine DEP 319 program and in summer 2008 began a two-year initiative to reduce bacteria, nutrients, 

toxic chemicals, sediments and habitat alterations aimed at improving the health of the Spruce Creek 

watershed. The Spruce Creek Watershed Improvement Project (Phase 1) with Section 319 funding is, in 

part, enabling project partners to determine locations for stormwater retrofit implementation based on 

current efforts with the Kittery Outlets future capital improvement efforts on private property, roadway 

maintenance activities and/or municipal planning efforts. The secondary purpose is to continue to raise 

community awareness in this watershed, with the long-term goal of improving and protecting the water 

quality of Spruce Creek and the Piscataqua River Estuary. 

Under the SCWIP project, stormwater and LID specialist(s) will develop the best stormwater Best 

Management Practice (BMP) technologies to utilize in the selected retrofit locations. Project partners will 

implement two stormwater retrofit demonstration areas that will provide significant treatment of stormwater 

quantity and quality. Site selection is planned to be completed in year one of the project and installation will 

be complete within two years. 

The exception to this timeline is the planned rain garden for the Kittery Premium Outlets and Super Shoes 

Outlet. These two sites have been designed, the legal issues straightened out, and the contracts secured 

with the Town of Kittery Public Works to conduct the site work. Therefore, this project is going to continue 

under the funding from MDOT SWQPP program with a minor addition of funding from the MDEP 319 grant 

to provide professional landscape design services from a local landscaper. Construction of the first LID site, 

the rain gardens, is set to begin in November and December 2008. 

What We Did 

• Were gracious recipients of Maine SPO’s assessment of stormwater retrofit opportunities in this 

commercial zone 

• Worked together to nominate the proposed site to the MDOT SWQPP program 

• Waited very patiently while lawyers and engineers developed the project design 

• Facilitated discussions with stakeholders (Towns, State departments, businesses) 

• Coordinated efforts with the Town’s SCWIP (319-funded) project to ensure success of the project 

• Worked with professionals and volunteers to identify other LID sites for the SCWIP project 

What We Found 

• Kittery outlet owners are quite willing to assist and participate – great partners 

• There are dozens, possibly hundreds of potential LID retrofit opportunities 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

33 

Spruce Creek Volunteer and Stormwater Engineer, Jeff Clifford of Altus 

Engineering evaluates a LID site before implementation. 

Photo: Phyllis Ford

Future Steps 

• Demonstration efforts will 

include one press release and 

one tour to include commercial, 

municipal, agency, and citizen 

attendees. 

• Fund installation of future LID 

sites – use Kittery as a “model 

LID community” 

• Re-open the shellfish beds 

based on lower bacteria levels 

6.2.2 Spruce Creek, Neighborhood 

Septic Social 

Water Body: 

The Spruce Creek Watershed is 

described in section 6.2.1. 

Location: 

Towns of Kittery & Eliot, York County, 

Maine 

Facilitator: 

Town of Kittery and Spruce Creek 

Association 

Timeframe: Summer 2008 – winter 2010 

Funding Provided by: 

Maine Department of Environmental 

Protection Nonpoint Source Water 

Pollution Control Grant ("319"), through 

the US EPA. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

34 

Problem 

The towns of Kittery and Eliot have launched a two-year initiative to reduce bacteria, nutrients, toxic 

chemicals, sediments and habitat alterations aimed at improving the health of the Spruce Creek watershed. 

These pollutants are the primary sources of impairments identified by federal, state and local assessments 

and pose the greatest threat human and ecological health. The Spruce Creek Watershed Improvement 

Project (Phase 1) with Section 319 funding is, in part, enabling project partners to identify and repair failing 

systems. The secondary purpose is to continue to raise community awareness in this watershed, with the 

long-term goal of improving and protecting the water quality of the bacteria-impaired (TMDL required) 

Spruce Creek and the Piscataqua River Estuary. 

Project Description 

The towns of Kittery and Eliot employed a public 

outreach approach modeled on the successful 

Washington Sea Grant Septic Social Program. 

The grant team has held the first of three planned 

septic socials in three separate neighborhoods 

that have evidence of failing septic systems. The 

social included a presentation by Joe Anderson 

(of York County Soil & Water Conservation 

District), then a question and answer session 

with a local septic designer and a local septic 

servicing company representative. A septic 

system factsheet was developed and distributed 

at the social. 

What We Did 

• Identified a social host and invited 

neighborhood residents 

• Designed and printed social invitations 

• Designed and printed septic system informational flyers 

• Designed and printed optical brightener fact sheet 

• Procured trial samples of organic laundry detergent as “party favors” 

• Hosted a septic social with 12 neighbors in attendance (plus 7 team members) 

What We Found 

• Residents were very attentive during the presentation and quite willing to ask questions of guest 

speakers 

• Attendees noted that while they felt they were fairly knowledgeable about septic systems and their 

maintenance, they still felt they had learned during the evening’s event 

• In order to ensure attendance, a combination of mailed invitation and follow-up phone call is best 

Future Steps 

• Solicit feedback from attendees and speakers to modify presentation and hand-out materials 

(including those provided by guest speakers) 

• Create a press release publicizing the social and inviting others to host 

• Adapt YCS&WCD presentation for more coastal (not lake) information 

• Identify two additional neighborhoods to conduct additional socials 

• Conduct interviews with attendees to solicit feedback and further refine outreach materials and 

approach 

Photo: Phyllis Ford

Joe Anderson, of York County Soil & Water 

Conservation District, presenting a septic social.
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

35 

Laura Livingstone, Maine DMR, collects a water sample during a 

2005 shoreline survey. 

6.2.3 Casco Bay, Shoreline Surveys 

One of the goals of the Casco Bay Plan (CBEP 1996, 2006) is to open and protect shellfish areas 

adversely impacted by poor water quality. While much progress has been made since 1994 (when 37% of 

the shellfish flats in the Bay were closed), thousands of acres are still impacted or threatened by bacterial 

pollution. Identification and remediation of the sources of bacteria is necessary to improve water quality and 

open valuable beds. Shoreline Survey Training augments the capacity of the state to address bacterial 

pollution by enabling municipal employees to assist Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) and 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) with pollution source identification and remediation in 

the near-shore zone. Training is provided through DMR and DEP with assistance from the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration. 

Project Description 

In order to implement a two-day training session for 

interested Casco Bay watershed coastal communities, 

the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership (CBEP) agreed to 

provide logistical support (assistance with registration, 

securing space, food, supplies and AV equipment) at a 

cost of $1,232. The training was advertised through 

the web and via e-mail. The training course provided 

basic knowledge of pollution source identification and 

the steps needed to document actual and potential 

pollution sources. Both classroom and field instruction 

in shoreline survey techniques were provided. 

Project Outcomes 

Over 30 individuals from 12 Casco Bay communities 

took the training course. They included shellfish 

wardens, code enforcement officers, public works 

employees and representatives of shellfish businesses. 

Information gathered by the municipal employees trained through this program is being used by the DMR 

and DEP to assist in their efforts to recognize and address actual and potential problems impacting 

shellfish areas. Several examples follow. 

The Town of Brunswick and the DMR conducted shoreline surveys in areas which were slated to be closed 

due to expired shoreline survey, preventing the need for the closure. Several problems were identified 

during the shoreline survey at seasonal properties that would have necessitated the placement of 

prohibited areas until the issues were resolved. The town was able to ameliorate the problems before the 

‘season’ started which eliminated the need for prohibited areas. 

 

The Town of Yarmouth and the Royal River Conservation Trust had several members trained at the CBEP 

sponsored course and they have formed the Shoreline Watchers Action Team (SWAT) of Amanda Devine, 

Tom Connolly, and Bill Longley. The group meets regularly and helps DMR perform shoreline survey work 

and they do work independently in the upper reaches of their fresh water streams. They have also 

engaged in discussions with other industrial dischargers to get additional information on the type and 

quantity of discharges to marine waters. 

 

Finally, David Cheney and Jen Casad from the John’s River area in South Bristol/Bristol were in an area 

impacted by widespread closures due to expired shoreline survey. They worked closely with DEP and DMR 

to conduct shoreline surveys in teams and quickly returned areas to open status. 

Photo: Matthew Craig
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

36 

Next Steps 

The state would be happy to have other groups sponsor the shoreline survey training sessions. Due to the 

DMR/DEP/FDA/DHHS time commitment for teaching and preparing the course materials, it is preferred that 

at least 30 people be in attendance. The costs involved would be similar for notebooks, etc. and would also 

include refreshments at breaks and lunches which are oftentimes provided. Contact Amy Fitzpatrick at 

Maine DMR for more information. 

Amy M. Fitzpatrick, Director 

Public Health Division 

Maine Department of Maine Resources 

PO Box 8 

194 McKown Point Rd 

West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575 

207.633.9554 

fax: 207.633.9579 

amy.fitzpatrick@maine.gov 

6.2.4 Casco Bay, Overboard Discharge Project 

Problem 

Harvesting shellfish is an important tradition in all of Maine, including Casco Bay. In 2002, nearly 20% of 

the state licenses were held by commercial harvesters in Casco Bay. Harvesting poses a significant 

economic benefit to the region, last estimated in 1994 at more than $4 million, with a broader economic 

value of the fishery (including all of those associated with the industry) between $13 and $14 million (Heinig 

et al. 1995). As substantial as this value may be, when this study began in 1999, bacterial contamination 

had caused nearly half of the harvestable areas within the Bay to be closed to harvesting. Because of the 

obvious potential socioeconomic benefit from opening clam flats, one of the goals of the Casco Bay Plan 

(CBEP 1996, 2006) is to open and protect shellfish areas adversely impacted by poor water quality. 

Project Description 

The Casco Bay Estuary Partnership (CBEP) secured a Sustainable Development Challenge grant from the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) with two goals: remediate pollution sources keeping clam 

flats closed to harvest, and investigate options for sustaining that harvest. In Phase I of this project, with the 

assistance of many stakeholders, clam resources in 57 closed clam flats in nine municipalities (800 acres) 

were reviewed and the pollution sources contributing to their closure were identified. Working closely with 

the municipalities, 21 flats (430 acres) were selected for remediation, based on high clam resource value, 

ease of remediation, and community support. This process and results for this phase of the project are 

described in the report Expanding and Sustaining the Shellfisheries of Casco Bay: Phase I. Ranking Clam 

Flats for Potential Remediation. 1999. In Phase II of this project, (described in the report Expanding and 

Sustaining the Shellfisheries of Casco Bay: Phases II and III, 2003) again with the assistance of other 

stakeholders, 3 goals were undertaken: 

• Remediation – Opening clam flats to harvest by partnering with other stakeholders and 

• removing pollution sources, 

• Assessment – Understanding nonpoint sources of pollution that affect clam flats and 

• Management –Testing management strategies for increasing and sustaining harvest. 

This case study focuses on the Remediation part of the project. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

37 

Outcomes: REMEDIATION 

Phase I results indicated that in 1999, nearly 430 acres of high value clam habitat in Casco Bay with good 

water quality were closed to harvest. Nearly half were closed simply due to the presence of a septic design 

called an overboard discharge (OBD); therefore, this project focused a significant amount of effort on 

removing these systems. An overboard discharge (OBD) system differs from a conventional subsurface 

wastewater disposal system because a sand filter or commercial mechanical treatment plant is used for 

secondary treatment rather than a leach field. As a result, OBDs require chlorination of the wastewater 

required prior to discharge into a body of water. NSSP regulations prohibit shellfish harvesting near OBDs 

because of the potential for contamination from system malfunction. In Maine, the discharge of untreated 

wastes was prohibited in 1973 and lots with unsuitable soils for subsurface disposal received overboard 

discharge licenses or installed a holding tank. The Overboard Discharge Law (38 M.R.S.A § 411-A) phases 

out existing non-municipal, overboard discharge systems, and, through a grant program, shares the cost of 

replacement. Four areas were targeted for OBD removal: Gurnet/Buttermilk Cove in Brunswick/Harpswell 

and Fosters Point, Birch Point, and Sabino in West Bath. In addition, several sites on the New Meadows 

River in West Bath were added to the list at the request of the West Bath shellfish committee. These areas 

contained a total of 31 Overboard Discharge (OBD) systems (8 in Brunswick, 2 in Harpswell, and 21 in 

West Bath). 

Due to staff constraints at the DEP, CBEP agreed to provide project management services to remove 

licensed OBDs in the targeted areas. CBEP contracted with Normandeau Associates, in association with 

Albert Frick Associates, to facilitate the OBD removal program, which required the close coordination of 

several stakeholders: 

• The landowner, who was heavily invested in the success of outcome, and in some cases 

abutters, if easements were required; 

• The septic system designer; 

• The construction company, who installed the new systems; 

• Maine DEP, responsible for licensing (and revoking the license for) OBDs, administering the 

OBD removal grant program, approving (sometimes with Department of Health and Human 

Services) replacement systems and variances, when necessary; and 

• The municipality, responsible for disbursement of funds, contract for system installation, 

system approval, variance granting, and negotiation with unhappy landowners. 

As of the completion of the Phase 

II project report in 2003, the OBD 

removal project resulted in the 

elimination of 26 of the 31 

targeted OBD systems. While 

over 243 acres of flat were 

opened during the course of this 

project, only 25 acres were the 

direct result of OBD removal. 

However, increased 

communication and prioritization 

of flats as a result of this project 

played an important role in the 

opening of the 243 acres. 

Follow-up Steps 

As of 2005, the project had 

helped to open over 300 acres 

(State of the Bay, 2005). The 

issues that remained following the 

project are the most difficult to 

resolve and require the continued 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

38 

efforts of DEP, DMR and the municipalities. The majority of the openings were facilitated by collaboration 

with DMR staff who were already working in these areas. Once staff knew where the priorities were, they 

were able to focus their efforts on the most important areas. The project enhanced collaboration with other 

stakeholders such as DEP, municipalities, and harvesters, and has continued with groups such as the New 

Meadows Watershed Committee. 

References 

Casco Bay Estuary Partnership. 1996, updated 2006. Casco Bay Plan 

Casco Bay Estuary Partnership. 2005. State of the Bay 

Heinig, C., P. Moore, D.W. Newburg and L.R. Moore. 1995. Economic Analysis of the Soft-Shell Clam (Mya 

arenaria) in Casco Bay. Casco Bay Estuary Partnership 

Normandeau Associates and MER Assessment Corporation. 1999. Sustaining the Shellfisheries of Casco 

Bay: Phase I. Ranking Clam Flats for Potential Remediation. Casco Bay Estuary Partnership 

Normandeau Associates, MER Assessment Corporation, and Albert Frick Associates. Expanding and 

Sustaining the Shellfisheries of Casco Bay: Phases II and III. 2003. Casco Bay Estuary Partnership 

6.2.5 Seal Harbor Beach, Watershed Survey 

Water Body: Seal Harbor on Mount Desert Island is located in the center of this 1.9 square mile watershed 

over which water flows to popular Seal Harbor Beach. 

Location: Hancock County, Maine 

Facilitator: Mount Desert Island Water Quality Coalition

Timeframe: June-October 2005

Funding Provided by: 

Maine Healthy Coastal Beaches Program, 

Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory, 

Mount Desert Island Water Quality Coalition, 

New England Grassroots Environmental Fund and

Seal Harbor Residents

Problem

Town officials were concerned about the potential for 

outbreaks of swimming illness because of historical high 

levels of bacteria at the Seal Harbor Beach. People were 

also upset whenever the beach was closed due to high 

bacterial counts. On initial investigation it was found that 

bacterial counts would rise and fall in Stanley Brook but 

were consistently high at the Route 3 Bridge from MidJuly to the end of August. The Maine Healthy Beaches 

Program brought together town officials and the MDI 

Water Quality Coalition to address pollution issues at 

Seal Harbor Beach.
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

39 

Project Description 

The goals of the watershed survey included 

identifying pollution sources impacting habitat 

integrity in Stanley Brook and locating pollution 

sources contributing to bacteria levels at Seal 

Harbor Beach. The survey combined the best 

features of a sanitary shoreline survey, used most 

often to detect pollution sources impacting shellfish 

growing areas, and a watershed survey, used most 

often to identify the types of pollutants that are 

running off the land into a particular body of water. 

By combining these approaches we identified 

sources of pollution and defined the types of 

pollutants that are impacting water quality in the 

Stanley Brook Watershed. 

What We Did 

• Recruited and trained volunteers to identify 

pollution sources and pollution types (bacteria, 

nutrients, sediments, toxics, thermal). 

• Visited 210 properties in the Stanley Brook 

watershed, recorded data, and photographed 

problems. 

• Talked with residents and property owners, provided informational pamphlet. 

• Conducted additional water quality tests. 

• Published a report which can be found at www.mdiwqc.org.

What We Found 

• 52 properties had pollution sources including drains, ditches, broken sewer lines, eroding and/or 

chemically treated lawns, compost piles or yard waste situated close to the brook. 

• 71 pollution sources were identified on these 52 properties; 17 of these were considered to be “Major” 

pollution problems. 

• Most of the pollution types (40%) were scored as nutrient and sediment. These pollution types can 

severely impact the health of a brook, leading to algal blooms, oxygen problems, ruined spawning 

grounds, and loss of fish and other aquatic species. 

• Above ground broken sewer lines and dog waste accounted for most of the bacterial pollution noted in 

the watershed. 

Results of Survey 

Due to the findings of the watershed survey, a new ordinance in Mt. Desert was passed at town meeting on 

March 6th 2007. The current ordinance dictates that all above ground private sanitary sewers must be 

inspected on or before June 1st of each year. It requires conformance with local, state, and federal 

regulations and addresses sewer pipe materials and installation (HDPE, PVC, Ductile Iron Pipe). It also 

prohibits construction on town property. 

Future Steps 

• Form a Watershed Action Plan Steering Committee made up of members of the Stanley Brook 

Watershed Survey advisory committee, volunteer surveyors, residents, and other interested parties to 

make short term decisions and begin long term planning for the future of the Stanley Brook Watershed 

• Develop a work plan with Hancock County Soil and Water Conservation District to prioritize problems, 

seek funding sources, and plan improvements. 

Stanley Brook flows through Seal Cove Beach, on Mount Desert 

Island, ME (above). 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

40 

• Initiate a storm event monitoring project to identify which pollution sources are most severely impacting 

the stream and beach. 

• Expand the Stanley Brook macroinvertebrate study to pin point the most impacted sites on the brook. 

• Develop a plan for inspections of all waste treatment systems and sewer lines before the start of each 

summer season. 

• Adopt responsible practices throughout the watershed; everyone can do something; individual property 

owners, neighborhood groups, the town of Mt. Desert, local contractors and developers, and Acadia 

National Park. These practices include re-directing runoff, preventing erosion, moving compost piles, 

limiting fertilizer and pesticide use, repairing private sewer lines, installing and maintaining silt fences at 

construction sites, and implementing Best Management Practices throughout the Stanley Brook 

Watershed. 

6.2.6 Kenduskeag Stream (Bangor) 

Kenduskeag Stream (Segment ID 224R02) is located in 

the town of Bangor in the Penobscot River Watershed. 

The listed segment length for Kenduskeag Stream is 3 

miles and its total listed watershed area is 39.5 square 

miles. Potential sources of bacteria impairment are listed 

as unknown. 

Bacteria Data Summary & Percent Reduction 

Calculations 

Bacteria data for the Lower Penobscot River Watershed 

were collected by FB Environmental staff in spring and 

summer of 2007 and are presented in Table 14. Three 

stream segments: Boynton Brook, Kenduskeag Stream, 

and Otter Stream were listed for “bacteria-only” 

impairment in the Lower Penobscot River Watershed as 

specified in Maine’s 2004 305(b) report. The 

instantaneous bacteria standard for Kenduskeag 

Stream, which is a Class B stream, is 236 MPN/100mL 

of sample while the geometric mean standard is 64 

MPN/100mL of sample. 

Bacteria concentrations in Kenduskeag Stream were 

observed to exceed the instantaneous standard in 3 of 

15 surveys conducted throughout the 2007 sampling period, with bacteria concentrations of 1553 

MPN/100mL on June 5th, 579 MPN/100mL on June 6th, and 395 MPN/100mL on September 10th. 

Bacteria concentrations in Kenduskeag Stream met the geometric mean standard for the entire sampling 

period. Bacteria data were also evaluated on the basis of storm flow and dry weather sampling events. 

From this perspective, the geometric mean standard was exceeded during the storm events with 174 

MPN/100mL and met during the dry weather sampling events. 

Bacteria loading reductions required to meet water quality standards were determined for all data 

throughout the entire sampling period as well as separately for storm flow and dry weather sampling 

events. These determinations were made for both maximum instantaneous sample results and geometric 

mean values. (Since it is unlikely that a stream would be listed for impairment based on a single maximum 

instantaneous sample, % reduction calculations for instantaneous results are presented for illustrative 

purposes only). 

The geometric mean for the overall results was below (i.e., in compliance with) the water quality standard; 

therefore the % reduction calculation for this criterion does not apply. For storm samples, the % reduction 

required to comply with the geometric mean standards is 63.3% (Table 14). Bacteria concentration 

Penobscot River Watershed. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

41 

reductions needed to attain the instantaneous water quality standard were 84.8% for both the overall and 

storm event results. The instantaneous result and geometric mean for dry weather conditions complied 

with standards and, therefore, do not require % reduction calculations. 

Bacteria data summary for Kenduskeag River, with wet and dry weather assessment. 

Kenduskeag - 

Bangor Sampler Sample 

Time

Current 

Weather

Precip* on 

sampling 

day

Precip 1 

day prior

Precip 2 

days prior

Precip 3 

days prior

Precip 4 

days prior

Storm 

Sample? Water temp E. coli 

(MPN)**

% 

Reduction 

to Meet 

WQS

Comments***

Storm Samples Precip data for Harmony, ME (Source: NOAA / NWS)

16-May-07 TR 12:00 Rain 0.55 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.13 y 13 126 Avg of 2 samples: 122 and 129

5-Jun-07 TR 13:00 Clear 0.94 0.13 0.17 0.00 0.01 y 19 1553

6-Jun-07 TR 13:30 Clear 0.02 0.94 0.13 0.17 0.00 y 20 579

5-Jul-07 TR 14:15 Overcast 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 y? 22 115 Storm sample

7-Aug-07 MW 9:10 - 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 y? - 112 Base flow sample

10-Sep-07 MW 9:00 - 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 y? - 395 Very low base flow

17-Sep-07 MW 13:30 - 0.00 0.18 0.05 0.00 0.00 y? 19 9 Low est level MW has seen on the Kenduskeag.

Storm Results: Max: 1553 84.8% % reduction for instantaneous WQS (236 col/100 mL)

Geomean: 174 63.3% % reduction for geomean WQS (64 col/100 mL)

Dry Weather 

Samples

9-May-07 TR 12:30 Ptly cldy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n 15 7 Fyke net upstream

23-May-07 TR 11:50 Clear 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.04 0.68 n 15 20 Fyke net removed

21-Jun-07 TR 9:50 Clear 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n 24 50 Average of tw o samples: 56 and 44

21-Jun-07 TR 9:50 Clear 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n 24 44 Lab split

18-Jul-07 MW 14:00 Overcast 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.22 n - 35 Base flow sample

1-Aug-07 MW 10:10 Clear 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 n - 20 Base flow sample

2-Aug-07 MW - Clear 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n 25 14 Average of tw o samples: 10.7 and 17.3. Water level very low .

21-Aug-07 MW - - 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.30 0.28 n - 12 Low base flow

Dry Results: Max: 50 na % reduction calculation results in negative number

Geomean: 21 na % reduction calculation results in negative number.

Overall Results: Max: 1553 84.8% % reduction for all samples using instant WQS (236 col/100 mL)

Geomean: 56 na % reduction calculation results in negative number.

* Precip data for Harmony, ME (Source: NOAA / NWS)

* Bold red values indicate exceedance of ins tantaneous of Maine Clas s B WQS (236 c ol/100 mL s ample) or geometric mean WQS (64 c ol/100 mL s ample).

** Storm event defined as 0.1" in previous 24 hr of sample collection; 0.25" in previous 48 hours; or 2" in previous 96 hours.
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

42 

Penobscot River Watershed with the impaired waterways indicated.

Watershed Characterization 

The aerial photo (figure 52) shows Kenduskeag Stream as it passes through Bangor. The Kenduskeag 

Stream watershed was delineated for the area directly draining to the impaired segment to indicate the 

surrounding land cover types potentially affecting bacteria concentrations in this vicinity (Figure 53). A view 

of the larger watershed is shown in the land cover map and statistics on the following page. The watershed 

area as delineated is approximately 43.34 square miles, and impervious surfaces are estimated to total 

12% of this area. Stream gradient is low with a slope over the segment length of about 0.38%. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

43 

Forest constitutes a majority of the land use area at 57.3%. Developed uses are significant at 22%. 

Agricultural land uses, some of which are directly adjacent to the stream, are calculated as 11.9% of 

watershed area. Wetlands and open water add 7.3% of watershed area, and grass / scrub makes up the 

smallest of these aggregated categories at 1.5% of the watershed. 

Development dominates the lowest reaches of the stream, suggesting sources such as aging septic or 

sewer infrastructure and pet waste may also be present. Agriculture could be source through the spreading 

of manure or the presence of livestock directly. 

Aerial photograph of Kenduskeag Stream and surrounding area.
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

44 

Kenduskeag Stream watershed land cover map and statistics.
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

45 

Recommended Mitigation Strategies 

Developed areas (22%) and impervious surfaces (12%) are substantial in the Kenduskeag Stream 

watershed. The nature and location of the development crowds the lower reaches of the river, although 

there are notable reaches with forested riparian buffer. It is possible that a few wastewater systems serving 

structures the area may be malfunctioning. This pollution may be exacerbated by rain, which can 

essentially wash wastewater out of containment systems and into streams. Alternately, a constant volume 

of wastewater discharge from a structure into a stream may result in more severe impairments during dry 

conditions, when there is less stream water to dilute the incoming pollution. Another possible source of 

pollution from the developed areas is improperly managed pet waste, which tends to lead to elevated 

bacterial concentrations after rain. Since Kenduskeag Brook watershed contains significant amounts of 

forests (approximately 57% of area), wildlife inhabiting these areas also could conceivably contribute fecal 

contamination to the river. 

There are several approaches to mitigation. First, a sampling plan can be designed to better pinpoint the 

location and weather conditions of impairment. For example, collecting samples both upstream and 

downstream of the developed area could reveal where impairment is greatest, which can also help suggest 

which sources (urban or agricultural/wildlife) are more likely. Several sampling events would be needed in 

order to provide a representative view of conditions and overcome the natural variability of bacterial 

concentrations in streams. 

Fecal contamination from wastewater system malfunction can require considerable effort to locate and 

correct. Record-keeping before the mid-1970’s is spotty, after which Maine’s wastewater permitting system 

began to become progressively more stringent. Both the municipality and the state keep records of septic 

system permits, although they are not necessarily digitized or entered into a database. Once a 

malfunctioning systems is located, enforcement of repair may require extensive follow-up by the 

municipality. The expense of wastewater system repair or replacement can sometime stall efforts at 

enforcement if a municipality is reluctant to make a special assessment against the property and 

supplemental financing is not available. 

Areas served by sewer are generally easier to assess for potential malfunctions, and repair is more 

generally prompt when a problem is found. A complicating factor may be property owners who have been 

granted waivers from connecting to the public sewer, and research of municipal records may be needed to 

identify these gaps in service. A comprehensive analysis of wastewater systems, both private and public, 

conducted in close collaboration with the sewer district and municipal officials is the best approach to 

locating and fixing infrastructure problems which are contributing to stream impairment, because it is 

comprehensive and builds awareness of the impairment among a variety of stakeholders. 

Pet waste is another likely source of bacteria in developed areas. Reduction of this impairment can be 

achieved by conducting detailed sanitary survey along the stream corridor to document pet waste 

management problems. Parks can be equipped with sanitary bags to assist pet owners in cleaning up after 

their pets, and a variety of educational outreach activities, from mailing brochures or postcards to 

publishing a slideshow on local access cable TV can result in greater public awareness and eventually help 

change habits. It is also possible for a single individual to contribute greatly to an impairment (for example, 

dumping cat litter or other pet waste next to a stream). 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

46 

7.0 REASONABLE ASSURANCE 

The TMDL targets for point sources in this TMDL are not less stringent based on any assumed nonpoint 

source reductions; therefore, documentation of reasonable assurance in the TMDL is not a requirement. 

Nevertheless, reasonable assurances that both point and non-point allocations will be achieved include a 

combination of regulatory and non-regulatory program support in Maine, including: regulatory enforcement, 

availability of financial incentives, and local, state, and federal programs for pollution control. CSOs are 

regulated under an existing federal and state program. Communities subject to stormwater NPDES permit 

Phase I and II coverage will address discharges from municipally-owned stormwater drainage systems. 

Enforcement of regulations controlling non-point source discharges include local implementation of Maine’s 

Natural Resources Protection Act and Site Location Development Law (38 MSRA, Chapter 3, §§ 480-

490). 

There are only a few categories of sources of bacteria and many of the necessary remedial actions to 

address these sources are well known. The ‘Maine Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual’ 

(MEDEP 2006) and the resources identified in the Implementation section provide communities with 

information on effective mitigation of bacteria sources. Financial incentives include federal and state funds 

available under §319 and 104(b) programs of the Clean Water Act, as well as the State Revolving Loan 

Program. Other potential funds and assistance are available through Maine’s Department of Agriculture 

program, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Services. 

8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

Public participation the Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL development was ensured through several 

avenues to enable DEP to receive feedback and comments. A preliminary draft TMDL was reviewed by 

Bureau of Land and Water Quality staff (D. Courtemanch, D. Witherill, B. Welch, N. Marcotte, B. Mower, J. 

Stahlnecker) and the document was further reviewd at a DEP staff meeting. Prior to the formal public 

review the document was also distributed to DMR and the MHB program for comment. A presentation of 

an early draft was also given to the Presumpscot River Watershed Coalition and Casco Bay Estuary 

Project for feedback. 

This draft was made available for a 30 day public review period beginning on May 29, 2009. A notice with 

a link to the public review draft has been distributed, via email, to the following interested parties and 

watershed stakeholder organizations: 

• Sheepscot Valley Conservation Association 

• Sheepscot Watershed Council 

• Casco Bay Estuary Project, Portland 

• Friends of Casco Bay, South Portland 

• Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District 

• Kennebec County Soil and Water Conservation District 

• Department of Marine Resources 

• Maine Healthy Beaches Program 

• Presumpscot River Watershed Coalition 

• Spruce Creek Watershed Association 

• Conservation Law Foundation, Maine Office 

• Penjajawoc Watershed Council 

• City of Portland 

• Town of Freeport 

• MS4 Area Stormwater Groups 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

47 

The email also requests that the notification be further distributed to organization members or any other 

interested persons. Almost all comments DEP has received on TMDL’s posted for review for the last few 

years have come from this type of direct email notification. 

Paper and electronic forms of the Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL were made available for public review 

by posting DEP Comment Web site (http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/comment.htm) and a notice was 

placed in the ‘legal’ advertising of a local newspaper. Any requests for hard copies due to difficulties with 

downloads are immediately sent out. The following ad was printed in the Sunday editions of the Portland 

Press Herald and the Bangor Daily during the public review period. The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (Region I) and the interested public were initially provided a 30 day period (from May 29 to June 

30, 2009), to respond with comments. 

PUBLIC NOTICE FOR MAINE STATEWIDE BACTERIA TMDL -In accordance with Section 303(d) 

of the Clean Water Act, and implementation regulations in 40 CFR Part 130, the Maine Department 

of Environmental Protection has prepared a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report for all waters 

in the State of Maine with excessive levels of bacterial contamination. This TMDL report describes: 

bacterial impairments in fresh, estuarine, & marine waters of Maine, potential sources of 

contamination, the targets for healthy levels of bacteria, and approaches needed to restore these 

waters. This report is posted at the DEP website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/comment.htm or 

to receive copies please contact Melissa Evers at 287-3901 or melissa.evers@maine.gov. 

SEND ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS BY JUNE 30, 2009 TO MELISSA EVERS, MAINE DEP, STATE 

HOUSE STATION #17, AUGUSTA, ME 04333, OR EMAIL:. MELISSA.EVERS@MAINE.GOV. 

Some stakeholders requested more time was to review the document and the deadline was extended 

to July 15, 2009. All written comments received and the associated DEP response are provided in 

Appendix V. 
Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL 

48 

9.0 REFERENCES 

Center for Watershed Protection, 1999. Watershed Protection Techniques. Vol. 3, No. 1. 

Clary, J. , J.E. Jones, B.R. Urbonas, M.M. Quigley, E. Strecker, T. Wagner. 2008. Can Stormwater BMPs 

Remove Bacteria? Stormwater. Vol.9 No.4. Available at: http://www.stormh2o.com/may2008/bacterial-research-bmps.aspx

Hammer, D.A. (ed.). 1989. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and 

Agricultural. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 

MADEP 2005. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Mitigation Measures to Address 

Pathogen Pollution in Surface Waters: A TMDL Implementation Guidance Manual for Massachusetts. 

Available at:: http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/tmdls.htm

MEDEP 2006. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Maine Stormwater Best Management 

Practices Manual. DEPLW0738. Augusta, ME. 53pp. Available at: 

http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docstand/stormwater/stormwaterbmps/index.htm 

MEDEP 2007. Maine Department of Environmental Protection 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring 

and Assessment Report.. . DEPLW 0817. Augusta, ME. 195pp. Available at:: 

http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/305b/index.htm 

MEDEP 2008. Maine Department of Environmental Protection 2008 Integrated Water Quality 

Monitoring and Assessment Report. DEPLW 0895. Augusta, ME. 147pp. Available at: 

http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/305b/index.htm

MEDMR 2007. Maine Department Of Marine Resources. Standard Operating Procedures for the Division 

of Public Health Shellfish Growing Area Classification Program 

MHB 2008. Maine Healthy Beaches Program. Available at: http://www.mainecoastdata.org/public/ 

NSSP 2005. National Shellfish Sanitation Program. Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish. 

Available at:: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/nss3-toc.html

Rosen, B. H. 2000. Waterborne Pathogens in Agricultural Wastewater. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute. Available at: ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WSI/pdffiles/Pathogens_in_Agricultural_Watersheds.pdf

Underhill, M. 1999. Integrated Management of Urban Canadian Geese. Conference Proceedings, 

Waterfowl Information Network. Available at: 

http://212.187.155.84/pass_06june/Subdirectories_for_Search/Glossary&References_Contents/Proc

eedingsContents/ProceedingsRef100_WATERFOWLINFORMATIONNETWORK/Paper11.htm

USEPA 2001. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. 

EPA 841-R-00-002. 

USEPA 2002. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Management Measure to Control 

Non Point Source Pollution from Urban Areas – Draft. USEPA 2002. EPA 842-B-02-2003. Available at 

:http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html

USEPA 2003. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Management Measures to control 

Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture. EPA 841-B-03-004. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm/index.html