Water Matters

A Conversation about Protecting the Water Commons in the Champlain Valley

Hinesburg Town Hall - 7 PM
March 31, 2016

PROGRAM SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS

Welcome and Introductions
Marty Illick Lewis Creek Association and South Chittenden River Watch
Barry Lampke -Voices for the Lake and ECHO
Intro Message
It is rewarding to be gathering watershed towns to determine how each town might consider clean water
management planning with its larger watershed in mind.
Promoting collaboration, an all-in approach, prevention management, and community health as
measured by our watershed conditions seems the right thing to do.
Special Thanks to our Event Sponsors
Heritage Automotive, Lake Champlain Basin Program, Lewis Creek Association, Mount Mansfield
Media, New England Grassroots Environment Fund, Responsible Growth Hinesburg, South Chittenden
River Watch, Clear Water Filtration.
Special Thanks to Event Planners
Jean Kiedaisch, Heidi Simpkins, Dee Dee Erb, Stevie Spencer, Catherine Goldsmith, Chuck Reiss,
Barbara Forauer, Jo White, Merrily Lovell, Mary Beth Bowman, Marty Illick, John Kiedaisch, Andrea
Morgante.
For all the technical support along the way
Dean Grover, Grover Engineering; Tony Stout, Lakeside Environmental; Steve Revell, Lincoln Applied
Geology; Jim Dumont, Attorney at Law; Jessica Louisos & Roy Schiff, Milone and McBroom; Bill
Hoadley, South Chittenden River Watch; Andres Torizzo, Watershed Consulting Associates.
Marty Illick of Lewis Creek Association and South Chittenden River Watch opened the evening with an
introductory message that stressed the importance of intertown and watershed-based approaches to
planning. She thanked the above Event Sponsors and Planners and technical consultants. Ms. Illick
explained the map displays created by Milone and McBroom and LCA with funding support from the
Lake Champlain Basin Program and LCA. The map depicts 20 years of data collection and analysis.
Marty gave a special shout out to Larry Lussier of Heritage Automotive and Jake Cunevelis from Mount
Mansfield Media for their involvement in the creation of Whats Your Water Mark?. Mr. Cunevelis
spoke to how making the film made him personally aware of how he could be a better steward of the
Lake. Whats Your Watermark? will be presented at the Carpenter Carse Library in Hinesburg on
April 7th at 7pm.

1|Page

Ms. Illick then handed the microphone over to Barry Lampke of Voices for the Lake. Mr. Lampke
applauded the collaborative efforts to date and reiterated that each of us has a role to play in creating a
culture of clean water.
3-31-16 Summary Highlights from the Panel Discussion
For the benefit of the three towns of Shelburne, Hinesburg and Charlotte:
There was strong support and rationale to continue with in-stream monitoring.
There was strong support for preparing a rural-based LID Guide specific to our towns geography.
There was strong interest in facilitating an intertown stormwater master plan process organized by
watershed, linked to TMDL with consideration of currently available data and research.
Introduce Panelists and Moderator
PanelistsJessica Louisos, of the South Burlington Planning Commission and Milone and McBroom;
Karen Purinton, Colchester Town Planning Office;
Tony Stout, Lakeside Environmental; and
Andres Torizzo, Watershed Consulting Associates.
ModeratorMarty Illick, Lewis Creek Association and South Chittenden River Watch
Program Note TakerJeannine McCrumb, Charlotte Town Planner
Our focus tonight will be visioning for our rural village areas with an eye on watershed health and
pollution prevention. We invite you to imagine what village designs will produce clean waters flowing
from each of our towns to Lake Champlain.
Knowing that today most of our streams are unstable and will take many many years to recover to slow
the pollution of Lake Champlain, small land use alterations that incrementally slow the clean-up of the
lake are all the more important to fix.
The notable high nutrient and sediment levels in our streams today are prematurely aging Lake
Champlain. And ubiquitous chloride use may be a growing problem for future water supplies.
Do we need an exceptionally strategic and collaboratively-produced stormwater master plan?
Ms. Illick introduced the panelists. She suggested we focus on village areas designing them with an
eye on watershed health and pollution prevention and that we simultaneously pay attention to the
smaller projects that incrementally impact the watershed. She noted that many of our streams are
unstable and that it will take decades for them to bounce back. She asked the panelists to focus on what
extra measures can, therefore, be accomplished in the meantime.

Panelist Questions and Answers and Audience Comments:

2|Page

--- Shall we trust the numbers? With new Act 64 funds & rules/ regs. for agr., forests, roads, rivers,
WWTF, developed lands; we must reduce our LaPlattes phosphorus loading from 10.2 to 8.9 metric
tons/yr. This number includes a prediction error of 17.77% the largest prediction error for the 13
Lake Champlain segments.
SCRW feels this computer modeled Phosphorus reduction target needs backup monitoring to track
progress. See the SCRW Surface Water Conditions Map, annotated bibliography and project
implementation lists for the LaPlatte, McCabes, Thorp and Kimball watersheds.
Ms. Illick asked the panelists how they felt about the need for continuing stream monitoring. She noted
the large prediction error associated with Phosphorus (P) loading reduction targets for the LaPlatte
region. She believes continued SCRW monitoring will be a good check on state monitoring, track
trends in the stream subwatersheds, and help to refine the model. Ms. Illick thanked the VT DEC
LaRosa Laboratory (now called DEC Environmental Laboratory) for their ongoing gratis analytical
services and assistance since 2003.
A member of the audience asked for the definition of loading. Ms. Illick replied that it was the amount
of Phosphorus runoff from a watershed as measured in the load of metric tons. She noted that the data
collection and computer model assigned proportionate shares of loading between Vermont, New York,
and Quebec. Vermont contributes (~70%) the most metric tons/yr. based on our land uses and
geography. And each Vermont river basin or lake segment, such as the LaPlatte/Shelburne Bay
segment, is assigned specific P loading reduction targets by land use category versus stream
subwatersheds.
What is the current loading number and how much of a percentage do we need to change? Ms. Illick and
Mr. Torizzo replied that the details of how to calculate reductions was still being worked out between
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).
Mr. Stout concurred and noted the need for more site-specific and reach-based information. He thinks
continued monitoring is a good idea so that we can identify where the P is coming from in the 3 towns.
Mr. Torizzo noted that beyond dissolved P from fertilizers and manure, most phosphorus is bound to
soil, which can be sequestered by wetlands.
Ms. Louisos said that currently a critical source area study was being performed in the Missisquoi Bay
Watershed to determine how P makes its way from land to water. She noted that although agricultural
land made up only 17 percent of that watershed, it contributed over 65 percent of the P. She noted that
stream erosion also accounted for a large percentage of P entering the water. She stressed the
importance of keeping the soil on the land and water on the land (not sending directly to stream).
Ms. Louisos referred to the recent hydrology study completed in Hinesburg village and how that data is
informing decision makers. She too felt it important to continue monitoring.
--- What are other towns doing to protect water quality? Is it working? Are clean water impact fees a
good tool? Colchester? South Burlington?

3|Page

Ms. Purinton stressed the need for data as a means to remain proactive. She noted that Colchester is
now regulated by the EPA as an MS4 town and pointed out that much of the land over which water
flows as it makes its way to the Lake in Colchester is not controlled by Colchester. This speaks to the
need for a regional approach.
Ms. Louisos explained that South Burlington, also an MS4 town, has formed a stormwater utility to
manage stormwater runoff. Residents receive a stormwater bill in addition to a drinking water and
sewer bill. She referred to the draft state stormwater regulations that propose regulating runoff from
projects with greater than 0.5 acre impervious surfaces versus the current 1.0 acre limit. All stormwater
will need to be handled on site. South Burlingtons regulations mimic the states proposed rules. She
noted that the integration of stormwater controls into the land use regulations took many meetings and a
few years to complete.
Joe Iadanza from the Hinesburg Planning Commission stated that Hinesburg had recently passed
regulations that would require stormwater management plans for projects with greater than or equal to
10,000 square feet of impervious surface.
--- What regulatory gaps need closing? Seems we are inadvertently loading significant P and sediment
to the lake by not overseeing P and sediment loading from smaller incremental % imperv projects and
the ubiquitous ditching impacts. Should towns play a part here?
Ms. Illick asked the panelists to speak to concerns of the equity of the loading percentage targets.
Should we be concerned with smaller projects and their contribution to P loading?
An audience member asked about short term or long term effects from construction of VT Gas pipeline.
Ms. Purinton replied that most of the line would be underground so only potential effect might be from
reducing opportunities for infiltration in those areas. Mr. Torizzo felt that erosion during construction
was probably the biggest concern.
Another audience member spoke about lack of state concern with septic issue around the Lake. She
noted that Lake Iroquois had several camps with substandard systems. Ms. Purinton replied that
Colchester had chosen to take on delegation of State Wastewater / Potable Water Supply permits in an
effort to clean up these types of systems. They are considering requiring an operating permit for older
systems.
Homes on Lake Iroquois and lack of state concern on septic into Sunset Lake are a concern.
Mr. Stout stated then when no design is permitted, enforcement can only occur when system fails. He
suggested contacting state personnel if this is suspected.
Again the impact of the VT Gas pipeline was discussed. Ms. Louisos felt it possible that a buried utility
line could act as a conduit for water movement if not constructed properly. Mr. Torizzo felt that for
rural areas hydrologic modification or how the water moves across the land was a bigger concern than
direct water quality impacts. He offered the example of a driveway and how just routing the water
slightly can increase the load on town ditches, which may already be poorly designed. Ultimately this
can increase the speed that water runs across the land, possibly creating erosion and reducing
opportunities for treatment.

4|Page

---The state/VLCT offers urban LID guidance for small parcels and urban areas. Should we produce
watershed based RURAL LID Guides (informed by local data) for our regions more rural watersheds
and stormwater master plans? Should stormwater master plans be organized by watershed and subshed
neighborhood areas?
Mr. Stout felt that Low Impact Development (LID) practices were a good idea but noted that could
require large areas based on amount of impervious.
Ms. Purinton countered by stating that although small treatment practices may not treat all surfaces, they
can make a difference. She noted the need for different site-specific strategies.
Mr. Torizzo felt the biggest challenge facing towns was in the ongoing maintenance of infrastructure.
He felt a primary strategy for rural areas is to require passive, non-structural changes (e.g. narrower
roads and driveways) as these require less maintenance.
Ms. Purinton noted that Colchester is working on changes to zoning in anticipation of potential addition
of sewered area round Mallets Bay. They are looking at changing allowable uses as well as limiting lot
coverage percentages.
--- Should we quantify village build-out capacity and green infrastructure up front to avoid negative
impacts stream geomorphology, wetlands and water quality?
Ms. Purinton felt this was critical and referred to the challenges that towns face in rectifying the history
of how they have built. As an MS4 community, the cost of Colchesters stormwater permit went from
$80 per year to $80K per year. This involves requirements for outreach, testing, etc.
Ms. Louisos suggested designing educational examples on town properties.
Several audience members spoke about the issues with ditching in town both for agricultural and other
purposes. All understood the limitations of the previous generations thoughts to get it off the property
as fast as possible. Mr. Stout added that sometimes water is still piped directly to streams and / or town
ditches. Mr. Torizzo noted that existing ditches could be retrofitted with check dams to slow the water
down to reduce pollution.
An audience member asked how a rural homeowner could find a list of things they could do for their
property. Ms. McCrumb and Mr. Torizzo referenced the Low Impact Development Guide for
Residential and Small Sites for smaller suburban sites. Pam Brangan from the Chittenden County
Regional Planning Commission also suggested the Smart WaterWays website (smartwaterways.org) for
MS4 towns. LCAs Ahead of the Storm Program aims to showcase optimal conservation practices for
rural areas.
---Do regulators account for difference between sediment generated on construction sites and cultivated
land versus sediment scoured from stream banks from increased storm flows from projects without
storm detention/infiltration?
An audience member raised the question of fairness in how communities will have to respond to Act 64.
It will require all towns to do a road inventory and farmers will be required to do nutrient management
5|Page

plans. More developed, urban areas only account for 10 percent of the P entering the Lake. Is this fair
and accurate? This was followed by a brief discussion on how to deal with large parking lots in
developed areas. Can we apply LID techniques retroactively? Mr. Torizzo replied that might be better
to retrofit existing development in situ. Ms. Purinton noted that green infrastructure can be used in
concert with traditional stormwater approaches as suggested by Mr. Stout. Andrea Morgante, Hinesburg
Selectboard member, used the example of constructing shallow dips along ones driveway to direct
water onto property for filtration.
--- We have stormwater impairment status areas that require certain P levels and enough flow levels for
stream biology health. Do we need in stream (subshed) P standards/targets for Lake TMDL allocation
monitoring?
Ms. Illick pointed out that the current P Vermont Water Quality Standard for streams is based on
biological health indicators. She asked how P levels for lake targets relate to that standard. Ms. Louisos
agreed there seems to be a disconnect between the DEC monitoring programs. Mr. Torizzo felt that in
Chittenden County MS4 towns with impaired stream flows, it might be better to stabilize streams versus
bringing them back to natural flow conditions.
--- What are the implications of the new water quality standard for chloride as a toxin? Is an
exceedance anywhere an issue? What are the potential impacts to de-icing by municipalities and private
landowners in the watershed?
Mr. Torizzo noted that chloride has been shown to change the species composition in streams and that it
can also result in the release of previously soil-bound metals into the water. The proposed criteria
include an acute threshold of an average of 860 milligrams per liter (part per million) over an hour. This
level has been routinely exceeded in more urbanized areas where de-icing salts are used on roads. Mr.
Stout added that unlike P, chloride doesnt bind with soils.
There was a question regarding available baseline data for the area around the proposed salt storage area
in Shelburne. Ms. Illick replied that there are currently LaPlatte trend monitoring stations upstream of
that area as well as baseline LaPlatte data from 2003-2010 from more sampling points. Mr. Torizzo said
that his organization has been monitoring in areas upstream and downstream from the site for the past
several months.
Andres chloride changes species composition and can release metals into stream; current acute
threshold
--- How do we ensure adequate clean water supply availability in village build out plans?
Amos Baehr of Charlottes Conservation Commission commented on the need for high quality oversight
and enforcement of permits particularly during construction. Ms. Louisos concurred and recalled her
astonishment when as a young engineer she had completed an erosion control plan that was never
implemented. A member of the audience from Monkton noted that in a recent large project, citizens had
to call for the applicant to retain an oversight coordinator who routinely reported on the status of the
project including stormwater management and erosion control. This was not yet a standard operating
procedure.

6|Page