nr
w Fi
MANAGEMENT PLAN
ADDENDUM
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
UJ
O
NDROSCOGGIN
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
on the
FINAL 208 HASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
for the
ANDROSCOGGIN VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1978
Prepared By:
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission
70 Court Street
Auburn, MAINE 04210
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
lyi
R. Adams, Jr.
Regional Administrator
EPA - Region I
Responsible Officials:
.'V.
Barbara A. Bartlett, Chairman
Androscoggin Valley Regional
Plannning Commission
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION i
SUMMARY OF SUBPLANS 1
PLAN COMMENTS 14
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 68
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
-------
INTRODUCTION
In June 1977, the Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission
published a draft Management Plan and Environmental Impact Assessment on
the 208 Water Quality Program. The Plan was revised based on E.P.A.,
D.E.P. and local comment and reprinted in September 1977. Public work-
shops were held in the Norway and Lewiston areas on October 19 and 20,1977
respectively. The notice that the Environmental Assessment was available
for comment was printed in the Federal Register on November 3, 1977, and
a 45-day public comment period began. As a result of the workshops and
written comments received during the comment period, this document was
compiled.
-------
SUMMARY OF SUBPLANS
-------
SUMMARY OF SUBPLANS
Introduction
The plan included eleven technical subplans and an assessment of
surface water quality. The subplans contained the methodology used,
the technical findings, an assessment of management alternatives, and
the selected alternative(s) rewritten as a recommendation(s).
The eleven subplans and the Surface Water Quality Assessment were
»
summarized for the public workshop and comment process. Summaries are
included here, and final recommendations for each technical area can be
found in Section IV of this document.
Surface Water Quality Assessment
The major problem of the Little Androscoggin River is the 6.3 mile
Class D segment which stretches from South Paris to Oxford. The 7 Q 10
low flow causes this segment to be Water Quality Limited.
The second greatest problem on the Little Androscoggin is the dis-
charge of storm and sanitary wastes from the Town of Mechanic Falls.
Designs and plans for a Sewage Treatment Plant are presently being modi-
fied and construction should begin as soon as monies are available.
The remainder of the pollution problems are non-point in nature;
however, these affect primarily the small tributaries and are small in
nature compared to the point sources in the Little Androscoggin.
The following table is a summary of information for those river
segments and tributaries not presently meeting swinmable-fishable stan-
dards, which is met by or corresponds to B-2 classification by Maine
standards.
Agriculture Subplan
Agriculture in the 208 area, based on studies to date, has not
been shown to be a major non-point source of pollution. This premises
is based on the fact that although 65% of the cropland in the area
needs some additional treatment to control erosion, neither the extent
-1-
-------
i
r:
i
Table 1
SURFACE HATERS OF 208 STUDY AREA NOT MEETING SHIMMABLE-FISHABLE STANDARDS
Segment/Tributary
Bird Brook
(Norway)
Davis Brook
(Poland)
Assigned
Classification
C
C
Hater Quality
Problems
None apparent
None apparent
Recommendation to Achieve
B-2 (Swinable-Fishable)
scheduled for reinvestigation
and possible reclassification
by D.E.P.
Scheduled for reinvestigation
and possible reclassification
by D.E.P.
Expected Date
To Achieve B-2
Little Androscoggin
nain stem, .25 miles
below H. Paris to con-
fluence with Andrews
Little Androscoggin
main stem, Oxford to
confluence with Andro-
scoggin River at Auburn
Effluent limited!
sanitary discharge
at N. Paris.
This segment is out of the 208
area and should be investigated.
Little Androscoggin
main stem, S. Paris
to Oxford
D Hater quality
limited!
Chromium Content
Verify Chromium transport
mechanism or source and refine
treatment plant operations and
data on this segment.
Effluent limited!
Untreated storm
and sanitary dis-
charge at Mechanic
Falls
Construct planned treatment
plant at Mechanic Falls.
When facility is at
design efficiency.
Thoopson Lake Outlet C
(Oxford)
Pennesseewassee Lake C
Outlet (Norway)
Unnamed Brook Auburn C
1.3 miles East of Mi not
Village
No Name Brook C
(Lewiston)
Logan Brook C
Penley Brook C
(Auburn)
Sabattus River C
Effluent limited!
Industrial and
sanitary discharge
None apparent
Effluent limited!
Sewage lagoon dis-
charge
Presently part of
storm sewer
Presently part of
storm sewer
Effluent Limited!
Storm and sanitary
discharge at
Sabattus
Treatment plant constructed 1976
on line spring 1977 - segment
should be checked for reclassifi-
cation and possible waste load
allocation .
Scheduled for reinvestigation and
possible reelassification by D.E.P.
This stream could not be found
and will probably be dropped
from classification register.
Upgrade lagoons or divert
sewerage to Lewiston-
Auburn treatment plant.
Hill probably be dropped
from classification register.
Hill probably be dropped
from classification register.
Construct treatment facility
or interceptor to Lewiston-
Aubura treatment plant.
Not applicable
B-2 can be met when
discharge eliminated
Not applicable
Not applicable
After construction
of one or the other
of the recommenda-
tions
-------
nor the magnitude of the problem associated with this percentage is
great enough to warrant it being termed a major problem. The total
cropland acres needing treatment is only about 1,000 and the measured
range of loss in excess of the established tolerable limit was only
3 to 18 tons/acre/year.
The Policy Advisory Committee, however, did decide to select a
managment recommendation that they felt would best address the situa-
tion, if in the future agriculture was ascertained to be a major pro-
blem. This was done primarily because of knowledge that the 208 area
may be seeing a great increase in grain corn production in the next
few years. Dependent upon the ability of the existing voluntary pro-
grams to hold down the magnitude of the problem, a regulatory program
may be warranted in the future. In this light, the following manage-
ment recommendation was chosen:
The State with S.C.S. assistance should establish
a regulatory program in the Department of Environ-
mental Protection to control major agricultural
non-point sources.
In addition to the Policy Committee's management recommendation,
there were several other recommendations that have risen during the
course of the program. They are:
More cost-share funding (ACP) should be made
available for dispersement in the 208 area to
allow greater participation in the existing
voluntary programs.
The $2,500 ACP cost-share limit should remain,
but special funding for major practices should
be made available for dispersement through the
A.S.C.S. County Committeemen.
Forestry Subplan
The Forestry Subplan describes the study methods and findings of
the "Survey of Forest Operations and Potential Impact on Water Quality".
The study was a cooperative effort between the A.V.R.P.C. and the Maine
Bureau of Forestry.
The major findings of the study can be summarized as follows:
1. One forest harvest site out of seventeen in the 208
area had significant erosion problems;
-3-
-------
2. Spring harvest operations had the greatest erosion
potential because of runoff over thawing soils;
3. The susceptibility of a site to erosion is primarily
related to the slope of a site and its soils;
4. The care with which an operator worked a site can
have a significant influence on erosion of the site;
and,
5. The transportation phase of harvesting, primarily the
operation of skidders, is the most significant impact
on the site.
The primary water pollutant associated with forest harvesting is
sediment, which consists of soil particles and organic matter from the
forest floor. Skidder trails on steep slopes, where surface organic
matter is removed and soil exposed, are the primary sources of sediment.
Based on the limited survey in the ten town area, it is not re-
commended that a regulatory program specific only to this 208 area be
established to control forest operations. However, if a statewide
regulatory program is to be implemented, it should be based on a foresjb
management or harvest plan for sensitive sites, for example on steep
slopes draining into a lake. This would control problems sufficiently
in the 208 area.
Construction Subplan
The Construction Subplan describes the major sources of construc-
tion associated pollutants as being: (1) sediment, (2) stormwater,
(3) solid wastes, and (4) petroleum products. Construction in the 208
area ranges from the building of a single family house in a rural area
to large shopping centers and industrial sites. There are state laws
which control major construction, such as the Site Location of Develop-
ment Act, which includes projects covering 20 acres or structures greater
than 60,000 square feet. Municipal controls on construction are primar-
ily concerned with subdivision review. The subplan includes a projec-
tion of population and required dwelling units by 1995 for each 208
town. The urban areas of Lewiston and Auburn will have a greater num-
ber of dwelling units per acre than the rural towns. Urban multi-family
housing generally involves disturbance of larger land areas than rural
housing construction, and has the potential, because of scale, to gene-
rate greater levels of sediment.
Also projected are the commercial and industrial acres which could
potentially be developed during the 20 year planning period, 1975-1995.
The greatest development is expected in Lewiston, followed by Auburn,
and then Oxford.
-4-
-------
The construction activities in the 208 towns not covered by
specific erosion and sediment controls under state or municipal ordi-
nances are:
1. individual lot owners filling relatively large
areas;
2. commercial or industrial projects which are not
over 20 acres or with an effected area of 60,000
square feet and which are not interpreted to be
subdivisions;
3. gravel or borrow pits less than five acres in size;
4. construction of public and private roads other than
State Aid Roads;
5. maintenance of public and private roads, particularly
shoulders, side-slopes and roadside ditches; and,
6. most municipal projects.
The Policy Committee recommended that:
1. 208 towns without sufficient controls should volun-
tarily adopt ordinances regulating construction;
2. a statewide sediment and erosion control law, if
adopted, should included a regulatory program to
control construction related sediment and erosion
problems for subdivisions and commercial and in-
dustrial developments of a certain size; and,
3. any adivsory program to control sediment and ero-
sion should be conducted through the local
Soil Conservation Districts.
In order to immediately implement the first recommendation, the
208 staff drafted a model Sediment and Erosion Control Ordinance, a
Site Plan Review Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
Miscellaneous Sources Subplan
In addition to the major in-place and activity related non-point
sources of pollution discussed individually in other subplans, there
are a variety of other potential sources that merit discussion and
management recommendations in an overall water quality plan. Although
these other sources may not have the potential for areawide or catas-
trophic impact, they can and periodically are, the causes of signi-
ficant site specific problems.
-5-
-------
Preliminary assessments conducted by individuals employed under
CETA (Comprehensive Employment Training Act) pointed out that the
following were activities or sources that may have the potential to
give rise to non-point pollution, but at this time were not great
enough in number or severity of. impact to warrant in-depth, detailed
investigations.
1. Roadside ditches
2. Snow dumps
3. Road salt storage and application
4. Pesticide use and container disposal
5. Petroleum products storage
6. Mining and extraction procedures
This assumption of lesser impact, based on an areawide approach,
was discussed with the 208 Technical Advisory Committee and there
was concensus that this was the case for the most part. The following
investigation procedure was recommended:
1. Rather than using limited resources to ascertain
the actual extent of various problems, instead,
assess the literature and consult area profes-
sionals for known problems associated with various
sources or activities.
2. Use the broad based information developed through
this type of investigation to develop mangement re-
commendations that are in line with findings of
specific technical studies conducted primarily for
other reasons.
3. Deal with site specific problems as encountered in
other 208 investigative efforts, (i.e. pesticide
container disposal in the agricultural study, or
salt leachate in ground water study).
The basic reasoning behind this type of approach is that great
amounts of time and money can be spent attempting to ascertain the
extent of salt leaching from a storage pile and result in no definite
findings. However, it is known that uncovered salt does leach into
the ground, and it is also known that the aquifer-esker systems of
the 208 area are very porous. Therefore, management recommendations
to protect water quality are:
-6-
-------
1. Place salt piles on concrete pads and under cover,
2. Do not locate salt storage piles on eskers
These types of recommendations are reasonable and in line with
the E.P.A. directive of ascertaining "Best Management Practices",
while still addressing the problem categories with the emphasis
required, given their frequency of occurrence and their known poten-
tial for impact in the A.V.R.P.C. 208 area.
Solid Waste Subplan
The popular method for solid waste disposal in the 208 area has
been open dump burning. Due to State compliance (Title 38, M.R.S.A.,
Chapters 4 and 13) with Federal law, this practice has been ordered
to cease, primarily for air pollution abatement. For this reason,
municipalities must begin landfill ing or find some other disposal
alternative. The state laws established Air Quality Standards and
sanitary landfill site location requirements. The Air Emission
Regulations, of which the standards are a part, also provided for a
variance from the provisions until September 1, 1977, for towns over
1,000 people and indefinitely for towns under 1,000 people unless
they are found to be in violation of the Air Quality Standards. This
variance provision conflicts with E.P.A. regulations and the federal
law. As it presently exists, those granted open burning variances
may continue; but they must also be landfilling, which requires daily
soil covering of refuse and/or ash.
The most popular and usually the least expensive method of meeting
requirements as stated in these laws is to develop a sanitary landfill.
However, due to the geologic nature of the 208 area, particularly the
aquifer-aquifer recharge areas and other factors such as population
patterns and land availability, this alternative, in most cases, will
not solve the problems of waste disposal and pollution abatement for
the long-term.
Sanitary landfills, for the short-term, will continue to be the
most cost-effective method for certain individual towns. However, due
to the volumes of solid waste being generated and the physical limita-
tions of much of the area, new technologies and cooperative agreements
between towns and private industries should be explored. Such techno-
logies as shredding, with or without materials recovery, can greatly
prolong the life of existing landfills. Incineration, with or without
heat recovery, is also a means of reduction that merits invest gation
either by itself or in connection with shredding. This technology
exists at a level to make steps such as these, not only feasible, but
economically and environmentally desirable, given a sufficient volume
of waste generation.
-7-
-------
These disposal methods, shredding and incineration to be located
at Lewiston and Auburn, respectively, should be evaluated by area
municipalities to see if these would be cost-effective alternatives
under contract or agreement. This is important due to the fact that
presently six of the ten 208 towns should be looking for new disposal
sites. Four of these six towns presently have disposal sites located
on aquifer-aquifer recharge areas.
Sludge and Septage Subplan
The subplan reviews state law and inventories existing and pro-
posed sludge and septage disposal methods.
In the area, all septage is being disposed at sewage treatment
facilities with the Lewiston-Auburn and Norway facilities accepting
volumes in excess of 400,000 gallons per year. Both facilities serve
numerous towns outside of the planning area. Septage has caused pro-
blems at the Norway facility and may cause problems at the Lewiston-
Auburn facility in the future. For these reasons, it is recommended
that Norway restrict its septage receiving to improve operations
It may be necessary for Lewiston-Auburn to restrict septage receiving
in the future. Some towns will be forced to use land disposal methods;
Oxford, Poland, and Minot should consider a common disposal system.
Sludge generated in the planning area is applied to the land for
disposal. Sludge can be either buried (landfilled) or land spread.
Compliance with the Maine Guidelines is adequate to protect the environ-
ment using either disposal technique. The majority of sludge in the
area is and will continue to be buried. Paris buries a sludge containing
chromium; after extensive study, no environmental degradation has been
attributed to the operation. Lewiston-Auburn also landfills their sludge;
the treatment authority is in the process of developing a new site.
Minor environmental degradation from the existing site will be minimized
upon its closing. Lisbon closed a sludge landfill and is developing a
land spreading site. Norway and Mechanic Falls are planning land
spreading systems.
Ground Water/Drinking Water Subplan
As a portion of the 208 Water Quality Program, the A.V.R.P.C.
entered into a cooperative study with the Water Resources Division
of the United States Geological Survey to evaluate the ground water
resources of the ten town area. The components of this study included
a geologic reconnaissance to delineate aquifers and aquifer recharge
areas, a test drilling program to evaluate the stratigraphy of selected
areas, periodic sampling of the chemical characteristics of ground
water from selected locations, hydro!ogic analyses of selected areas,
-8-
-------
technical assistance to municipalities in siting, designing, and
developing new water supplies, and assistance to municipalities in
evaluating the various methods that may be employed to protect the
quality of ground water for use now and in the future.
The Towns of Paris, Norway, Oxford, Lisbon and Sabattus now
draw their public water supplies from ground water sources, and the
Town of Mechanic Falls is investigating the feasibility of developing
a ground water source. Although the quality of ground water in the
area is generally very good, poor land use practices, such as salt
storage and solid waste disposal on or near aquifers, has caused
degradation of significant quantities of ground water, often at loca-
tions ideal for municipal use.
As a portion of the 208 program, a model "Aquifer Protection
Ordinance " was prepared for use by municipalities wishing to take
steps toward preserving ground water quality.
The specific recommendations of the 208 program concerning
ground water and drinking water protection were:
1. Drinking water protection should be achieved through
implementation of specific aquifer/watershed protec-
tion ordinances, which would zone certain critical
aquifer recharge and production areas/surface water-
shed(s) identified for each community. The Towns of
Sabattus, Lisbon, Paris, Norway, Oxford, and Poland
should enact protection ordinances and seek inter-
local cooperation with neighboring communities in
protecting the area's aquifers. These towns should
make every effort to relocate solid waste disposal
sites that are located on or near productive aquifers.
2. State legislation should be developed to
allow a community to zone or regulate activities that
would occur on aquifers or in watersheds in the absence
of a townwide zoning ordinance.
3. State and Federal legislation impacting ground water
- quality has developed in a piece-meal fashion and
therefore does not offer a comprehensive, logical
vehicle for ground water protection. Therefore, the
Federal Government should enact comprehensive ground
water regulations that form an integrated legal frame-
work within which state and local governments can re-
search and enact comprehensive ground water protection
programs.
-9-
-------
Residential On-Site Sewage Disposal Subplan
The subplan reviews the various techniques used to dispose of
sewage for residences not connected to sewer systems. Direct un-
treated discharges to surface waters in the area were found to have
minimal impact. However, malfunctioning subsurface disposal systems
(septic systems) cause significant problems in some areas. Most
serious are areas in Oxford and Poland where septic systems could
cause degradation of regional aquifers which are being used as muni-
cipal water supplies. Also of priority concern are areas in Norway,
Oxford, Poland and Auburn where septic systems could cause degrada-
tion of lake water quality. There are also areas in virtually all
municipalities where localized health hazards have resulted from
malfunctioning systems.
Code Enforcement is the primary method of improving this situa-
tion. A local educational program and adoption of a subsurface dis-
posal ordinance would also help alleviate the existing problems.
Sewer extensions are recommended in some areas, and federal and state
assistance for severe problem areas is recommended. This funding
would be included in the Federal Construction Grants program which
is used to construct sewage treatment facilities throughout the
country.
Public Sewer Systems Subplan
The subplan inventories and reviews the sewer systems and sewage
treatment facilities in the planning area. The subplan projected
areas of future sewer extensions and flows from the extensions. It
also determined the need for treatment facilities in the area.
Sabattus, Mechanic Falls, and the Randall Road area of Lewiston
require major facility construction. The Norway facility requires
substantial renovation. In addition, the Lisbon and Lewiston-Auburn
facilities could exceed their design capacities prior to the end of
their design life. Infiltration uses substantial capacity in all
sewage treatment facilities in the area. Decreasing infiltration
rates through a systematic sewer rehabilitation program will generally
increase facility capacities substantially.
The subplan recommended sewer rehabilitation programs to increase
plant capacities and extend design lives through the planning period
for Norway and Lisbon. A similar program may be necessary in Lewiston-
Auburn and is planned in Mechanic Falls. The subplan recommended that
the state determine a Waste Load Allocation and Chromium balance for
the Little Androscoggin River in Paris and Norway and that the adequacy
of the Paris treatment facility be determined through technical assis-
tance from the E.P.A. and D.E.P.
-10-
-------
Industrial Waste Treatment Subplan
The subplan inventories industrial and commercial discharges to
surface waters and to publicly owned sewage treatment facilities.
Also included is an inventory of commercial and industrial establish-
ments using non-discharge disposal methods, such as land application
or non-discharge lagoons.
All industries producing significant quantities of wastewater
have treatment plants or are discharging to public treatment facili-
ties. Water quality sampling and treatment facility records main-
tained by D.E.P. indicate all direct discharges are meeting license
requirements. Three industrial discharges to public treatment faci-
lities do not meet the pretreatment criteria or contract requirements.
Hi 11 crest Foods, which discharges to the joint Lewiston-Auburn treat-
ment facility, has installed a pretreatment facility; however, the
grease and oil concentrations still exceed the pretreatment require-
ments of the Lewiston-Auburn treatment facility. The industry is
modifying the system to obtain better removals. The other two indus-
tries, U.S. Gypsum in Lisbon and A.C. Lawrence Tannery Co. in Paris,
have contracts with the publicly owned treatment facilities specifying
the quantity and quality of the industrial dischargers. The Lisbon
and Paris treatment facilities were designed to accept the industrial
discharges from the aforementioned industries.
The discharge from U.S. Gypsum contains higher solids concentra-
tions than specified in the contract. The Lisbon sewage treatment
facility was not designed to accept the high solids concentrations and
therefore has difficulty treating the U.S. Gypsum waste. U.S. Gypsum
is considering two alternatives to correct the problem: an industrial
treatment facility with a direct discharge or a pretreatment facility
to meet the contract requirements.
The discharge from the A.C. Lawrence Tannery contained large solid
particles and the pH varied greatly. The tannery has installed pretreat-
ment screens and modified operations to bring pH variations within the
limits of the contract. It is still questionable whether the tannery
waste meets the quality specifications of the contract. The 208 plan
has recommended a study of the treatment facility which would include
an analysis of the tannery waste characteristics.
The industrial-public treatment facility contracts have been re-
placed with pretreatment requirements and an industrial cost recovery
system. The subplan recommended that the state and federal pretreat-
ment requirements be reflected in local sewer use ordinances and that
the ordinances be enforced at the local level. The subplan further re-
commended that licensing and enforcement for direct discharges remain
at the federal and state level.
-11-
-------
Land Use Management Subplan
One of the most comprehensive elements of the 208 plan is the Land
Use Management Subplan. Because of the extensive material covered in
this subplan, it was necessary to divide it into five parts. The
following is an outline of the highlights of each part.
Part I: Existing state and local land use management controls.
This part described and listed those existing state and municipal land
use laws, ordinances, codes, regulations, and plans which provide the
legal framework for the implementation of the subplan.
Part II: Assessment of existing land use controls and the need
for additional controls to implement the 208 plan. Contained within
this part are recommendations for the following:
1. a statewide sediment and erosion control law;
2. enabling legislation that would provide towns with
the legal authority to regulate the land use activi-
ties within a watershed in the absence of a town-
wide zoning ordinance; and,
3. enabling legislation which would provide towns
with the legal authority to control land use acti-
vities over identified (mapped) aquifer and aquifer
recharge areas (mostly wetlands) in the absence of
a townwide zoning ordinance.
Part III: 208 Model Land Use Ordinances. This part is the heart
of the subplan. The following is a listing of the model ordinances and
regulations and the municipalities for which adoption is recommended.
Aquifer Protection Ordinance: Norway, Paris, Oxford, Poland,
Sabattus and Lisbon; Water Protection Regulations: Towns within
the Sabattus Pond, Taylor Pond, Tripp Pond, Lake Auburn, Thompson
Lake, and Lake Pennesseewassee watersheds; Subdivision Regulations:
Sabattus and Minot (both have already adopted them), Norway (revise
present regulations) and Mechanic Falls; Site Plan Review Ordinance:
Norway, Paris, Oxford, Poland, Minot, Sabattus and Lisbon (amendment
to zoning ordinance); Sediment and Erosion Control Ordinance: sub-
division regulations of the Towns of Mechanic Falls, Sabattus, Poland,
Minot and Lisbon contain sediment and erosion control provisions;
Residential On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance: Norway, Oxford, Poland
and Lisbon; Sewer Use Ordinance: Towns or sanitary districts intending
to construct a sewage treatment plant or sewer lines, this includes the
Towns of Mechanic Falls and Sabattus; Code Enforcement Officer: Oxford,
Poland, Sabattus and Lisbon upgrade their code enforcement programs,
either individually or through cooperating with one or more neighboring
towns.
-12-
-------
Part IV: Alternative Growth Management Control Policies and
Techniques. This part addresses the growth issue and discusses five
alternatives towns may adopt in order to regulate local growth. These
include:
1. constraint planning which prevents development on
fragile lands such as floodplains;
2. cluster and planned unit planning techniques which
provide for the arrangement of building lots so
that only the good land is built upon and the fra-
gile land is left in open space;
t
3. timing of development or phase in growth based upon
the extension of municipal services such as sewer,
water, roads, etc., into the more rural areas of a
town;
4. limiting the number of building permits issued by a
town per year; and,
5. building moratoriums.
Part V: 208 Municipal Mapping Program. This part describes the
maps that have been prepared for each 208 town and how they can be used
to prepare and administer a zoning ordinance. The mapping series in-
cludes the following: base, topography, land cover, surficial geology,
sewers, fragile areas, land use controls, tax composite (property par-
cel). Each map was prepared at a scale of 1"=1,000'.
The Land Use Management Subplan has been written and formatted
in such a manner that it can be used as a handbook for municipal
officials.
-13-
-------
PLAN COMMENTS
-------
PLAN COMMENTS
Public Participation
Public participation was a major component of the planning process
from the start of the grant period. The Public Participation Subplan of
the plan described the process and summarized the comments received prior
to compilation of the draft plan. Appendix A presents these comments and
summarizes the public participation activity for the entire planning period.
It also presents typical radio announcements and newspaper articles for the
planning period.
After the draft plan was published the staff met with the municipal-
ities and sanitary districts in the planning area. Comments received
during these meetings and those received from E.P.A. and D.E.P. were incor-
porated into the plan published in September.
Workshops
The two workshops were held to give citizens the opportunity to have
input into the final product of the 208 process. The first workshop was
held on October 19, 1977, at the Oxford Hills High School in Paris, Maine;
and was attended by 31 people. The second workshop was held on October 20,
1977 at the Multi-Purpose Center, Lewiston, Maine; and was attended by 20
people.
The workshops were announced by newspapers and a radio station in the
area, see Appendix B, Meeting Announcements. The A.V.R.P.C. 208 program
also distributed a one page flyer on the meetings, see Appendix C, Meeting
Flyer. In order to provide a digest of the lengthy 208 Plan a 33 page summary
was prepared which provided the previous subplan summaries and identified
specific recommendations for federal, state and local governments. The re-
commendations were formated similar to the final recommendations presented
1n Section IV of this document.
-14-
-------
Even prior to the two Public Workshops, meetings were held in
Norway, Paris, Oxford, Mechanic Falls and Lisbon at the request of
town officials. These meetings were designed to discuss how the re-
commendations of the 208 plan would affect these respective communi-
ties. These meetings were generally attended by ten to twenty people
including members of the Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, and Con-
servation Commissions and the general public.
These meetings were conducted by 208 staff and were formulated
around discussion of the recommendations in each subplan, particularly
as they affected the specific town, and also a discussion of the imple-
mentation components contained in Section VIII of the 208 plan, Table 2,^
208 Implementation Accomplishments and Priorities. These pre-workshop
meetings served to generate discussion on each town's specific water
quality problems and implementation strategies; however, the meetings
may also have reduced attendance at the two public workshops.
The workshop sessions were opened by introductory remarks by the
A.V.R.P.C. Chairman,and then a slide presentation was used to discuss
the 208 planning process. After this general presentation, five round
table discussions were simultaneously conducted by 208 staff covering
several supblans at each table. The general public attended table dis-
cussions in which they had the most interest. The first discussion
groups lasted one hour, a brief intermission was held and then a second
round table discussion was held for 45 minutes, thus providing the public
opportunities to participate in discussions of several subplans. Notes
-15-
-------
were taken on the various questions, concerns and statements of the public
at the workshop sessions. A summary of the issues and concerns raised by
the public at the two workshops follows the listings of the participants
in the workshops in Tables 2 and 3.
Some selected newspaper articles on the public workshops are in-
cluded in Appendix D - Newspaper Coverage of Workshops.
-16-
-------
TABLE 2
ATTENDANCE AT 208 PUBLIC WORKSHOP
October 19, 1977
Bob Mendoza - E.P.A.
Alan Prysunka - D.E.P.
Bob Nunan - D.E.P.
Paul Fuller - A.V.R.P.C. Chairman
Paul Brown - Paris (Town Manager)
Joseph Barrett - Paris
Anna Henderson - Lewiston Daily Sun
Tom Clifford - Paris (Chairman PUD)
Earle Tarr, Jr., - (208 PAC Chairman, and Super-intent Sewerage District)
V.J. Cooper - Paris
Francis Anderson - Paris (Chief Operator, Paris Treatment Facility)
Henry Wiley - Norway
Crystal Trundy - Lewiston Daily Sun
James Wyman, Norway (Superintendent Water District)
Vernon McFarlin - Paris
Howard Charles - Hebron (State Bureau of Forestry)
William Diehl - Mechanic Falls
Clarence Tyner - Oxford Planning Board
L.R. Brewer - Paris
Suzanne Drip - Norway
J. Daniel Morse - Paris (Superintendent PUD)
Mike Wagner - Oxford (Superintendent Water District)
Eugene Coburn - Oxford
Robert Butters - Norway (Operator, Norway Treatment Facility & Plumbing
Inspector)
John Lonley - Norway
Chandler Briggs - Paris
Robert Littlefield - Farmington
Claire Matulci - Paris
Carl ton Field - Paris
-17-
-------
TABLE 3
ATTENDANCE AT 208 PUBLIC WORKSHOP
October 20, 1977
Edward Woo - E.P.A.
Bob Mendoza - E.P.A.
Bob Nunan - D.E.P.
Paul Fuller - A.V.R.P.C. Chairman
A.E. Tucker - Livermore Falls
James Lamb - Poland Selectmen
Gore Flyn - Lewiston - (Planning Department)
Lawrence Caldwell - Turner
Charles Varney - Turner
Charles Rlley - Sabattus (Planning Board)
Leo Curran - Sabattus (Planning Board)
Myron Eames - Lewiston (Head, Sewer Division)
Mrs. Paul Fuller - Rumford
John Barnett - Auburn (Planning Department)
Earle Tarr, Jr., - Auburn (Sewerage District)
Al Sorkin - Sabattus
Darryl Brown - Livermore Falls
Mr. Eddie Dostie - Greene (Sabattus Lake Association)
Mrs. Eddie Dostie - Greene
Heather McCarthy - Lewiston Sun
Ara Goss - Poland
-------
SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
LEWISTON AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Lake Classification System
Citizens Participating: Mr. Eddie Dostie
Summary: Mr. Dostie was interested to determine what the new lakes
classifications of A and B meant for the 208 area and specifically
Sabattus Lake. The staff explained that the Lake Stress Quality classi-
fication which D.E.P. used to identify eutrohpic lakes was dropped and
all lakes were classified as either Great Ponds A and Great Ponds B.
The staff reviewed the Great Ponds A and Great Ponds B criteria pre-
sented in the Surface Water Quality Assessment.
Effect on EIS: (pages VI-6 to VI-14) There is no effect.
AGRICULTURE SUBPLAN
LWISTON AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Federal funding to correct agricultural pollu-
tion sources.
Citizens Participating: Mr. Lawrence Caldwell, Mr. Charles Varney and
Mr. Leo Curran
Summary: Mr. Caldwell noted that federal funding is needed to
eliminate trie some of the pollution sources from agriculture such as
manure storage. The staff noted that the Department of Agriculture
does provide funding through the Agricultural Conservation Program of
A.S.C.S. However, the amount of funds available to each farmer is
limited and only supplies a minor portion of the total funds needed for
each project. The staff noted the need for a funding program for the
major pollution control projects and noted the current development of
such a program in U.S.D.A.
Effect on EIS: (pages VII A-16 to A-17) The participants agreed
with the Selected Alternatives.
-19-
-------
FORESTRY SUBPLAN
NORWAY AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Regulation of Forestry
Citizen Participating: Mr. Howard Charles and Mr. L. R. Brewer
Summary: Mr. Charles was interested to know if the 208 program re-
commended a regulatory program for forestry operations. The staff noted
that the Forestry Sybplan pointed out that sedimentation of surface
waters in the 208 area was not a major concern, and that a limited regu-
latory program requiring a forest harvest plan for sensitive sites would
be sufficient in the 208 area.
Participants were concerned that regulation might discourage manage-
ment of small woodlots. The staff noted that this was a possibility,
and therefore non-point source legislation and regulations should try
to exempt small private woodlot owners, particularly those woodlot owners
who are doing weekend harvesting of firewood or small operators on their
own property. Requiring logging operators to be licensed could take the
burden off of the woodland owner. Operators could be trained as to water
quality protection and better forest management practices as a part of
their license renewal.
Participants noted that controls would be difficult to enforce be-
cause people would avoid getting permits, particularly for small opera-
tions. Mr. Charles noted that if Service Foresters were to enforce
regulations it could damage their working relationship with landowners
desiring technical assistance.
Effect on EIS: (page VII B-24) Selected alternatives should not
be changed.
-20-
-------
CONSTRUCTION SUBPLAN
LEf/ISTON AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Sediment and Eroson Control
Citizens Participating: Mr. Gore Flynn and Mr. John Barnett
Summary: Mr. Flynn noted that Lewiston had difficulty enforcing
all ordinances which exist in the city. He felt that the permit pro-
cedure was complicated and that the city could not add a Sediment
and Erosion Control Ordinance at this time. Participants noted that
sedimentation and erosion could be addressed through zoning and sub-
division ordinances.
. Participants noted that developers currently use erosion control
practices where they are economical to implement.
Effect on EIS: (page VII L-27 and pages VIII-15 to VIII-20) No
changes are required.
-21-
-------
MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES SUBPLAN
NORWAY AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Petroleum Storage
Citizens Participating: Al Prysunka
Summary: Mr. Prysunka commented that, although the plan addressed
petroleum storage and made recommendations, severity of the problem was
not well documented in any 208 documents. The staff responded that data
would be obtained but felt that petroleum storage was not a significant
problem in the area since regulations required containment facilities
for major storage facilities. The staff noted that a waste oil recycling
facility in the Norway area increased operations after the plan was com-
pleted and noted that the staff will assist involved municipalities in
controlling problems related to the facility.
Effect on EIS: (page VII d-17) The recommendation on petroleum
Products Storage should not be changed.
-22-
-------
SLUDGE AND SEPTA6E SUBPLAN
NORWAY AREA. WORKSHOP
Concern : Septage Disposal
Summary: See Public Sewer Systems Comment on this topic for
Norway.
Effect on EIS: (page VII F-18 to F-19) Selected Alternatives
should not be changed.
Concern : Sludge disposal at Pioneer Plastics and General
Electric
Citizens Participating: Mrs. Claire Matulci and Mr. Clarence Tyner
Summary: Participants were concerned that the sludge from these
industries might contain toxics and wanted to be assured the sludges^
were being disposed properly.
The staff responded by noting that there was no information on
these sludges at the time the report was published.
Effect on EIS: (page VII F-7) Pioneer Plastics does not generate
sludge. General Electric disposes sludge in an area landfill.
Concern : Toxic Substances in Sludge
Citizens Participating: Mrs. Claire Matulci
Summary: Mrs. Matulci inquired about the amount of toxic sub-
stances in various sludges produced in the area and was particularly
concerned about Robinson Manufacturing Company's sludge.
Staff respone was that the table in the Sludge Subplan was thought
to be an accurate representation of the toxic sludges in the area. It
was noted that Robinson Manufacturing could produce a sludge with heavy
metals because of the chemical dyes used at the mill. However, no sludge
had been wasted at the facility since it came on line in the spring of'
1977. Participants noted that Robinson Manufacturing did not have an '
approved sludge disposal site.
Mrs. Matulci suggested that the D.E.P. should develop special guide-
lines for toxic sludges and industrial sludges.
The staff noted that the existing guidelines considered heavy metal
concentrations and that D.E.P. required other toxic sludges to be landfilled.
Effect on EIS: ( page VII F-24) Alternatives selected should not
be changed.
-23-
-------
Concern : Heavy Metal content of Septage
Summary: Participants were concerned about the land application
of septage which has been shown to have high heavy metal concentrations
in many studies.
LEWISTON AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Industrial Sludge Disposal
Citizens Participating: Mr. Myron Eames and Mr. Alvin Sorkin
Summary: Mr. Eames questioned what methods were used for indus-
trial sludge disposal. Incineration of these sludges was discussed as
not being cost effective in this area as shown in two studies, one in
Paris and the other in Lewiston-Auburn.
Participants wanted to know what Pioneer Plastics, General Elec-
tric and Robinson Manufacturing did with their sludge. Mr. Sorkin
noted changes which needed to be made to the sludge data on Maine
Electronics.
Effect on EIS: (page VII F-7) Maine Electronics - amount of
sludge is 25 cubic yards per year; sludge has a solids content of 10%.
Pioneer Plastics and General Electric are summarized in this section
under the Norway workshop.
-24-
-------
GROUND WATER/DRINKING WATER SUBPLAN
NORWAY AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Aquifer Protection
Citizens Participating: Mr. James Wyman, Mr. Paul Brown, Mr. J. David Morse
and Mr. Michael Wagner.
Summary: Mr. Morse commented that local control of aquifers may
not protect these valuable resources sufficiently. Participants generally
agreed that Federal and/or State controls to prevent pollution of major
aquifers is probably the best method. Thus equal protective measures
would be imposed over the entire aquifer rather than each municipality
having varying degrees of control and also varying control methods. Parti-
cipants also felt that enforcement of controls would be better with state
involvement.
Effect on EIS: (page VII G-41) Selected Alternatives should not
be changed.
Concern : 208 Ground Water Monitoring
Citizens Participating: Mr. James Wyman, Mr. Paul Brown, Mr. David Morse,
Mr. Michael Wagner, Mrs. Claire Matulci and
Mr. Vernon McFerland
Summary: Mr. Wagner and Mr. Brown noted the valuable information
obtianed from the 208 Ground Water Studies. Participants thought that
the program should be continued through whatever funding is available.
Participants felt that water supplies would be an increasing concern in
the planning area and that information should be compiled on a continuing
basis.
Effect on EIS: (page VIII-15 to VIII-20, page G-3Vand page VIII-G 41)
If more planning funds become available, then the ground water program
should proceed with projects listed on page G-31. Also projects in Table II
on pages VIII-15 to VIII-20 should be implemented with third year imple-
mentation funds and municipal money.
-25-
-------
Concern : Priority scheduling in Table 2 of Implementa-
tion Strategy
Citizens Participating: Mr. Paul Brown
Summary: Mr. Brown noted that many of the priorities noted in
Table 2 on page VIII 15 to VIII 20 could not be implemented by the
scheduled date because of federal, state, and local funding problems.
The town meeting process was noted as one of the major problems in
meeting the schedule. Participants noted that many ordinances and
projects requiring local funding must be brought to the town meeting
process several times before favorably received.
Effect on EIS: (page VIII-15 to VIII-20) The priority schedule
is only a goal and should not be changed.
t
ON-SITE RESIDENTIAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL
NORWAY AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Septic Tank Pumping Schedule
Citizens Participating: Mr. Francis Anderson
Summary: Mr. Anderson was concerned that the arbitrary five year
pumping requirement in the "On-Site Residential Sewage Disposal Ordi-
nance" was unnecessary and that the interval should be based on the
number of individuals using the system and the size of the tank.
Staff agreed that a flexible schedule as stated would be better
but noted that it would be much more difficult to control administra-
tively.
Effect on EIS: (page VII L-31) The ordinance should not be
changed:If a municipality has an effective code enforcement program,
the model ordinances could be modified for the municipality to relate
the pumping schedule to septic tank usage.
-26-
-------
PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEMS SUBPLAN
NOREAY AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Septage receiving at the Norway Treatment
Facility
Citizens Participating: Mr. Robert Butters (operator Norway Treatment
Facility)
Summary: Mr. Butters was concerned with the recommendation in the
subplan that the Norway Treatment Facility should receive septage from
Norway residents only (VII 1-64). Mr. Butters felt that the 11 towns
currently sending septage to Norway would not find suitable land dis-
posal sites and therefore would discharge the septage directly to sur-
face waters or on land where it could contaminate ground water.
Other participants were concerned that town officials would be
reluctant to purchase land for land spreading because land spreading
was not acceptable to the general public. They also felt that enforce-
ment of proper septage disposal on land was inadequate.
Mr. Butters then suggested that Norway should charge for septage
receiving from surrounding towns and use the money to finance an adequate
pretreatment facility. The staff indicated that the facility up-grading
being done with federal construction grants money might allow Norway to
receive septage from several towns.
Participants then briefly discussed an alternative in the Sludge
and Septage Subplan on the possibility of constructing a centralized
septage treatment facility. There was concern that land could not be
obtained for centralized disposal and also that transportation costs
would be high and therefore discourage pumping.
Participants concluded the discussion by suggesting that all treat-
ment facilities should have septage receiving facilities so that septage
loads could be spread but to many facilities. No participants favored
land spreading.
Effect on EIS: (page VII 1-64) Norway should receive septage from
Norway residents and can also receive septage from Buckfield, Woodstock
and Sweden, since these towns contribute only 3,000 gallons per year.
During the months when the ground is frozen, the Norway facility should
be used by other towns: Bridgton. Harrison, Greenwood, Waterford,
West Paris, Otisfield and Oxford. As other treatment facilities are com-
structed in the area and a waste load allocation is completed on the
Little Androscoggin River, the towns allowed to use the Norway facility
after renovation should be further assessed.
-27-
-------
Concern : Paris Sewage Treatment Facility
Citizens Participating: Mr. Francis Anderson (operator of treatment
facility) Mr. Thomas Clifford (Chairman PUD)
Mrs. Claire Matulci (citizen)
Summary: After a brief review of the history of sewage treatment
in the Paris area, Claire Matulci expressed concern that the plant was
not operating properly. Mr. Anderson stated that his sampling as well
as D.E.P. sampling indicated the design removals were being exceeded.
Staff suggested that the recommendation for a Waste Load Allocation
be implemented as soon as possible.
Mrs. Matulci stated that the recommendation that E.P.A. conduct a
study of the facility be implemented as soon as possible.
Participants generally agreed the water quality in the Little Andros-
coggin had improved significantly since the treatment facility came on-line.
Participants concluded that the Waste Load Allocation and a chromium
balance should be conducted and then the facility should be studied.
Effect on EIS: (page VII 1-91) Selected alternatives should not
be changed.
LWISTON AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Infiltration-Inflow
Citizens Participating: Mr. Myron Eames (Head of Lewiston Sewer Division)
Summary: Mr. Eames was concerned with the large amounts of inflow
infiltration (I/I) entering many of the sewer systems in the area. Speci-
fically he was interested to know if any federal or state funds might be-
come available for I/I work.
The staff noted that I/I studies are now funded as part of the 201
planning stage and that the E.P.A.iand D.E.P. participates in separating
areas where it is more economical to do so than treat the I/I.
Participants discussed the effects that I/I has on treatment plants
and subsequently on weirs. Participants noted that inflow probably affects
receiving waters but also noted that most receiving waters in Maine are
not used for body-contact. Infiltration uses plant capacity and increases
operational costs.
Mr. Eames was also concerned with the costs of separating sewers. He
noted the costs were high and that generally quoted costs do not include the
house service costs for which Individuals must pay. Participants also noted
the difficulty of k-eping cellar and roof drains out of the new sanitary
sewer unless a complete storm sewer is Installed.
E-ffect on EIS: (page VII 1-126) Selected alternatives should not
be changed.
-28-
-------
Concern : Facility Implementation
Summary: Participants noted that the plan identifies many areas
which require federal funding for implementation and further study.
They noted the need to continue and possibly increase construction
grant funding.
Participants noted Sabattus Pond as an example where construction
grants funding is not enough to correct all pollution problems. Sabattus
has had a facility plan done to determine the best method of treating
the pollution in the village area which is impacting the Sabattus River
and the ground water. However, funding has been available to study and
formulate a plan to eliminate pollution of the lake from cottages and
agricultural land in the watershed.
The staff noted the non-designated 208 funds were not sufficient
to address all the problems. It is necessary to study agricultural
sources as well as on-site sewage disposal of residences surrounding
the pond. Funding of controls would come through U.S.D.A. (ACP funding)
for agricultural problems and the E.P.A. construction grant process for
the on-site disposal problems. Without a designated 208 agency in the
area, no funding would be available for a detailed and coordinated plan-
ning process or for coordinated implementation process.
The staff suggested that in these areas possibly the 201 facility
plan concept could be expanded to at least account for a coodinated
planning process. The state D.E.P. would then become the lead agency
with the cooperation of all affected municipalities.
Effect on EIS: (VI-56) The recommendation to fund further plan-
ning through the 208 process should not be changed. However, funding
of major planning activities in non-designated areas must occur.
-29-
-------
LAND USE SUBPLAN
NORWAY AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Aquifer Protection
Citizens Participating: William Diehl and Robert Littlefield
Summary: The participants felt that the federal and/or state
should enact aquifer or ground water protection legislation.
Effect on EIS; (pages VII G-41) The recommendation on state
enabling legislation should be modified to reflect the need for more
comprehensive legislation.
/
LWISTON AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Aquifer Protection
Citizens Participating: Charles Varney, Leo Curran, Charles Riley and
James Lamb
Summary: Mr. Riley noted that drinking water sources needed pro-
tection. Participants felt that the local Aquifer Protection Ordinance
was a viable option. The staff noted that townwide zoning might be
needed to have the Aquifer Protection Ordinance remain at the local
level.
Effect on EIS: (pages VII G-41) Participants agreed with the
selected alternatives.
Concern : Subdivision Regulations
Citizens Participating: Leo Curran, Charles Riley, William Diehl and
James Lamb
Summary; The participants noted that local subdivision regulations
were needed in most communities to "put teeth" in the preformance
guidelines contained in the state law.
Effect on EIS: (page VII L-20 to L-23) No changes should be
made.
-30-
-------
Concern : Site Plan Review Ordinance
Citizens Participating: Leo Curran, Charles Riley and James Lamb
Summary: The need of a Site Plan Review Ordinance was discussed.
Participants noted it should be used to: (1) provide for local review
of industiral, commercial, institutional and residential development
proposals in the absence of a townwide zoning ordinance; and, (2) pro-
vide for review of those development proposals which do not meet the
size requirements of Site Location Act, but which would still have
significant impact upon the environment and municipal services.
Effect on EIS: (pages VII L-23 to L-26) No changes should be
made.
Concern : Sediment and Erosion Control
Citizens Participating: Leo Curran, James Lamb, Darryl Brown and
Charles Varney
Summary: Mr. Brown noted that the model ordinances did not include
standards for erosion control on steep slopes. The comment will be
addressed under third year funding since the model ordinances cannot be
revised at this time.
Effect on EIS: (pages VII L-27 to L-30) No changes should be made;
however slopes need to be addressed in any further redrafting of the
sediment and erosion controls in third year.
Concern : Residential On-Site Sewage Disposal
Citizens Participating: Charles Varney, James Lamb, Charles Riley
and Leo Curran
Summary: Mr. Varney noted that the ordinance would have little
chance of adoption through the town meeting process. Mr. Riley noted
that enforcement would be a major problem of such an ordinance.
made.
Effect on EIS: (pages VII L-30 to L-33) No changes should be
-31 _
-------
Concern
Shoreland Zoning
Citizens Participating: Charles Varney
Summary: Mr. Varney noted that shore!and zoning should encompass
the same areas as the local ordinance on the Flood Hazard Building Permit
System. The staff noted that although not addressed in the plan, the
commission was considering this in other activities.
Effect on EIS: No changes should be made.
Concern
Growth Control
Citizens Participating: Charles Riley, Charles Varney and James Lamb
Summary: Participants felt that the towns in the region would
soon be facing the growth control issue and were pleased that the growth
issue had been addressed in the 208 plan. Participants felt the building
permit limitation system was most applicable and acceptable to the towns
in the region.
made.'
Effect on EIS: (pages VII L-44 to L-87) No changes should be
-32-
-------
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
NORWAY AREA WORKSHOP
Concern : Municipal Approval
Citizens Participating: Mr. L. R. Brewer and Mr. Paul Brown
Summary: Mr. Brown and Mr. Brewer were concerned about the effects
on a town should it disapprove the plan or should the town meeting not
approve separate implementation categories. The staff responded that
E.P.A. and state sanctions on a municipality that did not approve the
plan would probably depend on the reasons the plan was not approved.
for example, if it could be shown that the plan recommendations were
reasonable, then a town's refusal to adopt the plan could result in
sanctions by E.P.A. such as withholding of facility construction funds,
or other federal funds.
The staff also noted that the town meetings refusal to adopt one
element of the plan does not mean that the town has failed to implement
the plan and automatically will be subject to federal or state sanctions.
The town meetings may not approve ordinances and other elements in the
year scheduled but may then approve them in the next year. Because
priorities can and will change over time, it is recognized that some
plan recommendations may become out-dated and need more study.
Mr. Borwn then noted that the implementation schedule was very
restrictive and could not be met. Mr. Brown recommended the dates be
dropped.
The staff noted that the dates were project in June of 1977 and
that third year technical assistance funds were expected in the fall
of 1977. The lack of funding through October will force most of the
1978 dates to be moved into 1979.
Effect on EIS; (page VIII-15 to VIII-20) It appears that the
priority scheduling in Table 2 should be revised before it is agreed
upon as milestone dates.
-33-
-------
Written Comments
Written comments received by the Commission and through the Environ-
mental Protection Agency are presented with responses.
-34-
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Northeast Region
ER 77/987 l5 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 0210$
Decenber 15, 1977
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Policy Coordination Office
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, Massachusetts. 02203
Attention: Mr. Robert E. Mendoza
Gentlemen:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the management plan and
environmental Impact assessment for the Lewiston-Auburn Little
Androscoggin River Section 208 Water Quality Program as requested in
your letter of October 10,'1977.
The document's^treatment of subjects of concern to us is generally
adequate. The following specific comments are -provided:
Section VII G - In light of the complex and diverse nature' of the
area's numerous spatially distinct aquifers we believe a thorough
study of these aquifers will be necessary for successful Imple-
mentation of the plan.
Two systems of units seem to be confused in referring to trans-
mlssivity (or transmissibility). In the second line of the last
paragraph on page VII G-29 and in lines 10 and 11 of the second
paragraph on page VII 6-30, the units should be gallons per day per
foot, not gallons per day per square foot.
Sincerely yours,
William Patterson-
- Regional Environmental Officer
EEC 2 3 £77
-------
RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Section VII G- Re: Aquifers
The staff concurs that further studies of the areas aquifers are
very necessary; however, sufficient data exists as a result of U.S.G.S.
and 208 studies to provide base data for the decision maker to carry out
the intent of the plan.
On page VII G-29 and VII G-30 your comment is correct. The units
for transmissivity should be gallons per day per feet, not gallons
per day per square foot.
NOTE: On page VII G-30, line 18 - 32,522 ft3/day should be
32,522 ftz/day
-36-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: December 7, 1977
SUBJECT: Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission
Waste Treatment Management Plan
FROM: Dennis Huebner, Chief >{J.
Solid Waste Program **
TO: Walter Newman, Chief
Water Quality Branch
Water Programs Division
807
The Solid Waste Program has reviewed the subject plan according to the
procedures given us at the 208 plan approval meeting held by your office.
Our comments are limited to whether or not the plan is consistent with
state and federal law. We have also contacted our counterparts in the
state solid waste programs to ensure that they are involved in the states
review process. It is the responsibility of the Water Quality Branch to
ensure that the subject document satisfied the Project Control Plan.
In September 1975, this office distributed to each 208 agency solid waste
management guidance for 208 plans and a suggested minimum level of"study
(see attachment). Both the guidance and the minimum level of study
identified areas and outputs compatible with the objectives of the
Section 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Program. In general
this report satisfied most of the suggested outputs of these documents.
However, no surface or subsurface monitoring around any disposal site
was initiated therefore, their affect on the environment is unknown.
The following are our specific comments concerning major issues:
1. Page VII E-2 - The discussion on this page and subsequent pages
would lead one to believe that the Impact of a dump and landfill is
similar. This is not true. A sanitary landfill can be sited to
minimize impact on the environment; a dump does not.
2. Page VII E-6 - A sanitary landfill is not a short term solution.
No matter what we do in the future in terms of technology, there
will always be residue or unprocesslble waste that must be disposed
of on land via sanitary landfill.
3. Page VII E-ll - Returnable Bottle Legislation will not signifi-
cantly reduce the volume of waste to be disposed.
EPA FO,M, 13701 (Rc.. 3-741
-------
4. Page VII E-13 - On Page VII E-8 the report Indicated that
many of the existing open burning dumps are located In aquifer
recharge areas. No monitoring has been Initiated. On Page
VII E-13 the report recommends that these sites continue to he
used (no mention is made of compliance with State air or solid
waste regs). The recommendations on the following page do not
indicate the need for monitoring or compliance with Federal/State
regs. The logic of this presentation needs to be reassessed.
-------
RESPONSE TO E.P.A. SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
Second paragraph: Re: subsurface monitoring
Having experience with both wells and surface waters in close proxi-
mity to open dumps in the planning area, the staff determined that water
monitoring near the dumps was impractical. Of the $339,000 grant it wa>
felt that over $100,000 might be necessary to locate leachate plumes.
The staff worked with several localities and other agencies to determine
leachate problems of immediate concern. Through D.E.P. Solid Waste
Division and municipal action test wells have been or are being placed
at the Paris and Sabattus dumps. Results were not available for inclu-
sion in the 208 document.
Re: Dump ys_ Landfill
Response: On page VII E-2 and subsequent pages, it is stated that
solid waste disposed in landfills can produce leachate. This is a valid
statement. A dump or landfill can be sited to reduce potential impacts;
the landfill can be operated so as to further minimize impacts. However,
if not properly sited and operated, landfills can produce leachate which
can then have serious environmental effects. The document recommends
siting in accordance with the state regulations which attempt to minimize
impacts.
Re: Short-term Solution
Response: The plan indicates that landfill ing of raw refuse is
probably the most cost-effective solution in the short term. However,
as land becomes scarce, other methods of waste disposal such as
shredding prior to landfill ing or incineration with ash landfill will
become more feasible. Recommendation 3 on page VII E-14 realize the
need to set aside some land for future landfills as there will always
be a need.
Re: Returnable Bottle Legislation
Response: Up to 5 percent of the refuse is recyclable glass.
Re: Open Burning Dumps
Response: Federal law prohibits open burning while state law re-
quires that solid waste be landfilled in accordance with D.E.P. regula-
tions. Municipalities are well aware of these requirements as stated
on page VII E-4. Page VII E-13 indicates municipalities should convert
existing open burning dumps to landfills while other sites and other
alternatives are being assessed. The document is primarily concerned
with relocating landfills and dumps to prevent leachate from contaminating
aquifers. Although the state regulations allow conversion of an old
dump to a landfill, the landfill will not necessarily protect the under-
lying ground water as the soil structure requirements for these changes
are greatly relaxed over new siting requirements.
-39-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: November 11, 1977
SUBJECT: Androscoggin Valley 208 RFC - Management Plan and Environmental Impact
Assessment
FROM: Clara Chow, Sanitary
TO: Ed Woo, Water Quality Branch
After reviewing this management plan and environmental impact assessment,
it is rewarding to see that changes in the present copy reflect some of
the comments made on the first draft with regards to water supply. One
important comment from the first draft dealt with the lack of inventory
data in the 208 report. This, I understand, is currently being tabu-
lated, but due to the time schedule of these reports, that information
will not appear in the management plan. Even so, there should be some
reference to the fact that this data is available and will be utilized
for future management and protection programs of the water supply
resources. Consider for example problems 1 and 2 on page VII G-37;
they state the lack of hydrological knowledge of the aquifers and the
increasing demand by municipalities for water supplies derived from
groundwatcr. It is obvious that these two problems are related and
that solutions for both are necessary. The Comprehensive Hydrologic
Studies uuJer Proposed Future Programs solves the first problem and the
inventory data will help to solve the second one. Therefore, under
Proposed Future Programs, it is recommended that there should also be a
continuous monitoring of population consumptions and demands. This data
could then be used to update the management plans and the protection
measures to assure that the availability of the drinking water is abreast
with the demands.
On page VII G-38, there is a list of alternatives for drinking water/
groundwatcr protection. One means of drinking water protection which
X should be investigated is conservation. Realistically, conservation
should not be taken as an absolute solution, but it is on the other hand
a useful compliment to any of the other alternatives.
Alternative 5 on page VII G-40 concerning the Safe Drinking Water Act
must again be revised in light of the latest development. Maine's
primary enforcement authority was effective as of October 1, 1977.
As far as the Environmental Impact Assessment aspect of this report, the
discussion section (p. VII G-34 to G-36) is not as indepth as it should
be. During the presentation given by A-V-R-P-C. in August 1977, several
critical problems, such as storage of road salts and sludge and solid
waste disposals, were cited as potential contaminants of groundwater.
The 208 plan notes these major technical findings also, but if this report
is to be an impact assessment as well, a more extensive evaluation of these
contaminants with respect to their affects on existing and potential water
supply resources should be delineated. Any impact statement requires
slightly mc»re than a notation of the problem.
EPA Form 1370 C IRr». 3-76>
-------
RESPONSE TO E.P.A. WATER RESOURCES
Re: Estimates of Water Needs
Response: The commission is in the process of projecting future
needs for the entire region. The projections for theplanning area will
be done as part of the third year implementation program since it will
be necessary to have these projections to support the aquifer (drinking
water) protection measures being considered by eight of the ten towns.
As part of the commission's future work plan the statistics on water
usage will be kept current.
Re: Aquifer Identification and Hydrology
Response: Some work will be done in conjunction with the munici-
palities and some work will be done with the third year funds. However,
subsequent 208 planning funds would be most helpful in obtaining this
information.
Re: Conservation
Response: Conservation should be considered as a viable alterna-
tive as decribed. However, conservation does not significantly affect"
the described alternatives.
Re: Maine's Primary Enforcement Authority of Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Response: This fact does not affect the alternative assessment.
Re: EIS
Response: Road slat storage, sludge, and solid waste were dis-
cussed in detail in the Misscellaneous, Sludge and Septage and Solid
Waste Subplans respectively. Therefore, information was only sum-
marized in the Ground Water/Drinking Water Subplan.
-41-
-------
STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
AUGUSTA. MAINE 04333
DAVID 11. SMITH
COMMISSIONER
November 17, 19
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Policy Coordination Office
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Attention: Robert E. Mendoza
i
Subject: Draft, Environmental Impact Statement for the Androscoggin
Valley Regional Planning Commission, Water Quality Management
Plan
Dear Mr. Mendoza:
This office is in receipt of your letter dated October 10, 1977,
with the accompanying subject report. The following constructive
critism, pertaining to subsurface disposal, is offered for your
consideration.
1. Page HE - 9, third line from bottom, "Leach field sizes are
indicated to read 400 to 2400 square feet". Apparently the
2400 is a typographical error and should read 1400 square
feet.
2. Page H-13, Third line from top, "THE SOIL SCIENTIST" then
designs ". We would point out that this term should
be SOIL EVALUATOR rather than Soil Scientist.
3. H-13, Center of page* "The Local Plumbing Inspector (LPI)
LICENSED BY THE STATE and Is EMPLOYED by each municipality
to issue permits ". It should be noted that the Local
Plumbing Inspector is certified, not licensed, by the State
and he is appointed by each municipality to issue permits.
An LPI is appointed after passing a written examination to
indicate that he has a basic knowledge of the plumbing code.
4. Page H-13, Last Paragraph, "Malfunctioning systems are not
well defined In the code: ". We direct your attention
to Section 2.10, CODE ENFORCEMENT, page 10 of the Maine State
Plumbing Code for your consideration. A copy of the Code is
enclosed.
5. Page H-14, Paragraph 1, The statement is made "In some areas,
roadside ditches APPEARED to contain septic material; ".
We would suggest that this is a strong statement to make based
on an assumption. What substantiating documentation is available?
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 2. November 17, 1977
6. Page H-14, Paragraph 2, Subsection 21, the statement Is made,
"Septic system leachate 1s a major source of col1 form bacteria
in ground water and 1s the only Identifiable source In these
areas where wells were found contaminated witn coll form".
We would suggest that this statement presents a grossly dis-
torted focus of the actual condition of the well water In this
particular 208 region. A strong statement Is being based on
an assumption that the coll form content of the well water Is a
result of malfunctioning disposal fields, which may not be
correct. For a report of this type and the potential repercus-
sions, these facts should be documented.
7. Page H-14, Paragraph #3, The statement is made, "In some
cases septic systems were the only possible source". Again,
this statement is made based on an assumption; not based on
fact. One may certainly derive an erroneous conclusion after
reading this particular page.
8. Page H-15, Second paragraph - The state is made, "A column
also presents SUSPECTED REASONS FOR MALFUNCTIONS:" We
would point out that it is very dangerous for a professional
group or association to indicate suspect reasons without
having more documentation then has been presented thus far.
9. Page H-16, Second paragraph, This paragraph pertains to the
problems of conversion units from seasonal to year-round
dwellings and possible cause of malfunctions. It should be
pointed out that the Maine legislature passed a conversion
statute during 1977 which became effective approximately
October 24, 1977. No reference is made to this Bill in this
draft - a copy is attached, for your consideration.
10. Page H-16, Third paragraph, Statements are made indicating
that the suspected reasons for malfunctions and possible
methods of correction are identified. In reference to Tables
OS2 and 053, it may not be rational to make the quantity of
assumptions which have been identified thus far.
11. Table on Page H-30, Second paragraph, Reference is made that
Table OS4 summarizes the well sample records for 1971 to 1975
as reviewed at the Department of Human Services. Several
statements on Page H-30 and H-32 have resulted in erroneous
and misleading conclusions in subsequent paragraphs. A
statement is made in the second paragraph of Page H-30 refer-
ring to "Significant coliform bacteria levels". A discussion
with Mr. Fergus Lea of AVRPC dated November 14, 1977 revealed
that significant coliform level is considered any quantity in
excess of 1 colony per 100 millimeters of sample. It should be
remembered that any water sample in excess of 1'colony is consi-
dered unsatisfactory but not necessarily significant. Furthermore,
the statement is made in the same paragraph: "26% of-all wells
sampled were found to be contaminated". This statement is based
on the erroneous assumption that all water samples in excess of
1 colony of coliform were contaminated. This is not necessarily
so and in fact very likely is not so due to the fact that shallow
water supplies, springs and well points are included in this sample.
-------
U. S. environmental Protection Agency Page 3. November 17, 19/7
The third paragraph of this page Indicates, "Most of the
wells found with coliform bacteria PROBABLY resulted from
nearby malfunctioning septic systems". Presumably this
statement is based on the assumption that all coliform
resulted due to existing malfunctioning systems. Although
not written as a statement of fact, this sentence certainly
can very easily be misconstrued.
The fourth paragraph of this page indicates, "If the well
samples sent to the Department of Human Services are
representative, then over 2000 dwellings in the Planning
Area have subsurface disposal problems." It appears that
the 2000 figure was determined based on 26% of 9000 existing
dwellings in the AVRPC. There are several unclear and mis-
leading statements on this particular page. However, this
statement may be one of the more serious misrepresentations.
It certainly does not reflect well on the State of Maine or
the AVRPC and can misconstrue the entire situation of
subsurface disposal systems. In the same paragraph as above
the statement is made that subsurface disposal systems are
a severe problem in the planning area. We would point out
that very little documentation has been provided and most
of the conclusions have been based on erroneous assumptions.
Enclosed with this letter is a memo dated August 29, 1977
sent to Mr. Rupert Jennings, Department of Environmental
Protection, who is coordinating the work with the various
Regional Planning Commissions in Maine. You will note that
Item #5 and 6 specifically refer to the subject of coliform
bacteria as it relates to subsurface disposal systems.
12. Page H-34, First paragraph, indicates that the average cost
of a new system is approximately $2500. This value seems
somewhat inflated in our experience. We would suggest that
the average cost would be approximately $1500 to $1800. It
is noted that the installation of a discharge system costs
between $3000 and $5000. This value seems somewhat inflated
but we do not have any definite figures to present.
13. Page H-34, Last sentence on this page, the statement is
made that septic system malfunctions have degraded Taylor
Pond and caused grownwater degradation in the area of
Northern Oxford. This* office is not aware of adequate
documentation to substantiate this statement*
14. Page H-37, First paragraph, The statement is made, "Enforce-
ment of the State plumbing code, especially as relating to
malfunctioning systems, is a major problem in the planning
area". Enforcement has been a problem in the past and
certainly has not been resolved to date. We would point
out, however, that very significant improvements have been
noted since 1974.
15. Page H-37, Reference to the only question on this page
regarding the inspecting of regular maintenance of septic
tanks be established through state or local authorities.
This question has not been answered by the Regional Plan-
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 4. November 17. 1977
ning Commission; neither has It been pointed out that a
bill was Introduced 1n 1977 legislature to provide money
for an inspection of septic tanks. This Bill was soundly
defeated.
16. Page H-37, Last paragraph, "Municipal officials and policy
committee has expressed the need for increased enforcement
of all ordinances". We would point out that a bill has
been on the books for approximately 20 years mandating that
the municipal officials have the authority for enforcing
the code. Furthermore, the bill was modified during 1977,
allowing a ten-year pay back should the municipal officials
deem it necessary to replace an individuals disposal field.
It has been the intent of the legislature and this office
policy that municipal officials have the prime responsibility to
enforce the plumbing code.
17. Page H-39, First sentence, "A cost effective program of
plumbing code, Inspection and enforcement could be establi-
shed in the Department of Human Services". We would point
out that prior to 1974 the State had four State Plumbing
Inspectors who were responsible for inspection of complaints
and initiating court action. The experience of our office
is that while these individuals were available the municipal
officials depended on the State officials to determine any
problem and to initiate legal action. Therefore, nothing,
or very little, was done unless the State initiated the action.
The four specific positions were eliminated in 1974. Several
regional inspectors are available throughout the State who do
perform inspections of malfunctioning systems and assist muni-
cipalities in legal procedures when desired. However, the
prime responsibility lies with the municipality to perform
the inspection and initiate the legal proceedings. Since 1974
a considerably increased interest has been expressed by muni-
cipalities and the effectiveness at the various courts has been
much improved.
18. Page H-39, Center of Page, The statement is made..."Municipal
officials have noted communication problems between the
Department of Human Services and the local level". We have
no documentation that a communication problem exists. We are
in very frequent communication with Plumbing Inspectors,
municipal officials and representatives of Regional Planning
Commissions, plus other individuals for Code or legal interpre-
tations and assistance. We would*certainly appreciate obtaining
any available information to clarify this situation or to correct
any existing problem.
19. Page H-39, Enclosed box at bottom of page, This particular
section 1s addressed in the seasonal conversion bill which
should be included in this draft since It does have considerable
impact around all lakes.
20. Page H-40, Box at top of page, Pertaining to maintenance ordi-
nance - Although the legislature would not accept a State
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 5. November 17, 1977
mandated maintenance ordinance, a municipality may by ordinance,
adopt regulations more strict than the minimum State Plumbing
Code. We would suggest that the Planning Commission persuade
any municipality to adopt such ordinances If so desired.
21. Page H-41, First sentence, A statement is made, "At the begin-
ning of the planning process, few citizens realized the extent
of the subsurface disposal problems". This statement should
be clarified to indicate just how serious this problem may be
and substantiating documentation should be provided.
22. Page H-41, The first paragraph indicates that citizen involve-
ment is necessary to implement local ordinances and for proper
enforcement. It also Indicates that a major educational tool
would be state-wide effort sponsored by the Department of
Environmental Protection and/or the Department of Human Services;
possibly with the services of the AVRPC. We would point out
that the Department of Human Services nas been conducting semi-
nars since the Spring of 1974 in order to train or better
educate municipal plumbing inspectors, soil evaluators, public
officials, representatives of the Regional Planning Commissions
and the general public.
23. Page H-41, Second paragraph, A statement is made, "Other 208
agencies in Maine have identified subsurface disposal as a
problem In their areas. (There is a footnote #6 which refers
to the Greater Portland Council of Governments and Southern
Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission.) We would
suggest that the AVRPC indicate the actual degree of problem
which other Regional Planning Commissions indicated. It is
purported that two other agencies in Maine have identified
subsurface disposal as a problem in their areas; although the
degree of problem Is not identified. We would point out that
Greater Portland Council of Governments has indicated that a
problem exists although the degree of accuracy and documentation
has not been provided. Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Com-
mission has done a very comprehensive evaluation of this problem
through the Cobbossee Watershed District. Should you have any
questions, we would suggest that you contact Mr. Thomas Gordon,
Executive Director, Cobbossee Watershed District, 15 High Street,
Winthrop, Maine 04343. Mr. Gordon has performed an extensive
survey for potential causes of lake eutrofication in this area.
It Is our Impression he has determined that malfunctioning disposal
fields are a relatively minor problem compared to other sources of
nutrient addition to the lakes. He feels that the issue of
disposal systems is more of a management issue and health oriented
issue rather than a general overall problem, as implied by AVRPC.
24. Page H-43, Item 7, Reference is made that the AVRPC should conduct
semi-annual workshops on the plumbing code. It 1s our concern
that the AVRPC, or other regional planning commissions, may not
have individuals on their staffs qualified to interpret the Maine
State Plumbing Code, as indicated by the frequent requests in our
office from the various Planning Commissions ^n interpretation.
If the Planning Commissions hire qualified additional staff, an
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 6. November 17. 1977
additional layer of bureaucracy will result.
25. Page H-45 - Second paragraph, The statement 1s made that an
average system 1n the planning area costs approximately $2500.
As has been Indicated previously, this appears to be Inflated
by approximately $1000.
26. Page H-46, The statement Is made, "Rehabilitation for instal-
lation of systems at cottages owned by people from out-of-state
could be disregarded since seasonal dwellings are not as signi-
ficant a problem; ..... ". This particular statement should be
clarified since it could be misinterpretated several different
ways.
It is a major concern of this office that many erroneous assumpti-
ons and conclusions have been drawn or inferred in the section entitled:
"Residential on-site sewage disposal subplan". This office is concerned
that those not familiar with the results throughout the State and the
AVRPC area may draw a conclusion that the State of Maine is essentially
an open cesspool. Whereas, in all truthfulness, since the initiation
of the soil evaluation program dated July, 1974, this office has witnes-
sed a most significant improvement in the quality of disposal systems ^
installed, the dependability of life witnessed and improvement in code
enforcement of the plumbing code.
If we may be of assistance to clarify any questions or add additional
documentation, please feel free to contact this office, at your conveni-
ence. A copy of the Maine State Plumbing Code is enclosed for your
consideration. We trust that the above constructive criticism will assist
the E.P.A. and AVRPC to hopefully eliminate any misconceptions and
make this report more valuable in the future.
Very truly yours,
Eugene Moreau, P.E.
Waste Water & Plumbing Control
Division of Health Engineering
EM/mo
cc: AVRPC, 34 Court St. , Auburn, Maine 04210 Attn: Craig Tenbrock
Al Corson, DEP
Encs.
-------
RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Re: Leachfields Sizes (1)
Response: The 2,400 square feet should be 1,400 square feet.
Re: Soil Scientist (2)
Response: "Soil Scientist" is an incorrect term and should read
"Site Evaluator"
Re: LPI's (3)
Response: The LPI is certified by the state not licensed as the
plan stated. The LPI is also "appointed" by the municipal officials.
Re: Malfunctioning Systems (4)
Response: The second paragraph of this section states, "Malfunc-
tioning private sewage disposal systems, including septic tanks, cess-
pools, ... , and the like, have become a menance to the health and
general welfare of the citizens of this State, and are declared to be
a nuisance". LPI's and Department of Human Services personnel use their
past experience and water sample analysis to determine malfunctions.
Re: Roadside Ditches (5)
Well Water (6)
Sampling Data (7)
Response: Comments 5, 6, and 7 refer to methods used to detect areas
of malfunctioning septic systems. In light of the comments the wording
appears to be misleading. Pages 14, 15, and Tables OS2 and OSS locate
problem areas or potential problem areas.
All areas reported as known problem areas were identified by Local
Plumbing Inspectors, Code Enforcement Officers, or their immediate super-
visors. Three methods were used, to confirm the reported areas. These
methods included:
1. Visual inventories of areas. If leachate was suspected in
roadside drainage ditches it was traced back to surfacing
effluent above leachfields.
2. Well records were used to identify areas where housing density
and soil conditions probably resulted in coliform migration
Into ground water from septic system leachfields.
-48-
-------
3. Water samples were used in conjunction with agriculture
erosion studies (SEDEL) to determine if pollution was
eminating from shoreline development or agriculture
practices. In cases noted in this subplan, the con-
taminants were traced to shoreline development.
It should be noted that the most widely used detection method was the
visual inventory of effluent above leach'fields. Other methods only detected
one area each. The information was carefully reviewed by LPI's, the staff
geologist and the staff engineer. The statements contained in the detection
methods were not made to identify the degree of pollution. For instance,
the statement on "Septic System leachate being a major source of coliform
bacteria in ground water..." was true for the one identified area but was
not true of the region in general.
Re: Suspect Reasons for Malfunctioning (8)
Response: It should be noted that for years state, federal and
local dollars have been spent to extend sewers and private water lines
and build treatment facilities in areas where documentation of exact
problems is sketchy at the very best. Limited data and professional
opinions of engineers, soil scientists and plumbing inspectors led to
the identification of these areas. It is important to note these areas
to create an awareness of the problems.
Re: Conversion of Seasonal Dwellings (9)
Response: The bulk of the plan was written prior to enactment of
this legislation. This legislation controls one of the primary concerns
in this area.
Re: Suspected reasons for malfunctions (10)
Response: The reasons were formulated for the general area identified
as having significant malfunctions. It was a logical extension of the
professional knowledge obtained for each area. The staff geologist and
environmental engineer worked closely with LPI's and soil scientists in
the area to formulate this information which is considered necessary for
this report. The staff agrees that positive documentation is desirable;
however, budget limitations did not allow a detailed survey of each problem
area.
Re: Well Samples (11)
Response: The staff realized that one coliform colony per 100
milliters does not necessarily constitute a health hazard. Whether the
level of coliform is "significant" or "unsatisfactory" is a matter of
semantics. The sentence that "most wells found with coliform bacteria
probably resulted from nearby malfunctioning septic systems" was based
on some correlation of data between well samples and previously cited
problem areas. As presented the information is misleading and should
be disregarded.
-49-
-------
Re: Cost of Systems (12)
Response: The costs were compiled by surveying local contractors
ana sales personnel.
Re: Taylor Pond and Northern Oxford (13)
Response: U.S.G.S. samples, the SEDEL study conducted by S.C.S., and
other lake monitoring indicates that coliform contamination as well as hiqh
nutrient concentrations in the pond are a result of shoreline development;
Malfunctioning systems, possible direct discharges and shoreline erosion
are the contributing factors. The LPI for Auburn confirmed that there are
numerous malfunctioning septic systems in the area. Well records indicate
ground water degradation in Northern Oxford; the LPI and a Professional
Engineer confirm that the coliform bacteria are probably entering the
ground water through septic system leachfields.
Re: Enforcement (14)
Response: It should be noted that little difficulty with systems
properly installed under the Plumbing. Code since 1974 was noted. The
subplan should have contained a statement of support for the existing
State Plumbing Code and should have emphasized improvements since 1974.
However, improved enforcement is still needed.
Re: State Inspection (15)
Response: It is for these reasons that a septic system maintenance
procedure at the local level was selected. Therefore local municipalities
can determine the need on a local level.
Re: Enforcement (16)
Response: Even though local officials have the responsibility under
state law to enforce the Code, they expressed difficulties with the system.
They noted that his problem is often a result of the local political
climate. The staff suggested that a uniform system of inspection may
eliminate some of the local p'olitics. It is hoped that the 10 year
pay back system recently enacted will help this situation.
Re: Inspection at the State Level (14)
Response: The staff agrees with this assessment and the local officials
felt the present system to be viable if more emphasis is placed on code
enforcement at the local level.
-50-
-------
Re: Communication (18)
Response: As the department realizes municipal - state communication
problems Is a sensitive subject. The staff noted that there was some
willingness on the part of local officials to discuss these problems, but
no documentation was provided at the municipal level. Regional planning
commission sponsored workshops involving Plumbing Inspectors and other
local officials and Health Engineering representatives might help to
create a better climate for information exchanges and improve any
communication gap.
Re: Seasonal Conversion (19)
Response: The comment is correct and is addressed under Conversion
of Seasonal Dwellings. (Comment 9)
Re: Maintenance Ordinance (20)
Response: The staff is working with several municipalities to adopt
such an ordinance which must also be approved by Health Engineering.
Re: Extent of Problems (21)
Response: The subplan should state that few citizens realized the
number and complexity of subsurface disposal problems. As a result of the
208 process, however, local officials and citizens have become better
informed about problems in their areas and also about the complexity of
septic system operation. Local officials now realize that systems must be
properly designed and installed and also realize the necessity of adequate
enforcement to prevent future problems.
Re: Education (22)
Response: The staff has attended some Health Engineering seminars.
The reference to public education in the subplan is geared to education
of the general public through the use of news media.
Re: Problems in Other Areas (23)
Response: In the context used it is not necessary to detail the
extent of the problem. A.V.R.P.C. has not reviewed the work of other
208 agencies sufficiently to make a judgement on Its technical quality.
Since there are other agencies identifying a problem, regardless of the
degree, it seemed reasonable to consider a statewide educational effort.
-51-
-------
Re: Workshops (24)
frn. ?M??°?!e: ,S?rkS!l0?S,W0^i be sP°nsored by A.V.R.P.C. with Input
from full-time LPI and Code Enforcement Officers, certified Site Evaluators
wishesStonparti?inateS ^ heaUh Enq1neerin9 Pers°el if the Department
Re: Cost (25)
Response: This was addressed under Cost of Systems
Re: Seasonal Dwellings
Response: This statement is poorly supported and should not have
been made. It was based on the fact that reasonably adequate septic
systems should not fail since there are substantial resting periods
between periods of use. However, there are seasonal dwellings with
extremely poor systems or no system. '
A.V.R.P.C. realizes the concerns of the Department of Human Services,
Division of Health Engineering. The staff and Policy Advisory Committee
feel that, with the exception of the regional well data on col i form
bacteria, the findings and conclusions are not unwarranted and that the
recommendations will lead to significant improvement in the water quality
of the region. The Department comments of Augusta 19, 1977, which were
made on the initial draft document follow. The comments were not received
in time to respond to them before the plan was printed.
-52-
-------
Department of Human Services
STATE HOUSE. AUGUSTA. MAINE
Pat, tdigust 29, 1977
To Kwert Jennings. Ve.vtMtne.nt o& Environment Protection
Froii Eugene Mo^teaa, Pt'.\;.c&.con 06 Health Engineering
Subject 2 01 pn.ogn.am dra^t jrom Androscoggin Valley Ke.g4.onat Planning Commission
Thi* otiice is in receipt ofl you*. letter dated August 11, 1977 with a
copy 0({ Androscoggin Valley's sub p&tn far on-4-tie Sewage disposal. The. fallowing
comment* are submitted fan you*. consideration'
1. Page No. H-1 The ii^th sentence indicate*, "It is evident that.
both industries and individual. residence* probably have discharged
their waste directly to surface waters fax. many years". We would
point out that thi& statement Lt> contradictory. The fiiut portion
indicate* that it i& evident, however; the center portion indicate*
probabty.
2. Page No. H-10 - The faurth tine &hou£d indicate, that septic tank* vary
in *ize iron 750 to 1200 gatZon* far&tiigleicMity dwelling*. Page No.
H-10 - No., 3 indicate* that inadequate maintenance i* a major problem
with *eptic. *y*tem*. .We jeel thi& *hould be inadequate, maintenance and
iinproper u*e i* a. major, problem ----
3. Page No. H-10 The £tj£fc line in the la*t paragraph indicate* that
the wor*t condition i& a *ea*onat high ground water table surrounding
the leach $ield. The *ame paragraph al*o indicate* "-in leach &ield*
that are undersized far the *oil condition*, the liquid wa*te* can add
*ufaLcient moi&ture tc the *oil to hinder trea&nent.". It i* our utider-
*tanding a di*po*al frield which i* *
-------
Rupert Je.mu.ns* -2- August 29, 7977
7. Page No. H-35 Refle/tence i* again made to enforcement o£ the plumbing
code. We concuA Wtth thiA Abatement. We ate finding that -in moAe and
none. townA It it, becoming politically expedient to en^oAce the p&unbing
code. PeAhap* the tiegjonal p£annxng coimtA4*on4 at the^i va^ioa4 meetings
cou^.d encoata
encoatage additional enjjoftcement by tne
It mat/ be wetfc to indicate, that an 80,000 AquaJie. (Joot £ot ^4 now
abte. both &o* ve.iy &andy toil texture and JOA a A-ttt boJUL texture,
we££ 04 pointed out that the Aandy texture *4 not nea^j/ a* e^-ocient
in Amoving nWioQvn. ion& 04 the &i£t tex^uAe. We ate a&o uncertain
whethe/t -te^eAence -C4 be^ng made to 4tiongeA empha&it, the. p£umb-6ig code
en jolcement, by a 4 tote agency on. with p>ie4ent mun-tcxpa£ OA Aeg-tona£
We tAU4t that the4e comment4 taiU be. accepted in a vain o£ con4t>tuctcue
-------
STATG OF MAIN6
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
KOGCft L. MAILAR
Commiiiioner
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
AUGUSTA. MAINE
04333
December 8, 1977
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Policy Coordination Office
John F. Kennedy Federal Building - Room 2203
Boston, MA > 02203
Attention: Robert E. Mendoza
Dear Mr. Mendoza:
Thank youCfor sending us a copy of the "Draft Environmental Impact
Assessment on the Draft 208 Waste Treatment Management Plan for the
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission". Following are some
comments for your consideration that are related to MDOT activities:
(l) It might be appropriate to mention somewhere in the Construction
Subplan (VII C) that MDOT does have detailed standards and specifications
regarding erosion control .and pit rehabilitation associated with its
federally aided construction projects.
(2) Regarding the discussion of salt storage, on page VII D-2j it
might be of interest to note that it is MDOT policy to store salt on concrete
pads under cover (e.g., salt sheds) and to locate such salt piles so as to
minimize the likelihood of contaminating groundwater.
(3) Page VII D-6 contains a recommendation to hold "cooperative workshops".
On page VII D-12 there is a recommendation for MDOT to "expand its road salt
usage training programs to the local level" by means of these workshops.
Filially, on pages VIIr28,29 there are recommendations for MDOT to expand its
training programs and to coordinate workshops. I think the idea to hold work-
shops is a good one. I would caution, however, that while MDOT could be a
participant in them, funding and personriel constraints would prevent us from
taking a more active role ('such as actually sponsoring and conducting workshops),
(1*) Regarding the discussion of road salt on pages VII D-9, 10, I
believe the principal potential health hazard is due to the sodium ion, not the
chloride. Chloride ions may impart a disagreeable taste to drinking water at
high concentrations and may be indicators of contamination of wells but are not
themselves usually thought of as health hazards. Another point that should be
brought out in this discussion is that Dr. Hutchinson's work concerned farm
(next page)
-------
Mr. .Rdbert Mendoza
December 8, 1977
- 2 -
(l») (continued) ponds close to highways (average distance
36 feet), not natural, larger bodies of water at varying distances. There
should also be some mention of Dr. Hutchinson's findings regarding salt
levels in Maine rivers. Also on page VII D-9, there is a statement indicating
that examples of salt storage pile leachate have been discussed previously in
this document but I could not find them.
(5) The examples of well contaminations allegedly due to MDOT road salt
storage and application and the accompanying discussion (pages VII G-23,25,
35) appear oversimplified and contain debatable conclusions. Malcom W. Ifeserve
(Supervisor, Well Claims, MDOT, Augusta 289-26l)is quite familiar with these
examples and I strongly urge you to contact him regarding them. Given my own
limited understanding of these situations, it appears that there are errors of
both statement and omission in the text which should be corrected.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
document. I appreciate the difficulty of your task and hope that at least
some of these comments prove helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact me
if you have any questions or want further information.
Sincerely,
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Bureau of Planning
William Reid, Jr.
Director
Environmental Services
WK:pb
cc
Craig Teribroek, AVRPC
R. Coleman,MDOT
M. Rissel, MDOT
M. Meserve, MDOT
G. Picher, MDOT
B
t>.k *
-------
RESPONSE TO MAINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Re: Mining
Response: This should have been noted in the section on Mining
and Extraction Procedures.
Re: Salt Storage
Response: The page sited is part of the introduction. MOOT policy
on salt storage should be noted in the Road Salt Storage and Application
section on pages VII D-8 to D-12.
Re: Workshops
Response: A.V.R.P.C. plans to fund some workshops for these pur-
poses with third year implementation funds. The workshop participation -
would constitute expansion of training programs for this planning area.
Re: Health Problems
Response: The subplan is in error on page VII D-9. Sodium is
indeed the health hazard rather than chloride.
Dr. Hutchinson's work only related to small farm ponds close to
highways. The examples of leachate are cited in the Ground Water/
Drinking Water Subplan on pages VII 6-23, G-25 and G-35. The statement
should have referred to that subplan.
Re: Contaminated Wells
This comment was discussed with Makolm W. Meserve, Supervisory of
the Maine Department of Transportation in a telephone conversation on
January 10, 1978. The discussion centered on the three areas of salt
contaminated ground water discussed in the plan namely, the area of the
old Sabattus town well, the area of the Norway town well, and the area
between Lake Auburn and the MDOT salt storage area in South Turner. As
a result of this discussion, Mr. Meserve does not disagree with the
discussions presented in the plan.
-57-
-------
PARIS UTILITY DISTRICT
TELEPHONE 743-6251
SOUTH PARIS. MAINE 04281
November 16, 1977
Mr. Paul Brown
Town Manager
South Paris, Maine 04281
Dear Paul;
It was the decision of the Board of
Trustees to make the following recommendation
on the 208 Water Quality Plan.,
The Trustees of the Paris Utility District
would like to recommend that the State or Federal
Agencies make all aquifer protection regulations.
Would you please place this recommendation
on file?
Sincerely,
JP
cc:
J. Daniel Morse
Superintendent
Androscoggin Valley
Regional Planning Commission
-------
RESPONSE TO PARIS UTILITY DISTRICT
Re: Aquifer Protection
Response: As a result of the public workshops and other written
comments, the aquifer protection through state legislation is being
recommended.
-59-
-------
LINDAS. DYER COBBOSSEE WATERSHED DISTRICT
Chairman
15 High Street
THOMAS U. GORDON .... ,. ...
Executive Director Wmthrop. Maine 04364
Telephone (207) 377-2234
November 28, 1977
Robert J. Thompson
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine Olj21 0
Dear Bob:
I have read the AVRPC 208 plan with great interest.
Having gone through the process with SKVRPC, I can appreciate the
time and effort that went into assembling it. I was particularly
impressed with the community service priorities methodology and
the policies and goals statements; it is -unfortunate that the time
constraints of the 208 program did not allow us to compare approaches
more carefully, since we could have certainly benefitted from some
of your work.
concerns about the plan are, of course, with agricul-
ture and sewage disposal. I recognize the limitations' imposed by the
availability of comprehensive water quality monitoring (the "program
limitations" spoken of on page VII A -7) and would hope that a more
intensive look at manure practices in lake watersheds will be a
priority for any future DEP/AVRPC studies. On subsurface sewage
disposal, I must object strongly to the use of coliform in water
samples from wells as an indication of septic system failures. There
are a multitude of potential coliform sources other than septic
systems, and inadequate documentation of sources should rule out the
well water samples as a valid source of data on septic system problems,
Finally, I am concerned about the cost estimates of non-sewered alter-
natives in the public sewerage subplan. I would suggest that a site
analyst or engineer involved in the day-to-day design of septic sys-
tems would have a better feel for these costs than consultants whose
primary interests are in design of treatment plants and .interceptor
sewers. Overall, however, I think your plan is well-done and we will
refer to it in our own future water quality programs.
I strongly support continuation of the 208 effort to
identify restoration alternatives for Sabattus. Although our staff
time is limited, we are close to Sabattus and will try to provide
any information on our project and methodologies that might be use-
ful to you. I hope we can explore this further when the Sabattus
planning effort ia approved.
Again, thanks for the copy of the plan. Let us know if
we can provide any help.
Sincerely,
Thomas U. Gordon
Executive Director
-------
RESPONSE TO COBBOSSEE WATERSHED DISTRICT
Re: Coliform as an Indicator
Response: The well water data should not have been presented in
the format on pages VII H-30, H-31 and H-32 in the Residential On-Site
Sewage Disposal Subplan.
-61-
-------
Effect on Plan/EIS
As workshop and written comments were considered, it became necessary
to amend some statements and recommendations found In the subplans of the
208 plan. The following Is a list of the subplans with the necessary
addended Information.
It should be noted that no comments reflected adversely on any
policy decisions. Therefore, recommendation amendments were minor in
nature and are shown in the Final Recommendation Section of this document.
-62-
-------
Agriculture, Forestry, and Construction Subplans
In addition to comments received by other agencies, the staff
noted that the Culver Amendment to Section 208 of P.L. 92-500 created
a need for increased emphasis on Best Management Practices for
Agricultural Pollution. The interim 208 document "Non-Point Source
Control Technologies and Cost Effectiveness" contained a list and
description of BMP's for agriculture, forestry and construction.
Reference is made to this document to identify BMP's within the
planning area.
-63-
-------
Miscellaneous Sources Subplan
The Petroleum Products Storage section on page VII D-17 can be
supported by the following information and data. In addition to the
D.E.P. discharge prohibitions, federal and state laws and regulations
address petroleum products storage and product spillage. The E.P.A.
requires Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans for
all facilities storing more than 660 gallons of oil in a single con-
tainer/1,320 gallons in multiple containers above ground or 42,000
gallons underground. In addition, the Department of Public Safety
has standards for construction and equipment installation at all
facilities handling flammable liquids, (Title 25, M.R.S.A. 317 §2441).
There are approximately 30 fuel oil distributors in the planning
area. Most distributors, all of which use £bove ground storage faci-
lities, operate facilities of between 1,000 and 5,000 gallons in size.
There are two substantially larger facilities, one located on Route 196
in Lewiston and the other on Route 202 in Auburn. Both major facilities
have dikes and other spill controls as required by the Department of
Public Safety.
In addition, numerous industries store petroleum products for their
use. Most industrial storage ranges from 50 to 2,000 gallons.
State law requires that all oil spills affecting waters of the state
be reported to D.E.P. at their toll-free oil spill number (1-800-482-0777).
A list of reported spills over 5 gallons is presented herein. It is
believed there are numerous small (less than 50 gallons) spills in the
area which are not reported. It is suspected that most spills are isolated
instances and therefore, do not result infishkills, drinking water con-
tamination or other readily detectable environmental damage. It is also
suspected that few small storage facilities comply with the E.P.A's
SPCC requirement at this time.
-64-
-------
REPORTED OIL SPILLS DURING PLANNING PERIOD
Place Date
Amount/Type/Source
(gal)
T-M Oil, Auburn
Pioneer Plastics
Corp., Auburn
Bates Manufacturing 3/3/76
Lewiston
1/8/76 200/#2/truck
1/21/76 50-100/#6/tank
1000/#6/tank
Merril Transport
Co., Paris
Max Miller, Inc.
Lisbon Falls
2/23/77 300/Gasoline/truck
4/7/77 Unknown/#6/tank
Webster Rubber Co.
Sabattus 5/21/77 Unknown/#6/tank
Recovery
Contained on ground
Entered Little Andro-
scoggin River.
Contained on ground
Entered Paris Sewage
Treatment Facility
Entered Androscoggin
River
Entered Sabattus
River
Gus Cote Bulk
Plant, Lewiston
Max Miller Co,
(Juliet Mill)
Lisbon
7/7/77 830/#2/truck
10/3/77 10/#6/tank
Entered LAWPCF
Entered Sabattus River
-65-
-------
Sludge and Septage Subplan
Table SS2 contains several errors. The Maine Electronics sludge
figures should read "amount of sludge = 25 cubic yards per year and
solids 10%". The table should note that "Pioneer Plastics' pretreat-
ment process does not produce a sludge". General Electric should be
included as "type of treatment: physical-chemical; amount of
sludge * < 25 cubic yards per year; solids content =? 10%; land dis-
posal control T heavy metals; disposal method =? landfill".
Ground Water/Drinking Water Subplan
Alternative five on page G-40 of the subplan should now note that
"Maine has primary enforcement authority for the Safe Drinking Water
Act".
On page VII G-29 and G-30 the units for transmissivity should be
gallons per foot per day. On page G-30 the units for the draw down of
32,522 should be square feet per day.
Recommendations are changed as in the final recommendations sec-
tion (Section IV) of this document to reflect the need for comprehen-
sive state legislation on aquifer protection rather than only enabling
legislation.
-66-
-------
Residential On-Site Sewage Disposal Subplan
On page VII H-9 the sentence on leachfield sizes should denote
the large size leachfield as "1400 square feet" not 2,400 square feet.
On page H-13 the the soil scientist reference in the first para-
graph should be "Soil Evaluator".
On the same page the last paragraph should read that Local Plumbing
Inspectors are "certified" not licensed by the state.
On pages H-30, H-31 and H-32 "the regional well data on coliform
contamination of wells should not be considered as documentation of the
effects of malfunctioning septic systems on ground water. The informa-
tion should be deleted from the subplan".
On page H-37 the first paragraph should "emphasize that the new
code (since 1974) and increased enforcement since 1974 has eliminated
numerous health and environmental hazards." However, enforcement
activities could be increased further and thereby eliminate more
hazards.
It should be noted that the recommendation on page H-39 has been
implemented through state legislation.
On page H-46 the statement that seasonal dwellings owned by people
from out-of-state are not as significant a problem as year-round dwellings
should be modified. Generally septic systems function better when
allowed periods of rest. Systems at seasonal dwellings owned by people
from out-of-state generally have rest periods and even if somewhat under-
designed or poorly maintained may function adequately. No accounting
was made for these dwellings which have direct discharges or severely
inadequate systems".
Public Sewer Systems Subplan
The recommendation on septage receiving at Norway (page VII 1-64)
should be changed to read as in the Primary Implementation Actions
portion of Section IV of this document.
-67-
-------
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
Federal, State, and Local Recommendations
The 208 plan presented recommendations to federal, state, and local
levels of government. Implementation of recommendations at all levels
would significantly improve water quality in the planning area and would
also prevent any significant degradation in surface waters and ground
waters in the area.
However, it is realized that implementation of state and federal
government recommendations may not have the effect of significantly
improving or protecting water quality in other areas of the state or
country. Therefore, the state and federal agencies must consider the
«
recommendations along with those make by other planning agencies and
then formulate a strategy which will assist all areas to the maximum
extent possible. Therefore, these recommendations should be considered
as general recommendations to be considered by state and federal agencies.
Implementation Priorities, which are generally dependent on local
actions, were presented in Table 2 of the .Implementation Strategy of the
208 plan. The priority actions for each municipality were supplemented
by general recommendations to local governments. A municipality may
use these general recommendations as guidelines to plan activities which
were not considered priority water quality concerns and therefore were
not assessed sepcifically for that municipality. Also municipalities
bordering the planning area can consider these recommendations since the
208 program as well as other agency programs indicate that many of the
communities in the Androscoggin Valley have similar problems.
The general recommendations presented by subplan follow.
-68-
-------
Surface Water Quality Assessment
Federal Recommendations
Fund the A.V.R.P.C. 208 program for a third year
with monies eligible for continued investigation
and planning as well as implementation. It will
be difficult to obtain implementation without
continued technical assistance, therefore the
data base needs continual update and expansion
due to the dynamic relationships between land
use and water quality.
State Recommendations
Establish a schedule for checking small streams
and river segments recommended for reelassifica-
tion.
Conduct a new waste load allocation for 6.3 mile
Class D segment of Little Androscoggin.
Investigate Thompson Lake Outlet in relation to
Robinson Manufacturing Treatment Plant discharge
to ascertain whether or not a waste load alloca-
tion is needed.
Continue and expand D.E.P. Lake Division support
of lay monitoring programs on Great Ponds. This
is a valuable program not only from expanded sur-
veillance but also public education and awareness.
Provide to the A.V.R.P.C. 208 program the sampling
program presented in Table 5 and Map 3 in Section
VI.
Assist the A.V.R.P.C. and Lake Associations in de-
tailed lake programs to help alleviate existing
and/or potential problems.
Delete from classification register Unnamed Brook,
Auburn 1.3 miles East of Minot Village, because
the brook could not be found.
Delete Logan and Penley Brooks (Auburn) from the
classification register as they are presently part
of the storm sewer system.
-69-
-------
Local Recommendations
Strict enforcement of local and state plumbing codes
by local plumbing inspectors.
Modify existing ordinances or adopt additional ones
to ensure protection of surface waters.
Agriculture Subplan
Federal Recommendations
The S.C.S. and A.S.C.S. should increase information
and education efforts to maintain and/or increase
voluntary participation in existing programs. Suffi-
cient funding of the agencies would be necessary to
be able to provide this service.
More cost-share funding (ACP) should be made avail-
able for dispersement in the 208 area to allow greater
participation in the existing voluntary programs.
The $2,500 ACP cost-share limit should remain, but
special funding for major practices should be made
available for dispersement through the A.S.C.S.
County Cornmitteemen.
The problem of manure storage and usage in relation
to the areas lakes and streams warrants further study
due to program limitations during the first two years.
This necessitates that third year funds be eligible
for continued planning and investigation and not solely
implementation.
State Recommendations
The State with S.C.S. assistance should establish a
regulatory program in the Department of Environmental
Protection to control major agricultural non-point
sources.
A working relationship should be established between
the A.S.C.S. County Committeemen, the R.P.C.'s and the
Department of Environmental Protection to allow for
information exchanges to facilitate the alleviation of
priority problems.
-70-
-------
Forestry Subplan
State Recommendations
Forestry operations were not found to be a signi-
ficant problem; however if found to be a signifi-
cant sourceona statewide basis then operations of
a particular size, type, or on sensitive slopes or
soils should be required to have approved opera-
tions plans certified by the State through the
Service Foresters of the State Bureau of Forestry.
Construction Subplan
State Recommendations
A statewide sediment and erosion control law, if
adopted, should include a D.E.P. or state admini-
stered regulatory program to control construction
related sediment and erosion problems for subdivi-
sions and commercial and industrial developments
over a certain size.
Local Recommendations
Existing controls are sufficient in some 208 area
communities and others should voluntarily develop
ordinances to control erosion through assistance
of the 208 continuing planning process.
Any advisory program to control sediment and
erosion should be conducted through the local Soil
Conservation Districts.
Miscellaneous Sources Subplan
Roadside Ditches
State Recommendations
Cooperative workshops for road superintendents and
crews should be held throughout the 208 area by
MOOT, SCS and the A.V.R.P.C. for the purposes of
discussing: road drainage; ditch maintenance;
salt storage and usage; and road construction and
surface maintenance.
-------
Local Recommendations
Re-evaluate ditch and culvert effectiveness by
looking at both ditch design and culvert size and
location. This is to minimize velocity and volume
of flow wherever possible.
Do not conduct ditch and road shoulder maintenance
in the late Fall which will leave exposed soil
during Spring runoff.
Reyegetate exposed ditches after clean-out or other
maintenance.
"Punch" holes in frozen snowbanks during late Winter
to allow melt waters or Spring runoff an exit off the
road and shoulder surface. This should be done espec-
ially for steep sections of road.
Identify all storm sewer inlets by'marking the road.
This will allow their quick location during Spring
runoff when drainage may become a problem due to
their concealment by frozen snowbanks. This practice
is gaining wide use in the 208 area.
Institute sand reclamation programs in the early
Spring to recover sands used on winter roads. In
sewered areas, this is an essential practice and
has become quite popularized in the Lewiston-Auburn
area through the solicitation of home and shop owner
participation in sidewalk and curb clean-up.
Snow Dumps
State Recommendations
Further study is needed to ascertain the level of
impact of snow dumping. This should be carried out
cooperatively between the D.E.P. and the A.V.R.P.C.
Road Salt Storage and Application
Federal Recommendations
If third year 208 monies are eligible for continued
planning, the salt contamination of the old Sabattus
town well should be studied for possible renovation
procedures.
-72-
-------
State Recommendations
The MOOT should expand its road salt usage training
programs to the local level. This could be done
cooperatively through workshops held for a variety
of reasons.
Local Recommendations
Place salt piles on concrete pads and under cover.
Do not locate salt storage piles on eskers.
Have effective sediment and erosion control faci-
lities for salt-sand mixture piles.
Pesticide Use and Container Disposal
State Recommendations
Establish monitoring stations in small tributary
streams adjacent to major pesticide users to deter-
mine the level of impact. This type of program
should be developed jointly between the A.V.R.P.C.,
D.E.P. and the U.S.D.A. The state should play a
leadership role in this type of program.
Petroleum Products Storage
State Recommendations
The state D.E.P. should closely monitor all petro-
leum product storage within Shoreland Zones. Site
specific problems may require spill or leakage and/
or containment facilities.
The D.E.P. should establish a periodic investigation
program to evaluate the adequacy or suitability of
in-ground storage facilities. Such a program would
renew permits contingent upon certification of the
tightness of the facility.
Local Recommendations
Prohibit petroleum product storage on the aquifer-
esker system as outlined in the A.V.R.P.C. 208 Model
Aquifer Protection Ordinance.
-73-
-------
Mining and Extraction Procedures
State and Local Recommendations
Closely monitor and/or expressly prohibit sepcific
uses of abandoned sites that may cause degradation
of ground water resources. This may be achieved
through additional provisions added to the original
State Site Plan Review Permit or through a locally
adopted Site Plan Review Ordinance, if a municipali-
ty has one. This ordinance is designed to meet con-
ditions not met by the state ordinance.
Encourage rehabilitation of existing sites not
covered by State law.
«
Solid Waste Subplan
State Recommendations
Seek waste volume reduction legislation, either
locally or at higher levels. This is an obvious
route fortheD.E.P. Solid Wastes Division under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
A master file or map should be kept of all resi-
dual disposal sites so that they may be properly
evaluated as a physical constraint in future plan-
ning. This filing would be best kept at the re-
gional or state level. The county registry of
deeds may be the logical place.
Local Recommendations
The Towns of Norway, Paris, Oxford and Sabattus have
solid waste disposal sites located on aquifer-aquifer
recharge areas and should be relocated. A short-term
cost-effective solution, such as a sanitary landfill
should be evaluated while also exploring the possibi-
lities for employing new technologies for disposal,
either individually or on a regional basis.
The feasibility of planned operations in Lewiston
(shredder) and Auburn (incinerator) are presently
being considered by 208 area municipalities to see
if these would be cost-effective alternatives under
contract or agreement.
-74-
-------
Set aside available lands for either future landfills,
as there will always be a need for some fill, or for
future collection and transfer stations.
Sludge and Septage
Federal Recommendations
Septage treatment facilities should be considered
for inclusion on the State Facility Priority List
for matched Federal, State, and Local funding. The
same construction grants process should be utilized
for planning, design, and construction.
Study the removal of toxic substances from sludge
to make it acceptable for use on agricultural land
or for other uses.
State Recommendations
The Maine Guidelines for Septic Tank Sludge Disposal
on Land should be changed to require larger areas for
septage disposal on well drained soils. Areas approxi-
mately twice that now required should be sufficient.
The Maine Guidelines are otherwise suitable to protect
surface waters and ground water and therefore minimize
environmental impact of septage disposal techniques.
Compliance with the Maine Guidelines for sludge dis-
posal is adequate to prevent ground water and surface
water contamination. Therefore disposal methods should
comply with the guidelines. Specific exceptions, such
as the Paris sludge disposal site, may occur and should
be approved based on significant scientific data.
Pursue new legislation encouraging sludge use and dis-
posal alternatives while continuing present disposal
methods.
Implement a public education program on sludge as a
resource.
Local Recommendations
Municipalities with sewage treatment facilities should
use disposal into the facility if septage receiving
does not affect facility operations or effluent quality.
-75-
-------
Municipalities should contact surrounding munici-
palities to determine the possibility of coopera-
tive agreements to use existing facilities or
develop new sites.
Ground Water/Drinking Water Subplan
Federal Recommendations
State and Federal legislation impacting ground water
quality has developed in a piece-meal fashion and
therefore does not offer a comprehensive, logical
vehicle for ground water protection. Therefore, the
Federal Government should enact comprehensive ground
water regulations that form an integrated legal frame-
work within which state and local governments can
research and enact comprehensive ground water protec-
tion programs.
State Recommendations
State legislation,including enabling legislation,
should be developed to regulate activities that
occur on aquifers or in watersheds and would allow
municipalities to zone aquifers and watersheds.
Local Recommendations
Drinking water protection should be achieved through
implementation of specific aquifer/watershed protec-
tion ordinances, which would zone certain critical
aquifer recharge and production areas / surface water-
shed(s) identified for each community. The Towns of
Sabattus, Lisbon, Paris, Norway, Oxford, and Poland
should enact aquifer protection ordinances and seek
inter!ocal cooperation with neighboring communities
in protecting the areas' aquifers. These towns should
make every effort to relocate solid waste disposal
sites that are located on or near productive aquifers.
Residential On-Site Sewage Disposal Subplan
Federal Recommendations
Federal Construction Grants funding should be ex-
tended to include publicly controlled individual
on-site disposal systems when such systems are the
best alternative for sewage disposal problems.
-76-
-------
State Recommendations
The state tax incentive program and the revolving
loan fund should be considered. However, the re-
sults of improved educational and code enforcement
programs over the next three years could eliminate
the need for increased incentives.
Small cluster systems should be funded concurrently
with the larger systems on the State Facility Priority
List through a set-aside funding program.
Local Recommendations
Municipalities with severe problem areas should imple-
ment a tax rebate program to encourage septic tank
pumping.
An educational program on subsurface disposal should
be implemented by the local municipalities. A.V.R.P.C.
should provide technical information to municipal offi-
cials and should assist officials in adapting the pro-
gram to the municipal needs.
Local code enforcement officers should inspect septic
systems and issue certificates of compliance when sea-
sonal dwellings are converted to year round residences.
A local septic tank maintenance ordinance should be
developed which places responsibility for maintenance
on the individual. Unknown discharges should be licensed
to insure that clusters of discharges do not degrade
water quality and that health hazards are not created.
Public Sewer Systems
Federal Recommendations
The federal government should fund the construction
grants program for a sustained period (4 to 10 years)
at the same level each year.
State Recommendations
Small systems should be funded concurrently with the
larger systems through a set-aside funding program.
COMMENT: If the federal regulations change to allow
federal funding of publicly controlled individual on-
site systems, as recommended in the Residential On-Site
Disposal Subplan, then more drastic changes in funding
procedures should be considered.
-77-
-------
State should retain regulatory authority for all
point sources of pollution. A regional or local
authority should have a formalized advisory review
and comment process.
State retain authority for licensing discharges
but provide for a review and comment by a local or
regional body such as the regional planning commis-
sion or the affected municipality/special district.
COMMENT: Consideration should be given to issuing
the discharge license at the time the facility plan
is completed. Thus, design would be based on the
legal discharge limitations. The concepts of Best
Practical Treatment and Best Available Treatment set
the design goals; however, definite discharge limi-
tations would allow treatment methods to not only
meet the BPT and BAT regulations but would insure that
discharges are compatible with the quafity of the
receiving water.
Waste load allocations should be established by D.E.P.
and enforced through the D.E.P. licensing system with
the waste loads of each source specified in the license
relative to the load allocation for the Water Quality
Limited Segment.
On the Water Quality Limited Segment of the Little
Androscoggin River, the waste load allocation and
methods of achievement should be re-examined every
3 years upon license renewal.
The discharge limitations (the waste load allocation)
in the discharge license/permits should be based on
assimilation capacity of the river for flows down to
to the 7 Q 10. Higher pollution loading during high
river flows should be allowed. Pollution loading
should then decrease with flow and assimilative capa-
city. A permanent flow gaging station should be in-
stalled at Paris; the P,aris Utility District and
D.E.P. should have access to the station. The Paris
Utility District should have the responsibility of
implementing the reduced pollution load procedures or
other chosen alternative by informing the various groups
involved. D.E.P. should then have the enforcement respons-
ibilities.
Municipalities should be required by state law to contact
adjacent municipalities to determine interest and feasibi-
lity of joint/cooperative efforts and the appropriate state
funding agency should be notified, but the problem solving
should only be voluntarily implemented by municipalities.
-78-
-------
The State should enact legislation to enable D.E.P.
to establish a funding program for infiltration analy-
sis work. The program could be funded with a small
amount of the federal construction grants money or
could be funded through legislative action. If State
money is used, it should be in the form of a loan.
To receive money, documentation in treatment facility
records or a facility plan should exist. Rehabilita-
tion work should be funded locally until facility
needs on the State Facility Priority List are met.
Then rehabilitation work can be added to the eligible
projects for construction grants funding.
The state should continue present funding methods. As
facility projects which eliminate more serious problems
are funded over the next 2 or 3 years, D.E.P. should
place collector systems projects on the Step I Facility
Priority List. Collector sewers should only be funded
in areas with environmental or health problems; needs
should be well documented with water quality sampling
and State Plumbing Code enforcement records. When the
water quality problems appear as serious as the other
projects on the list, then the state law should be
changed and collection system projects should be funded
concurrently with other projects.
The current system of municipal and industrial self-
monitoring and reports to the E.P.A. and state should
continue. The state should also continue their rou-
tine monitoring program.
Local Recommendations
The current system of municipal and industrial self-
monitoring and reports to the E.P.A. and state should
continue.
Facility loading should be kept at or below capacity
by municipal control of sewer extensions and by mini-
mizing infiltration from existing sewers. The muni-
cipality should be placed on the State Facility Prior-
ity List for funding at the end of the treatment
facility's design life.
Industrial Waste Treatment
State Recommendations
The State should retain regulatory authority for
all point sources of pollution.
-79-
-------
The state should retain authority for licensing
discharges.
The state should provide for a formalized review
and comment process by affected local authorities
and/or regional bodies.
The current system of industrial self-monitoring
and reports to the E.P.A. and D.E.P. should continue.
The D.E.P. should continue their routine monitoring
program to check self-monitoring reports.
Title 38, M.R.S.A., Chapter 3 should be extended to
include inspection and enforcement procedures for
industrial and commercial non-discharge lagoons and
land application systems. D.E.P. should have respons-
ibility for the inspection and enforcement system.
Establishments should be required to keep records of
waste flows, waste characteristics, operational pro-
blems, and rainfall.
Local Recommendations
Local Sewer Use Ordinances should be revised to in-
clude or references all federal and state pretreatment
requirements. Industrial self-monitoring should be
required with the municipality or sanitary district
conducting checks to determine if dischargers to
municipal systems are meeting requirements.
Industries should be required to monitor flows con-
tinuously and waste characteristics at least weekly.
-80-
-------
Plan Implementation
Management Agencies
Since the impact of recommendations to state and federal agencies
should be considered for other areas, the Implementation Priorities for
the 208 plan focus on actions which must be taken within the planning
area to improve and protect water quality. The priorities are dependent
on actions which must be taken by local governments in the planning area.
Therefore, the muninipalities and sanitary districts in the planning
area are the designated management agencies. Concurrence letters from
these agencies follow.
In addition, other agencies have financial and technical assistance
responsibilities. Most notably, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts,
the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and the State
Bureau of Forestry will undertake project prioritization and financing
and technical assistance responsibilities in the planning area. Local
governments will also require financial and technical assistance from other
agencies including the Maine Department of Transportation, the Maine Depart-
ment of Human Services and the Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission.
Existing federal and state laws provide program and funding authorizations
for the necessary assistance. Letters from these agencies follow those
from the locally designated management agencies.
-81-
-------
CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE
"MAINE'S CITY Of OPPORTUNITY'
45 SPRING STREET-AUBURN. MAINE O421O
JACK o. SMITH
MAYOR
November 21, 1977
Mr. John Jaworski, Executive Director
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine 04210
Dear Mr. Jaworski:
I am pleased to inform you that the City of Auburn endorsed in
concept the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by the Andro-
scoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission. We will continue
to participate in the implementation of the Plan's recommendations.
Sincerely
/rm
-------
784-646O
764-6480
AUBURN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
268 COURT STREET
AUBURN. -- MAINE O421O
January 16, 1978
Androscoggin Valley
Regional Planning Commission
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine 04210
Re: Lewiston-Auburn Little Androscoggin River
Section 208 Water Quality Program
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Assessment
Gentlemen:
The subject plan has -been reviewed by this office
and meets with our approval.
Very truly yours,
Auburn Sewerage District
Earle A. Tarr, Jr.
Superintendent
EAT/lh
-------
City
.IULIAN L. CARON . \nftJi»f\ TEL. 207 784-2951
Mayor \SV\WnU
, , , II Z|p CODE
Jice 05 Hie J\J(mjDH
CITY BUILDING
November 23, 197?
Mr. John Jaworski
Executive Director
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine 04210
Dear Mr. Jaworski:
After receiving favorable recommendations from the City Planning
Board and Public Marks Board, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen
of the City of Lewiston voted at its meeting on November 22, 1977
to adopt the Section 208, Water Quality Management Plan, prepared
by the Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission.
The City of Lewiston feels that this cooperative effort between
the ten towns, your agency, and the Environmental Protection
Agency of the United States, is an important step in our continuing
effort to restore and maintain water quality in our general area.
Very truly yours,
Lillian L. Caron
Mayor
-------
Town of Minot, Maine
INCORPORATED FEB. 10. 1802
12 December 77
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission
The Town of Minot endorses the concepts of the 208 Water Quality
program and would like to continue in the planning process.
The Town would reserve the right to further discussion and a vote
of the Townspeople would be required before any action could be taken
on any specific items. While very little in the way of specific
recommendations remain for the 'J-'own, there are severil general ideas
that could have an impact on Minot and should be further examined
before any changes to existing laws or regulations are attempted.
Sincerely,
Board of Selectmen
Town of Minot
Town Clerk
-------
STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
AUGUSTA. MAINE 04333
22 March 1978 RICHARD E
** watcn x»/o COMMISSIONER
Mr. John J. Jaworski
Executive Director
Androscoggin Valley RFC
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine 04210
Dear John:
I have reviewed the Forestry Sub Plan of the Androscoggin Valley
Section 208 Water Quality Program Management Plan and am in general
agreement.
The only portion that I am in the least uncomfortable with is
the last sentence, VII B-l. This refers to possible occurrances on land
owned by the large paper companies which is not the subject of this
Sub Plan, but is being considered by the Land Use Regulation Ccnmission.
On VII B-23, there is a reference to sensitive slopes. (1st sentence
alternative 3). As data is developed, it becomes increasingly apparent
that Soils Association is as inportant a factor as is slope in susceptibility
to erosion.
Generally, I feel that this is a good effort and I recommend its
acceptance.
Sincerely,
Kenneth H. Hendren
PLANNING FORESTER
cc: Al Prysunka - DEP
/dmw
-------
STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
AUGUSTA. MAINE 04333
DAVID E. SMITH
COMMISSIONER
April 7, 19
RECEIVED
APR 141978
Mr. Allen Prysunka
Department of Environmental Protection
State House
Augusta, Maine 04333
Subject: Management Plan and Environmental Impact Assessment received
from Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission
Dear Mr. Prysunka:
This office has reviewed the subject "208" plan. We feel we can
basically support the submitted plan provided the supplement received
March 31, 1978, entitled, "Response to Department of Human Services", is
enclosed.
This office is concerned about possible interpretation of a statement
made on Page VII, H-39, which states: "Municipal officials have noted
communication problems between the Department of Human Services and the
local level." A response from the Regional Planning Commission indicates
that the Department realizes municipal-state communication problems are
a sensitive subject. We would again emphasize that no documentation of
a communication problem has been shown. We are very concerned about proper
public relations due to the service oriented function of this program and
are in very frequent communication with Plumbing Inspectors, Municipal
Officials and many other individuals. Furthermore, we are concerned that
several statements such as one made on Page VII, H-41 indicating that
other 208 agencies in Maine have identified subsurface disposal as a problem
in their area and specifically referred to the Greater Portland Council of
Governments and Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commissions.
We concur that pockets of malfunctioning areas are certainly evident
throughout the State. However, we are concerned that these statements
may be misinterpreted to mean that malfunctioning subsurface systems are
a greater significant problem then may actually exist. We would emphasize
that a most significant improvement in the life expectancy of subsurface
wastewater disposal systems has been observed since implementation of the
new Maine State Plumbing Code, effective July 1, 1974, compared to those
systems installed prior to that time.
Very truly yours,
Eugene Moreau, P.E.
Waste Water & Plumbing Control
Division of Health Engineering
EM/mo
-------
jettled in 1628
Incorporated
jane 22. 1799
TOWN OF LISBON
"Maine's Most Industrialized Town"
Lisbon, Lisbon Center and Lisbon Falls
Town Office
Box 8
Lisbon Falls, Maine 04252
November 7, 1977
Androscoggin Valley Regional
Planning Commission
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine 04210
Att: John Jarwoski, Executive Director, A.V.R.P.C.
Dear Mr. Jarwoski:
The Lisbon Board of Selectmen wish to go on record as adopting
the Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan prepared by the
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission, and will
continue to participate in the implementation of the Plan's
Recommendations.
Very truly yours,
Lisbon Board of Selectmen
&
RBFrph
-------
Leon F. Jones
Town Manager
Mechanic
wist on
J^echanic Falls. Maine 04256
Telephone
345-2871
November 8, 1977
Crc.ig Ten-3rucck
208 Iroject IJirectnr
Androi>co££: n Valley ue^ional Planning Coiam.
70 Court St.
Auburn, Me. 0^210
Dear Mr. Ten-3roeck;
In response of your letter cf I^ovenber 1, at a regular mi.-<..tii:g
of the Town Jouncil la.A evening; it was agreed to adopt the Co:cept
of the section 208 Water Duality Management rlan prepared by tne
A.V. R. ?. C., and will continue to participate in the implementation
of the Plan's recommendations subject to Town meeting approval.
Respectful!
Keough,
Chairman, Town Council
-------
MECHANIC FALLS SANITARY DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 47
MECHANIC FALLS, MAINE 04256
TRUSTEES
KHBaa
{AIRMAN
_aauuuL
VICE CHAIRM
JtMtUfi
CLERK
DKBMMOHt;
TREASURER
Ronald H. Smith
Arthur E .Grady
Lula M. Bryant
Ivan E. Fifield
Edward R. Heath
SUPERINTENDENT
LEON F. JONES
December 29, 1977
Androscoggin Valley Regional
Planning Commission
ATTNi Mr* Fergus Lee
Center Street
Auburn, Maine 04210
Gentlemen!
The Mechanici'Falls Sanitary District at a
regular meeting on December 20, 1977, the fol-
lowing action was taken, "Upon motion duly made
it was unanimously voted to approve the AVRPC
Section 208, Water Quality Progranrin concept
but reserve the privilege to make adjustments
in accordance with our local needs and require-
ments."
Sincerely,
Superintendent / *
RECEIVED
JAN 4 1978
-------
C/OWfl of II
own or i torwa
INCORPORATED I 797
TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE
116 MAIN STREET
Tlorway, TTlaine 04268
June 22, 1977
Mr. Craig W. Ten Broeck
208 Project Director
70 Court Street,
Auburn, Maine 04210
Dear Craig:
The Norway Board of Selectmen have reviewed the Androscoggin
Valley Regional Planning Commission's Publication Section 208
Areawide, Waste Treatment management Plan as pertains to Norway
and the Little Androscoggin River and are in agreement with the
plan except for the projected Sewer Service areas*
Most all of the recommendations outlined in the plan were
covered by the Facilities Plan crafted in 1974 and completed
in April 1975 by Wright, Pierce, Barnes & Wyman Engineers of
Topsham, Maine.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter, do not
hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
La&y Todd
Town Manager
LT:s
-------
town Manager v^'j » °r n
tHARLES G. BOURQUE /O *"""* '^+ Tel. 539-4431
TOWN ,OF OXFORD
BOX 153 OXFORD, MAINE 04270
November 16, 1977
A.V.R.P.C.
70 Court St.
Auburn, Maine 0^210
We, the undersigned, being responsible Officials of the Town
of Oxford, do adopt the Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan
prepared by the Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission,
and will continue to participate in the implementation of the
Plan's recommendation vith the understanding when it involves
enactment of specific ordinance on specific dates that the items
will be on the town warrant, but we cannot guarantee the outcome
as we cannot forecast how the town will vote.
Sincerely,
Evan Thurlow,
William A. Fzye,
Selectmen
&
-------
AREA CODE 207
TELEPHONE 743-2501
TOWN OF
S%ith P&l Maine 04281
£>';
iber 7, 1977
^^^l^X
Mr, John Jaworski
Executive Director
A.V.R.P»C.
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine Oi|210
Re your letter to Larry Brewer of 9/20/77
Dear John,
As we wrote you on 10/^/77 we are answering your letter regp.rding
the adoption of the 208 Plan* We requested input from the Paris
Utility District, Planning Board, Conservation Commission and citizens.
As we understand once final approval is made by E.P.A. the
208 Plan will become the working document used in the determination
of facility needs, funding, regulatory action and future water
quality planning by the E.P,A. and the Maine Department of Enviromental
Protection. Then implementation is the next step and the town will
continue to participate in this.
We certe.inly cen endorse the goals, policies and technical findings
conteined in the Plan* Where we have trouble accepting the plan is
when it involves enactment of specific ordinances on specific drtes
by the town legislative body. Certainly we will put the items on the
town warrant, however we can't forcost how the town meeting will vote.
Sincerely,
./Joe Barrett
' Chairman of Board of Selectmen
-------
PARIS UTILITY DISTRICT
TELEPHONE 743-6251
SOUTH PARIS. MAINE 0428!
December 23, 1977
Androscoggin Valley Regional
Planning Commission
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine 04210
Attention: Mr. John J. Jaworski
Dear Mr. Jaworski;
The Trustees of the Paris Utility District
would approve the 208 Water Quality Program with
the following recommendation.
The Board of Trustees of the Paris Utility
District recommend that all aquifer protection
regulations be made by State or Federal Agencies.
Would you please include the above recommenda-
tion for the 208 Water Quality Program's Advisory
Committee to review?
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Clifford
Chairman of Board of
Trustees
JP
-------
TOWN OF POLAND
BOX 38 - POLAND, MAINE - 04273
November 15, 1977
John Jaworski, Executive Director
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine 04210
Dear Mr. Jaworski:
As the duly elected Selectmen of the Town of Poland we do adopt the Section
208 Water Quality Management Flan prepared by the Androscoggin Valley Regional
Planning Commission, and will continue to participate in the implementation of
the Plan's recommendations.
/»
* /
Selectmen of Poland
-------
Chief Sabams
Anaugunticook Tribe
TOWN of SABATTUS
MAIN STREET
Selectmen'* Office
7W. Sofcrtte.. 207 - 375 - 4331
SABATTUS MAINE 04280
September 23, 1977
Mr. Craig Ten Broeek
Andy Valley Regional Planning Committee
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine 01*210
Dear Craig:
We apologize for the delay in our response to your question
on the 208 Process.
A considerable amount of time has been spent on this pro-
ject and. we wish to thank all committee members involved.
As spokesman for the three member board of Selectmen, we
wish to approve the 208 Draft Environmental Impact Assessment.
Sincerely,
Horace Atwood
Chairman of the Board of Selectmen
Town of Sabattus
-------
SABATTUS
SANITARY
DISTRICT
SABATTUS MAINE O428O
March 2, 1978
Androscoggln Valley R.P.C.
John J. Jaworksi, Executive Director
70 Court Street
Auburn, ME 04210
Dear Mr. Jaworski:
The trustees of the Sabattus Sanitary District have reviewed the
pertinent portions of the 208 Water Quality Management Plan and are
in agreement with the plan.
The trustees will work with the planning agency to implement
actions to improve the sewerage facilities in the Town of Sabattus.
Sincerely,
Alvin B. Sorkin, Chairman
Sabattus Sanitary District
ABS:jev
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
USDA Office Building, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04473
Craig TenBroeck
208 Project Director
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine 04210
Dear Craig:
SUBJECT: INTERA - 208
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing your 208 Plan. We have
discussed the plan with Bryce McEwen and he indicates that he has
worked closely with you folks in the development of the agricultural
section and several other sections. Bruce Champeon, Geologist on my
staff, reviewed the sections dealing with SEDEL in some detail and
his comments are attached. The Plan appears to be well prepared and
should make a major contribution to environmental improvement.
We look forward to working through the Androscoggin Valley Soil and
Water ConservationDistrict in assisting you in the Implementation""
of this Plan..
Sincerely,
State Conservationist /I
-------
ASICS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
USDA Office Building, Orono, Maine 04473
March 29, 1978
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission
ATTN: Mr. John Jaworski
70 Court Street
Auburn, Maine 04210
Dear Mr. Jaworski:
We have reviewed your draft, Environmental Impact Statement, paying
particular attention to the sections pertinent to non-point source
pollution as it relates to agriculture.
We concur with your assessment of the major issues. We agree that
a regulatory program is not the way to handle agricultural pollution
problems under Section 208. In our opinion the best way to address
these problems would be to:
A Increase funding of existing cost-sharing programs.
8 Increase personnel in both SCS and ASCS in order to be able
to handle the job adequately.
C Raise the maximum cost-share limit $2500, especially for
certain high cost practices related directly to these problems.
In view of the above comments, we unhesitatingly endorse this plan
and consider it a giant stride in the right direction.
Arthur 6. Carroll, SED
For The Maine State ASC Committee
cc; Al Frysunka
-------
ASICS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
Oxford County ASC Committee
1 Main Street
South Paris, ME 04281
March 27, 1978
Androscoggin Valley Regional
Planning Commission
Robert Thompson, 208 Water Quality Planner
70 Court Street
Auburn, ME 04210
Dear Mr. Thompson:
At their meeting held on March 23, the county committee reviewed
and discussed the A.V.R.P.C. 208 Water Quality Management Plan.
At this time the committee endorsed the plan.
Cordially yours,
County Exeutive Director
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
1 Great Falls Plaza Auburn, Faine CM210
March 1, 1977
TO: Androscoegin Valley Regional Planning Commission
REFERENCE: 208 Water Quality Planning Program
un Thursday, February 17, 1977 I reviewed with the Androscogg5.n-
Sagadahoc County Committees your teclinical memorandum regarding
208 vater quality planning. Both committees commented that a
great deal of time and effort have teen made on your part in pre-
paring this document.
Their first concern, as I'm sure is yours, was how the defined
non-point source problems will be funded and corrected. Tfeny re-
ferences are made to the Agricultural Conservation Program as a
possible funding source. It is the committees strong feeling that
this approach is both unrealistic and iinpractical. For' in excess
of 40 years of existence ACP has on a continuing basis soDved the
conservation and pollution problems as you have defined. Our pro-
blem is that the funding of ACP does not allow us to solve half
of the problems that still exist.
It should be noted that the committees feel we are all vrerking
together toward the sane goal. As you more accurately define
individual water quality problems, the comMttees have indicated
that they will consider then for a possible solution thru ACP.
FOR THE AmROSCOGGIN-SACADAFOC COUNTY
Toivo A. Merikanto
County Executive Director
-------
CONSERVATION DFI/P/OPMRMT
DEVELOPMENT SELF-GOVERNMENT
The Androscoggin Valley Soil Conservation District
AUBURN -:- MAINE 04210
1 Great Fans Plaza
March 22, 1978
Mr John Jaworski, Executive Director
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission
70 Court St.
Auburn, Maine 01*210
Dear John:
The Androscoggin Valley Soil and Water Conservation District is pleased to have the
opportunity of reviewing your 208 Plan. We recognise our responsibilities in the
implementation of this plan as a designated management agency and designated to
supply technical assistance in the implementation of best management. Our concern
is whether the District will have sufficient funding to carry out all of the
technical assistance needed to implement this plan.
The District supports the concept and intent of the 208 Water Quality Management
Plan and accepts its responsibility to the extent of its budget limitations.
Sincerely,
-------
CONSERVATION N
DISTRICTS IS
Of j
, AMERICA ,
Oxford County
Soil and Water Conservation District
Main Street - South Paris, Maine 04281 - Telephone: (207) 743-2114
March Ik, 1978
Mr. Job* Javorski
Sxeeutive Director
A.V.R.P.C.
70 Court Street
Auburn, ME Ol|210
Dear Mr. Jaworskii
The Supervisor* of the Oxford County Soil and Watar Conwrvation District
have reviewed the 208 Plan. It is the decision of the Supervisors to
endorse the ivpleaentation of the goals and policies of this Han.
Sincerely,
Morris Comsat
RECEIVED
MAR 16 1978
-------
STAT OF MAIN
DPARTMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROGR L. MALLAR
Committioner
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
AUGUSTA. MAIN
04333
December 8, 1977
V'
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Policy Coordination Office
John F. Kennedy Federal Building - Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Attention: Robert E. Mendoza
Dear Mr. Mendoza:
Thank you for sending us a copy of the "Draft Environmental Impact
Assessment on the Draft 208 Waste Treatment Management Plan for the
Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission". Following are some
comments for your consideration that are related to MOOT activities:
(l) It might he appropriate to mention somewhere in the Construction
Subplan (VII C) that MOOT does have detailed standards and specifications
regarding erosion control and pit rehabilitation associated with its
federally aided construction projects.
(2) Regarding the discussion of salt storage on page VII D-2j it
might be of interest to note that it is MOOT policy to store salt on concrete
pads under cover (e.g., salt sheds) and to locate such salt piles so as to
minimize the likelihood of contaminating groundwater.
(3) Page VII D-6 contains a recommendation to hold "cooperative workshops".
On page Vl^L D-12 tnere is a recommendation for MDUT to "expand, its road salt
usage training programs to the local level" by means of these workshops.
Finally,onpages VII-20,29 there are recommendations for MOOT to expand its
training programs and to coordinate workshops. I think the idea to hold work-
shops is a good one. I would caution, nowever, tnaT; wniie MUUI couxa oe a
participant in them, funding and personnel constraints would prevent us from.
taking a more active role (such as actually sponsoring and conducting workshops),
(U) Regarding the discussion of road salt on pages VII D-9, 10, I
believe the principal potential health hazard is due to the sodium ion, not the
chloride. Chloride ions may impart a disagreeable taste to drinking water at
high concentrations and may be indicators of contamination of wells but are not
themselves usually thought of as health hazards. Another point that should be
brought out in this discussion is that Dr. Hutchinson's work concerned farm
(next page)
-------
Mr. .Robert Mendoza
December 8, 1977
- 2 -
(U) (continued) ponds close to highways (average distance
36 feet), not natural, larger bodies of water at varying distances. There
should also be some mention of Dr. Hutchinson's findings regarding salt
levels in Maine rivers. Also on page VII D-9, there is a statement indicating
that examples of salt storage pile leachate have been discussed previously in
this document but I could not find them.
(5) The examples of well contaminations allegedly due to MDOT road salt
storage and application and the accompanying discussion (pages VII G-23,25,
35) appear oversimplified and contain debatable conclusions. Male am W. Heserve
(Supervisor, Well Claims, MDOT, Augusta 289-2616)is quite familiar with these
examples and I strongly urge you to contact him regarding them. Given my own
limited understanding of these situations, it appears that there are errors of
bpth statement and omission in the text which should be corrected.
Again, thank you for 'the opportunity to review and comment on this
document. I appreciate the difficulty of your task and hope that at least
some of these comments prove helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact me
if you have any questions or want further information.
Sincerely,
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Bureau of Planning
William Reid, Jr.
Director
Environmental Services
WRrpb
cc: Craig Tenbroek, AVRPC
R. Coleman,MDOT
M. Rissel, MDOT
M. Me serve, MDOT
G. Picher, MDOT
-------
Implementation Priorities
A list of priority implementation activities is presented for each
municipality. Based on comments and program scheduling, priorities
have been modified from the initial document (Table 2, Implementation
Strategy) and are presented in Table 4 of this document. Table 4
*
summarizes the particular implementation activity required for each
municipality to improve or protect water quality for each subplan cate-
gory. The shaded blocks indicate the activities which have already
been implemented. Implementation target dates are presented for the
Implementation Priority activities identified in the plan and in the
following narrative. Activities without dates in Table 4 are not
considered priority water quality concerns.
-106-
-------
MUNKIPRLITT
RUBURM
IEUII3T0N
LISBON
FRLL5
MINOT
mm
mm
PRRI5
PPLRW
5RBRTTU5
PIOPR]
RSRKl/LTVRE
fipau'REC1
Btautnto
niaviRio
RCauteeo
atau.mo
T^ IYI
FPRESTRr
QEaviRto
QtCHjiRtO
RLOO'Rf O
PIIIY1E
WWSTIHAT.DN
INCL^Ot M'' M( ".I
ftHO IftOSON COWTBOL
|
INCLUOC ^tOlMEKil
mui.»>vfi 9f O'H £NI
I
ftND SECIWtNT
., ««««. -^
[NTDTK7M P0
3PLIP WQ5T£
1
K
SI* Vtl» WS
5iTE TX> Blwc^l
^itTg TO QEMOuE
l-RNOFill. FROM
TO S^^tTHBV tAW*
fit.
OPIiOKil TO REMOVE *
L^NOTH.1. FROM 1^
NEW LRHOF'U S'TE
3t,T»QE
1
^
BSCEIvlNO KTRTtOM
FIND LRNO oisPosRi.
S'lE rofl iLUDOE
SEPTRC.E D'iPO^Ri..
*PiND LRND O'S^OIBL
^ITS FOB SUJDCiS. ^
i
UUOOE SITE.
LEWtVOH* ^UlMftiH
P*W_LOT . T -.. . ,\ ,., -. t
PLRN
,!3^«v^
OR 70N.NG CROiNflKCt.
§
'Sf^wS
RESIPEWTIOL C7W-
3ITE PISPPjnL
tNrORCEMENT
g
B
'tX'i^Vr'tMi -.1
»it . f -. "«r '"'' I
'MPd .1 COCI
«BOOP' SITE PLON
'[ . t '-' OROiSRSCE.
^i
ENFOHCEWtNT ^
.fmnwnwi
!i%!i-4
1
IMPROVE CODE
ENCORCE^eNT.
EO^Cft^tON PRO6RRM
(SITE REVIEW)
POCPT OM- S'TE
PUBLIC 3EUJER
CCMTt RHD POLdNO
1
RMO c (HI toe v^itT1
'VgaSaJSS^- ^
REHnQiLiT^Tioh
RDO iiU Pitt**
BEv
-------
Auburn
Construction
Solid Waste
Sludge and Septage
Ground Water/Drinking Water
On-Slte Residential Sewage
Disposal
Public Sewer System
Increased Code Enforcement activity
to minimize water quality effects of
erosion during construction.
Development of the incinerator.
Dispose of Auburn's septage at the
LAWPCF. (The LAWPCF can continue to
accept septage from surrounding muni-
cipalities until effluent quality is
adversely affected.)
Development of a sludge disposal site
for the LAWPCF. Land spreading should
be evaluated and a trial plot operated
to determine heavy metal build-up in
.soil and vegetation. Consider areawide
sludge disposal with Mechanic Falls
and Lisbon.
Extend watershed protection to other
municipalities in the watershed.
Increased Code Enforcement activity
in areas designated as problem areas.
Develop a medium intensity education
program as outlined in the subplan on
page VII H-43.
Extend sewers along the east and south
shores of Taylor Pond. Such extensions
should eliminate health hazards and
improve water quality. (The limited
technical data and documentation con-
cerning problems on the west shore
needs to be carefully considered in
evaluating the cost-effectiveness of
extending sewers to the northwestern
shore of the pond especially with the
assumption that such an extension would
significantly improve water quality.)
-108-
-------
Auburn cont.
Public Sewer System cont.
Current state laws and local ordi-
nances controlling land use should
be strictly enforced and supplemented
to protect wetlands adjacent to Taylor
Pond.
Extend sewers in the Carrier Court
and Poland Road areas.
Lewiston
Construction Increased Code Enforcement activity
to minimize water quality effects of
erosion during construction.
Sludqe and Septage Dispose of Lewiston's septage at the
LAWPCF. (The LAWPCF can continue to
accept septage from surrounding muni-
cipalities until effluent quality is
adversely affected.
Development of a sludge disposal site
for the LAWPCF. Land spreading should
be evaluated and a trial plot operated
to determine heavy metal build-up in
soil and vegetation. Consider areawide
sludge disposal with Mechanic Falls
and Lisbon.
Ground Water/Drinking Water Assess new sources of drinking water.
On-Site Residential Sewage
Disposal
Public Sewer Systems
Increased Code Enforcement activity in
areas designated as problem areas.
Develop a medium intensity education
program as outlined in the subplan on
page VII H-43.
Close the Randall Road Lagoons and
pump sewage to the Hart Brook Inter-
ceptor for treatment at the Lewiston-
Auburn Water Pollution Control Facility.
The project is on the State Facility
Priority List for matching state (15%)
and federal (75%) funds. If the Regional
Solution to the Sabattus Facility Plan
is implemented, then the two projects
should be funded concurrently. The
funding priority should be equal to
that of Sabattus.
-109-
-------
Lewiston cont.
Public Sewer Systems cont.
Lisbon
Construction
Solid Waste
Sludge and Septage
Pump sewage from the five dwellings
in the Switzerland Road area to
St. Patrick Avenue for treatment at
the Lewiston-Auburn Water Pollution
Control Facility. The project should
be considered for federal and state
funding. If federal and state assis-
tance is not available, it will be to
Lewiston's advantage to locally fund
the project as development of the
Switzerland Road area is expected
during the planning period.
Extend sewers in the College Street
and Sabattus Road areas.
Include Sediment and Erosion Control
provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to
minimize water quality effects during
construction .
Include a Site Plan Review provision
in the Zoning Ordinance to minimize
sediment and erosion from developments.
(This will help control urban storm
runoff.)
Increased Code Enforcement activity
to ensure adequate enforcement of
these controls.
Assess continuous operation of the
new landfill site against development
of a transfer station and use of
Lewiston's shredder with seasonal land-
fill of shredded waste.
Continue to dispose its residents'
septage at the treatment facility.
Continue to develop the sludge dis-
posal site on land near the Solid
Waste Site and attempt to find agri-
cultural and siIvicultural uses for
excess amounts. Consider areawide
sludge disposal.
-110-
-------
Lisbon cont.
Ground Water/Drinking Water
On-Site Residential Sewage
Disposal
Public Sewer System
Industrial Waste
Mechanic Falls
Construction
Solid Waste
Sludge and Septage
Include Aquifer Protection in the
Zoning Ordinance.
Develop a full-time Code Enforcement
program.
Develop a medium intensity education
program as outlined in the subplan
on page VII H-43
Continue to finance the sewer separa-
tion-rehabilitation program until it
is completed as scheduled.
Sewer extensions should be made only
when capacity is available at the
treatment facility.
Continue to negotiate with U.S. Gypsum
to formulate a pretreatment strategy
to keep hydraulic and suspended solids
loading within design limits.
Adopt Subdivision Regulations which in-
clude Sediment and Erosion Controls.
Assess the new landfill site against
participation in the Auburn incinerator.
Construct a septage receiving station
at the treatment facility. (Use the
LAWPCF for septage disposal in the
interim.)
Evaluate an areawide solution for the
land disposal of sludge. Minot, Poland,
and Oxford could use a joint site for
the disposal of septage and sludge.
Another solution could involve the
LAWPCF and Lisbon.
Ground Water/Drinking Water Find and develop a new water supply.
-Ill-
-------
Mechanic Falls cont.
On-Site Residential Sewage
Disposal
Public Sewer Systems
Mi not
Forestry
Construction
Solid Waste
Sludge and Septage
On-Site Residential Sewage
Disposal
Norway
Forestry
Solid Waste
Sludge and Septage
Develop a Code Enforcement program.
Consider a cooperative program with
Minot, Poland and Oxford.
Develop a medium intensity education
program as outlined in the subplan on
page VII H-43.
Construct a sewage treatment facility.
Develop a sewer system rehabilitation
program.
Consider controls of sensitive sites.
Include Sediment and Erosion Controls
in a Site Plan Review Ordinance.
Participate in the Auburn incinerator.
Consider developing a land disposal
site with Poland and Oxford and poss-
ibly Mechanic Falls. In the interim
continue to use the LAWPCF which
would also be used permanently during
winter months.
Develop a Code Enforcement Program.
Consider a cooperative program with
Mechanic Falls, Oxford and Poland.
Develop a medium intensity education
program as outlined in the subplan on
page VII H-43.
Consider controls of sensitive sites.
Develop a new disposal site to remove
landfill from aquifer.
Accept septage from Norway, Buckfield,
Woodstock, and Sweden permanently.
During winter months accept septage
from Bridgton, Harrison, Greenwood,
Waterford, West Paris, Ottisfield,
Oxford and Hebron.
-112-
-------
Norway cont.
Sludge and Septage cont.
Ground Water/Drinking Water
On-Site Residential Sewage
Disposal
Public Sewer Systems
Develop a sludge disposal site for
lagoon dredgings.
Adopt local aquifer protection con-
trols.
Develop a Code Enforcement program.
Consider a cooperative program with
Paris. Develop an education program.
Renovate sewage treatment lagoons in
accordance with the 201 Facility Plan
and subplan recommendations on pages
VII 1-60 to VII 1-68.
Oxford
Forestry
Construction
Consider controls of sensitive sites.
Include Sediment and Erosion Control
provisions in any additional appli-
cable ordinances which are adopted
by the town.
Develop new solid waste site to remove
landfill from aquifer.
Evaluate an cooperative septage dis-
posal solution with Poland, Minot
and possibly Mechanic Falls. Dis-
pose septage at Norway during winter
months.
Ground Water/Drinking Water Adopt aquifer protection controls.
Solid Waste
Sludge and Septage
On-Site Residential Sewage
Disposal
Public Sewer Systems
Develop a Code Enforcement Program.
Consider a cooperative program with
Mechanic Falls, Minot and Poland.
Develop an education program. Adopt
on-site sewage disposal ordinance.
Implement a non-structural control
plan consisting of a zoning ordinance
with an aquifer protection zone, a
minimum lot size as currently exists,
and an educational program. Improved
Code Enforcement is also necessary.
-113-
-------
Oxford cont.
Industrial Waste
Assist Robinson Manufacturing in
finding a suitable sludge disposal
site.
Paris
Forestry
Construction
Solid Waste
Sludge and Septage
Consider controls of sensitive sites.
Include Sediment and Erosion Control
in a Site Plan Review Ordinance.
Assess alternatives to continued opera-
tion of the landfill which is located
on the aquifer.
Accept Paris'" septage at the treatment
facility.
Develop a long-term sludge disposal
site in accordance with the Environ-
mental Impact Statement currently
being completed.
Ground Water/Drinking Water Enact aquifer protection controls.
On-Site Residential Sewage
Disposal
Public Sewer Systems
Industrial Waste
Poland
Construction
Develop Code Enforcement program.
Consider a cooperative program with
Norway.
Determine adequacy of the Paris treat-
ment facility.
Extend sewers in Paris Hill area and
along Route 119 and the Buckfield
Road.
Conduct infiltration and inflow work
in problem areas (High Street).
Monitor discharge from A.C. Lawrence
Tannery to determine compliance with
the contract.
Amend Subdivision Regulations to in-
clude Sediment and Erosio/i Controls
to minimize water quality effects
during construction.
-114-
-------
Poland cont.
Solid Waste
Sludge and Septage
Assess a new landfill site against.
participation in the Auburn incinera-
tion project.
Consider developing a land disposal
site with Oxford, Minot and possibly
Mechanic Falls. In the interim, con-
tinue to use the LAWPCF which should
also be used during winter months
after a land site is developed.
Ground Water/Drinking Water Enact aquifer protection controls.
On-Site Residential Sewage
Disposal
Sabattus
Solid Waste
Sludge and Septage
Increase Code Enforcement. Consider
a cooperative program with Minot,
Oxford, and Mechanic Falls.
Develop a high intensity education
program as outlined in the subplan
on pages VII H-43.
Enact the On-Site Sewage Disposal
Ordinance.
Assess continuous operation of new
landfill site against participation
in a regional solution with Lewiston
or Auburn.
Continue to dispose septage at the
LAWPCF.
Ground Water/Drinking Water Enact aquifer protection controls.
On-Site Residential Sewage
Disposal
Public Sewer Systems
Industrial Waste
Improve code enforcement. Consider
a cooperative program with Wales and
Greene. Develop a high intensity
education program.
Complete 201 Facility Plan and imple-
ment recommended solution.
Plan sewer system to accept waste
from Webster Rubber Company.
-115-
-------
Environmental Impact
The Impacts of the recommendations from each subplan on each munici-
pality are summarized in a set of tables in this section.
Each municipality is presented in a separate table; impact cate-
gories are listed at the right side of the table and the subplans are
presented at the top. The impact each subplan has on the category is
summarized by one word and the letter "S or "M". "S" indicates a signi-
ficant impact and "M" indiactes a minimal impact.. It should be noted
that some subplans impact entire municipalities while other subplans are
site specific.
The Implementation Priority Activities are further assessed in a
brief narrative which follows the tables.
-116-
-------
IMPACT
CATEGORIES
CLASSIFICATION
SISINMBBLE/ riSHRBLC
gPOND QUALIT?
fe WINKING UffiTER-RQUIFER
3 OTHER CROUNDWATER
FLOOD POTENTIAL
EROSION
OWCTLRNDS
lusts
-'ifflLUE
JSRQUATIC HflBITBT
SUIILOUFE HRBITfiT
SRBRE SPECIES
CAPITOL COSTS
O.BNO M. COSTS
RESIDBmRL DEVELOPMENT
^RESIDENTIHLOEV. COSTS
fCOMMERCIPl/INDUSTRIAL
z DEVELOPMENT
SCOMKI/ND. DEV. COSTS
111 ECONOMIC BflSE
INFRASTRUCTURE VALUE
5JSAFETX AND WCLFBRE
ORECREnnON
gSUPPLY OF HOUSING.
MR5S TRRNSIT
STRQFFIC
SCNERCY USE
=BIR QUnUTT
AESTHETICS
CSOTHCR
vt
1£
IMPRCT OF SUBPLRN RCFIONS ON
AGRICULTURE
....... -
.. ...
FORESTRY
-
CONSTRUCTION
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
DECQEASC m
PRCTTECT M
RESTRICT M
PROTECT M
INCREASE: M
INCREASE ni
SOLID UIRSTC
PROTECT 5
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
DECREASE M
DECREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
DECREASE S
INCREASE
DECREASE M
SLUDCE/SEPTACE
INCREASE S
PAOTE.CT M
DECREASE 5
RESTRICT M
DECREASE M
DECREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE Kl
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
: AUBURN
DRINKING UIRTER
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE Ml
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
INCREASE M
DECREASE M
INCREASE M
DECREASE M
i*
ON-SITE SEMAOC
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
PUBLIC SEWERS
PROTECT S
PROTECT M
PROTECT S
PROTECT 5
INCREASE S
DECREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
DECREASE S
INCRtASt S
INCAEASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
INCKASC M
DECREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE. S
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
DECREASE M
INDUSTRIAL
- ...
...._...
- -
"
STORM RUNOFF
PROTECT Kl
DECREASE M
INCREASE M
"
INCREASE M
NOTES:
-------
I
IMPftCT
CATEWRIES
cwKincRDON
ailNNNUr TCMRBLC
KPONDQUMlTy
iDMNKINC IWTER-AQUrER
30TMER CROUNDMRTER
OD90N
gWCTlRNW
Iu»
-JMLIK
itMumc HMITBT
SWMUFE mwrrRT
CAPITAL COSTS
O.RND M. COSTS
RBHWnn. DGKUnKHT
iteSHCNTm. OM COSTS
, §OOMMUtlDl/)NOUSTMR
> Z DEVELOPMENT
SoMtf mx DCV. COSTS
"ECONOMIC WSE
mnmsTRucTuRE URLUE
JSBftTX RNO UtLTORE
OKCRCRTION
gsuppu or HOUSING
MOSS TRRNSIT
STRBFTIC
gtNtftCY USE
*MR OUfiUTT
SBCSTHE.TICS
uOTUtB
NOTES:
IMPBCT OF 5UBPLDN RCHONS ' ON I LEW 1ST (?N
WR1CULTURC
._ .
.
%
TOKSTRY
_
CONSmiCTION
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
DECREASE Nl
DECREASE Ml
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
PROTECT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
SOUD UJRSTE
INCRERSE S
PROTECT S
DECREASE S
RESTRICT M
DECREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
SlUD&E/SEPTOCe
INCREASE S
PROTECT. M
DECREASE S
RESTRICT M
DECREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
>RINKING U1ATER
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
INCRERSE M
DECREASE M
INCRERSE M
DECREASE M
ON-SITE SEUK)<£
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
M
PUBLIC StUICBS
INCREASE S
PROTECT S
PROTECT S
MCRtHSC M
PROTtCT M
mcntnsc s
INCREBSt S
INCRtBSE M
INCRtBSQ 5
INCRCRSK M
iNcntnst s
INCRE05E. M
INCRtRSU S
DtCRERSE M
INCRERSE M
INCRERSE S
INCREASE M
INDUSTRIRL
STORM RUNOFT
PROTECT M
DECREBSE M
.___.--_--
INCRE05C M
-. _.
INCfttfiSE M
- _ -
-».
-------
IMPACT
CRTCGORIES
CLASSIFICATION
SWINMRBLE/FISMRBLE
KPOND QURUTX
gOftlNKINC WATCR-AQUIfER
3 OTHER CROUNOWRTER
ROOD POTENTIAL
EROSION
OWETLRNDS
lust*
RVALUE
S AQUATIC HABITAT
3 WILDLIFE HR8ITPT
§RRRE SPCOCS
CAPITRL COSTS
O.RND Ml. COSTS
RESIDENTIRL DEVELOPMENT
^RESIDENTIAL OtV. COSTS
gCOMMUCim/lNDUSTRIRL
Z DEVELOF JENT
8coMH|/ii«D. 1 1. COSTS
u ECONOMIC BASE
INFRASTRUCTURE W»L«L
^SRTCTX RND WELFflRE
oRECRERTlON
^SUPPLY or HOUSING
MASS TRANSIT
STRAFFIC
SENERCY use
graft oonury
SBESTHETICS
MOTHER
«
IMPDCT or SUBPLON ncnoNS ON
R6RICULTURE
~
*
.
FORESTRY
CONSTRUCTION
PROTECT N»
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
DtCREDSE 5
pfioita m
RESTRICT M
INCRERSC M
PROTUCT IY1
INCREB5E M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
WCOER5C M
SOLID WRSTC
INCPEQSE S
PROTECT 5
PROTECT 5
PROTECT 5
RESTRICT Kl
DECRER5E; M
PROTECT S
DECREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
RESTRICTS M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
DECREASE M
SLUDCE/SEPTRCE
PROTECT M
PROTECT S
RESTRICT M
DECREASE M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCRERSE M
: LISBON
DRINKING WATER
PROTECT S
PROTECT S
RESTRICT S
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
RESTRICT M
RESTRICT S
INCREASE M
INCREASE 5
OH-SITE SEWfi&E
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT - M
PROTECT S
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M
INCREASE 1
INCREASE Iff
INCREASE Iff
PUBLIC SEWERS
IMPROVE S
DECREASE IYI
INCREASE M
INCRERSE M
INCREASE M
PROTECT 5
INCRERSE S
INCREASE M
RESTRICT S
RESTRICT M
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
RESTRICT 5
INCREASE M
NDUSTRIAL
IMPROVE S
DECREASE M
INCREASE M
INCRERSE M
PROTECT S
DECREASE S
INCRERSE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE Ml
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
STORM RUNOFF
IMPROVE S
DECREASE M
INCREASE M
INCRERSE M
INCREASE M
PROTECT S
INCRERSE S
INCREASE M
RESTRICT S
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE S
INCREASE M
RESTRICT S
INCRERSE M
NOTES: i- coot ENFoactmtNT COSTS.
-------
IM
O
IMPACT
CATEGORIES
cussiriCATioN
SUIMMABU/flSURBLE
POHOQUWJTy
E DRINKING MKTER-AQUirtR
30THEU 6ROUNDWRTER
HOOD POTEKTIRL
EROSION
gWETLBNK
EUStt
J«RLUE
iMUHTIC IUMHTHT
IIWUHIFC HRWTRT
§RARE SPECIES
CAPITAL COSTS
O.RND M. COSTS
BSIKKTIM. OGKIOPNEHT
gtCSJUmiLDQl COSTS
|OOWKRCU«./)NOUSTR1RL
StwmfiftKv. COSTS
UBCQK«(IIC ORSt
INtaSTRUaUK VALUE
rfswcnrfiNDMELnwc
CREtROTIWl
gsuppur or MOUSING
MASS TRANSIT
STRBFFIC
SCNERCY use
gRIR OUALITT
SPESTVE.TICS
uOTMCR
i»
E
IMPBCT OT SUBPLRN RCHONS ON : MECHANIC FRILS
R&RICULTURC
._
rOKSTRY
.
MOTES Il-BfTtNT DtPCNDS ON RLTERNBTlVt CHOSEN.
CONSTRUCTION
PROTECT M
PROTtCT M
DECRQKC M
OECREME S
PROTECT M
RESTWa M
INCRED6C (VI
PROTECT (VI
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCRER5C M
RESTRICT M
INCRCRSE M
INCQCftSE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
SOLID UJDSTE
KOTECT lyi
PROTEa 5
DECREASE M
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
DECREASE M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
RESTRICT M
INCREASE S
INCREASE 1
INCREASE S
SLUDtC/SEPTDtt
PROTECT 1
PROTECT 1
PROTEa 1
PROTECT t
PROTECT 1
RESTRICT 1
DECREASE 1
PROTECT 1
DECREASE 1
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
DRINKING UIRTER
PROTECT M
INCREASE 5
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
KCKR3E M
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
UNKNOWN
ON-SITE SEIUDCE
PROTEa M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
-
PUBLIC SEWERS
IMPROVE 5
PROTECT S
PROTECT M
INCREASE 5
INCREASE 5
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCRCOSE M
INCREASE 9
INCREASE S
INDUSTRIAL
PROTEa M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
. _
INCREASE M
DECREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
STDRM RUNOFF
PROTECT 1
PROTECT 1
_ __
INCREASE M
INCREASE 1
_ - .
INCRER3E 1
INCREASE S
'
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
- -
-------
I
_!
ro
i
IMPACT
CATEGORIES
CLRKIFICATION
SUIINIMWLE/ riSHRBLC
KPONO QUALITX
^DRINKING WRT£R.|»UlfER
3 OTHER GROUNDWATER
riOOO POTENTIAL
EROSION
OWCTLRNDS
IUSES
JuflujE
JSRQUATtC HRBITRT
SWILW.IFE HRKITRT
§RRRE SPECIES
CAPITAL COSTS
O.RND M. COSTS
RESIDBfflfil DEVELOPMENT
ii RESIDENT) AIDEV. COSTS
iCOMMCRCIDL/lNNSTRIM.
x DEVELOPMENT
Sctwwlna Dtv. COSTS
"ECONOMIC BASE
INFRASTRUCTURE VALUE
JSRFETX RND WELFRRE
ORECREATtON
^SUPPLY OF HOUSIN&
MRSS TTJRNSIT
gmnmc
SENLRCY use
=BIR QURLITT
AESTHETICS
yOTHCR
-------
ro
ro
IMPACT
rQTrc.no ice
Cy«inCRTION
9IINMROLE/ riSMMLE
gPONOQUMJTT
iDMNKINC WHTER-AQUIFIR
30THER GftOUNDMRTER
FIOOO POTENTIRL
EROSION
OWCTLWOS
SUSB
-JUALUE
JRQUHTIC HRBITfiT
SUILDUrt HDIITRT
gunnc SPECIES
CAPITAL COSTS
O.AND M. COSTS
RESWJomnL KVEioPMon
aRESlKHTWl OW. COSTS
|COMMUCIDL/)NOUSTK|RL
e DEVELOPMENT
3cOMKjflND. OCV. COSTS
u ECONOMIC BfiSt
INfRASTRUCTURE I/PLUE
^snmx MID UCLFDRC
oRECREATION
OSUPPLYOE HOUSING.
MASS TRRNSIT
STRAFFIC
SCNERCY. use
gfflR OURLITX
^RESTMETICS
uOTHCR
RCR1CULTURC
_______
«
_ m - , _
..
IMPRCT OF SUBPLRN RCTIONS ON : NORUIQV
FORESTRy
PfiOVtCT M
PROTECT M
DtCOERSC M
DtCRtWt M
PROttCT M
RESTRICT M
ISCRERSE M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
1NCRERSE M
IHCRER5E M
.
INCAEQSE M
CONSTRUCTION
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
KCRERSE S
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
PROTECT M
INCRERSE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
SOLID UIASTE
PROTECT S
PROTECT 5
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
PROTECT M
RESTRICT W
DECREASE M
PROTECT M
INCRERSE S
INCRERSE S
RESTRICT
INCRERSE S
INCREASE S
INCRERSE M
INCRERSE 5
NOTES: t-coou CNFORCEMINT COSTS.
SLUD&E/SEPTRGE
IMPROVE S
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
DECREASE M
PROTECT 5
INCREASE S
DECRCRSC M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
PRINKING UIRTER
PROTECT S
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M-
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCRERSE M
INCREASE S
ON-SITt SEWfiGE
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT m
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
DECRER& Iff
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
%
INCREASE S
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
NCREASE M
PUBLIC SEWERS
IMPROVE S
PROTECT M
INCREASE hi
INCRERSE M
PROTECT M
INCREPSE 3
INCRERSE M
INCRERSE M
INCRERSE M
NCRERSE M
INCRERSE M
INCREASE S
NCREASE 5
NCRERSE S
NCRERSE M-
DECREASE M
NCREASE M
INDUSTRIAL
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
INCREASE M
DECREASE S
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M
RESTRICT M
NCRERSE S
NCRERSE M
NCRERSE m
STORM RUNOFF
PROTECT S
PROTECT M
INCREASE M
INCRERSE M
PROTECT M
INCREASE 5
DECREASE M
NCBCBSE m
NCRERSE M
NCRERSE M
NCRERSE M
NCREASE M
NCRERSE m
-------
ro
Cd
IMPACT
CATEGORIES
CLKfinCRTION
SHIMMWLE/FISMMLE
gPOND QUALITT
gHUNKINC WRTER-MUra
30THER GROUNDWWER
riOOO POTCKTIRL
' EBOSION
§WCTIPNOS
USB
WLUC
.ipounnc HROITAT
gWILOLIFE HRVTRT
§RRRE SPECIES
CAPITAL COSTS
O.AND Ml. COSTS
RKIKKTini DEVELOPMENT
^RESIDENTIAL DEV. COSTS
ICOMMUCIRL/IHPUSTRIIU.
r DEVELOPMENT
Scowfma otv. COSTS
<" ECONOMIC BASE
INFRASTRUCTURE VALUE
^SAFETX RND WELFARE
GRECttATION
gSUPPLY OF HOUSING
MASS TRANSIT
STRBFfIC
SENERCY USE
«n|R QUALITX
AESTHETICS
uiOTUER
w>
i
IMPRCT OF SU9PLRN RCDONS ON
R&RICULTURC
__ _
1
, .
. _ _
. . _
- -
FORESTRY
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
DECREASE M
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
CONSTRUCTION
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
DECREASE S
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
PROTECT M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE: M
INCREASE M
SOLID UJRSTE
PROTECT S
PROTECT S
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
PROTECT M
RESTRICT Kl
DECREASE M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
RE5TQ1CT M
.--__.-
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
SLU06E/SEPIOCE
PROTECT 1
PROTECT
PROTECT 1
PROTECT 1
PROTECT 1
RESTRICT 1
DECREASE 1
PROTECT 1
INCREASE 1
DECREASE 1
RESTRICT 1
DECREASE \
INCREASE 1
: OXFORD
DRINKING UIRTER
PROTECT Kl
PROTECT S
PROTECT S
RESTRICT S
INCREASE M
INCREASE Z
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT S
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
ON-SITE SEWft&E
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT 5
DECREASE M
PROTECT S
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
PROTECT M
INCREASE Z
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT Ml
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
DECREASE M
PUQUC SEWERS
SEE
OTHER
sue- PLANS
SEE
OTHER
5UB-PLRNS
SEC
OTHER
SUQ-PIANS
SEE
OTHER
SUB- PLANS
SEC
OTHER
5U9-PUWS
SEE
OTHER
SUB- PLANS
NDUSTRIQL
. _ _
- -
-
STORM RUNOFF
NOTES : i-EXTENT DEPENDS ON fiLTERNRTIVE CHOSEN.
2- COOS EHfORCEWEHT COSTS.
-------
IMPACT
CATEGORIES
cuKincHTWN
£POND QUPUTX
iDMNKWCHmCR-AMMIR
30THEH CWUNDttHTER
QQ90N
OtKTLRNW
lusts
>RGURT1C HMNTHT
2IMUHIFE NRVTRT
SRARE SPEOES
CRPITRL COSTS
O.BNO M. COSTS
RESIDENTIAL DBUOPIKHT
g RESIDINTIRL DEVI COSTS
gCOMNKRCIRL/lNOUSTRIM.
| DEVELOPMENT
ScOMKjfllffi. DEV. COSTS
"OONOMIC BPSE
INfVRSTRUCTURE URLUE
^SRTETX UNO WELFARE
^SUPPLY OF HOUSING
MRSS TRHNSIT
STRAFTIC
SENEWY use
"MROURUT7
^AESTHETICS
S
IMPBCT or SUBPLRN RcnoNS ON : PRRIS
WRICULTURC
.. _ _
.
- T T" "~
FORESTRY
__ ... -
-
CONSTRUCTION
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
OECREftSE S
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
PROTECT M
INCRERSE . M
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE m
INCRERSE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
SOLID UIRSTDV
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
INCRERSE S
INCREASE S
*
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
SLUD&E/SEPTUCE
PROTEa 2
PROTECT 2
PROTEa S
PROTEa , 5
RESTRICT . M
PROTECT M
INCREASE I
INCRERSE £
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
INCRERSE M
INCREASE M
DRINKING UIRTER
PROTECT S
PROTECT S
RESTRICT S
INCRERSE M
,
INCREASE 3
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
ON-SITE SEUIflCE
PROTEa M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
INCRERSE M
---
INCRERSE M
PUBLIC SEWERS
PROTECT S
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
PROTECT M
INCRERSE M
INCREASE M
INDUSTRIAL
STORM RUNOFF
_
__
NOTES : l-WSOMW LANDFIU WILL BE OPERATED RTEXICTIN& DUMP 5ITt AS CURREKTLY PUNNED. 3- CODE ENFORCEMENT COSTS
2- EXTENT DEPENDS ON STO CHOSEN UJMEN DETAILED E1S. COMPLETED.
-------
M
tn
IMPACT
CRTEGORIES
CIR-.IFICATION
SIIINMWLE/ FISMWLE
gPOND QUALITT
gDWNKINC UIOTER-IX.UIFER
3 OTHER GROUNDWHTER
aOOO POTENTIAL
OJOSION
OIMETLRNDS
gusts
-l^LUE
JSBOUimC HROITRT
SWUM.- MRBITRT
SRBPE SPECIES
CRPITPL COSTS
O.AND M, COSTS
ttSlDlNTIin. DEVELOPMENT
t-RESIDENTIRL OCV. COSTS
fCOMMCfiCIOl/IHWSTRinL
x DEVELOPMENT
SCONW/IND. DEV. COSTS
u ECONOMIC BfiSt
INFRASTRUCTURE URLUE
^WET/ RND WELFARE
GRECBtnnON
OSUPPLY OF HOUSING
MASS TRANSIT
STRWTIC
SENERCY use
£R|R OUBUTy
SRESTHETICS
GOTUCR
IIYIPRCT OF SUBPLRN RCflONS ON : POLDND
DGRICULTURC
"
"
~
_.,,_ _ ^ _ _
FORESTRX
-
-- -
...-.:.-
CONSTRUCTION
PROTECT M
PHOTtCt M
DECREASE M
DECREASE S
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
PROTECT M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
UESTWa M
INCOCASE M
INCREASE M
SOLID UIRSTC
PRCfTECT M
PROTECT S
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
DECREASE M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
RESTRICT M
INCREASE S
1
INCREASE i
INCREASE S
SLUDCE/SEPTAGE
PROTECT 1
PROTECT 1
PROTECT 1
PROTECT 1
-
PROTECT 1
PROTECT 1
INCREASE 1
DECREASE 1
INCREASE 1
DRINKING UIRTER
PROTECT M
PROTECT 5
PROTECT S
RESTRICT S
INCREASE M
INCREASE 2
RESTRICT M
INCREASE Iff
RESTRICT S
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
ON-SITE SCWRCC
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT S
DECREASE M
PROTECT S
RESTRICT M
INCRER5C M
PROTECT M
INCREASE ^
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
INCRERSE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE M
DECRERSE M
PUBLIC stwens
_______
NDUSrRIBl
STORM RUNOFF
NOTES: L- EXTENT DEPENDS ON RL-TEBNOTIVE CHOSEN.
2- CODE EUFORCCMtMT COSTS
-------
o
IMPRCT
CATEGORIES
CLASSIFICATION
SUHNMAOLE/riSHABLE
POND QUALITY
"OWNUINC UiHTEft- RBUIFEU
3 OTHER CROUNDMOTER
aOOD POTENTIAL
UKION
OUCTLRNK
IUSK
J«ALUE
>Rouitnc HABITAT
3UIILDUFE HABITAT
'RARE SPECKS
CAPITAL COSTS
O.ANDIY! COSTS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEN
PRESIDENTIAL DEV. COSTS
1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
£ DEVELOPMENT
ScmufwD. DEV. CUTS
u ECONOMIC BASE
INFRASTRUCTURE VALUE
JSAFET/ AND WELFARE
oRECRERTION
^SUPPLY OF HOUSING,
MASS TRANSIT
IENERCY USE
gOTMER
i
IIY1PRCT OF SUBPLRN RCTIONS ON : SOBRTTUS
R&R1CULTURE
. . .
FORESTRY
...
... _
CONSTRUCTION
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
DECREASE 5
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
INCREASE M
PROTECT M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCAEASE Ml
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M
INCREASE M
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M
INCRERSE M
SOLID UJQSTE
PROTECT M
PROTECT 5
PROTECT M
RESTRICT M
DECREASE M
PROTECT M
DECREASE M
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE S
INCREASE i
INCREASE S
SLUD&C/SEPTRCE
,
NOTES : 1- EXTENT DEPENDS ON ALTERNATIVE CHOSEH
2- CODE ENFORCEMENT COSTS
DRINKING UIATER
PROTECT S
PROTECT 5
RESTRICT S
INCREASE M
INCREASE 2
RESTRICT M
INCREASE:
RESTRICT S
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
ON-SITE SEUIACC
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT S
DECREASE M
PROTECT 5
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M
PROTECT M
INCREASE i
RESTRICT M
INCRERSE M
RESTRICT M
INCRERSET M
INCREASE M
INCREASE S
INCRERSE M
DECREASE M
PUBLIC SEUICRS
IMPROVE S
PROTECT M
PROTECT M
PROTECT S
INCRERSE M
PROTECT M
INCREASE M
INCRERSE M
PROTECT M
INCREASE 5
INCAEASE S
INCRERSE Kl
INCREASE M
INCREASE M
DECREASE M
INCREASE M
NCREASE S
INCREASE S
NCRERSE M
INCREASE M
INCREASE' M
INDUSTRIAL
IMPROVE M
_
PROTECT M
INCREASE M
NCREASE M
RESTRICT M
NCRERSE M
RESTRICT M
NCRERSE S
NCRERSE M
NCRERSE M
STORM RUNOFF
::::._::
_,,
-------
AUBURN
Solid Waste - Incinerator/Ashfill
Impacts
1. Dump will be replaced; therefore ground water
quality at dump will stabilize.
2. Siting, design, and operation procedures at
new ashfill will minimize ground water con-
tamination.
3. Agricultural useage in ash-fill area will not
be affected.
4. Air pollution control equipment on incinerator
will maintain air quality.
Conclusions
1. Increased capital and operation and maintenance
costs are offset by energy and land conservation
and by protecting ground water quality in Auburn
and possibly other towns which may use the in-
cinerator. (NOTE: Elimination of the dump in
Poland will protect a potential public drinking
water source).
2. See OPPORTUNITIES FOR REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT by
Arthur D. Little, Inc. for further assessment
and costs.
3. The incinerator and ashfill will be further
assessed during the design phases.
Sludge and Septage Subplan - Landfill
Impacts
1. New landfill site will improve the quality of
ground water and surface runoff at the old site
in Lewiston.
2. Design and operation procedures will minimize
ground water contamination at new site in Auburn.
3. Agricultural useage in area will not be affected.
4. The landfill will require the long term commit-
ment of land.
Conclusions
1. Landfill will require the smallest capital invest-
ment of all alternatives and also will have smallest
operation and maintenance costs.
2. The economics of land spreading are unknown. More
land would be required initially. Site life cannot
be determined due to zinc concentrations in sludge.
3. The landfill will be further assessed during design
and D.E.P. Site Location review.
-127-
-------
Ground Water/Drinking Water Subplan - Extend Protection of Lake Auburn
Impacts
1. The high quality of Lewiston's and Auburn's
drinking water supply will be further protected.
2. A few industrial land uses in the watershed in
Minot and Turner will be prohibited.
3. Development costs in the watershed in Minot and
Turner will increase slightly because of some
restrictions and increased code enforcement.
4. Minot and Turner require large lot sizes so
development density will not be affected.
Conclusions
1. The minimal increase in restrictions in the ex-
tended watershed zone will provide added protec-
tion for the residents of Lewiston and Auburn.
2. Improved watershed protection could prevent a
large capital expenditure for a water treatment
facility in the future.
Public Sewer Systems - Sewer Extensions
Impacts
1. The Taylor Pond sewer extension should improve
the poor water quality of Taylor Pond.
2. Increased development pressures will cause in-
creased erosion and could cause the loss of
aquatic and wildlife habitat as wetlands are
filled around Taylor Pond.
3. Sewer extensions in the Poland Road area and
the Carrier Court area should protect ground
water and eliminate health hazards in these
areas.
4. Land values and therefore development costs
will increase in all areas.
5. Development densities will increase creating
areas close to the employment centers. The
cost of providing services and the cost of
transportation will be minimized.
Conclusions
1. Land use controls in the Taylor Pond area
should not be changed. Controls should be
strictly enforced.
2. The capital costs of sewer extensions in
these three areas appear justified.
-128-
-------
LEWISTON
Solid Waste Subplan - Shredder/Landfill
Impacts
1. The landfill operation will minimize leachate
entering a small stream which was piped through
the old dump. It will also minimize ground
water contamination.
2. Site life will be twice that of the conventional
fill.
3. Resource recovery technologies will be more
easily implemented in the future.
Conclusions
1. The substantial capital investment allows water
and land conservation and will prevent site lo-
cation in the immediate future.
2. Costs and effects are fully presented in "Solid
Waste Management", a report compiled by the City
of Lewiston.
Sludge and Septage Subplan
See Auburn under the Sludge and Septage Subplan.
Ground Water/Drinking Water Subplan
See Auburn under the Ground Water/Drinking Water Subplan.
Public Sewer Systems Subplan - Abandon Randall Road Lagoons
Impacts
1. Abandonment of the lagoons will improve the water
quality in No Name Pond Brook and allow it to meet
Class B-2.
2. Sewers will be extended in the area of Sabattus
Street and No Name Pond. Current ground water con-
tamination and health hazards resulting from septic
system malfunctions in the area will be eliminated.
Conclusions
1. The substantial capital investment to abandon the
lagoons and pump sewage to the LAWPCF will improve
water quality and add significant developable area
to the City of Lewiston.
2. This alternative appears to require the least cost
of all alternatives for upgrading sewage collection
and treatment in the area.
-129-
-------
LISBON
Construction Subplan - Sediment and Erosion Controls
Impacts
1. Sedimentation in the many small drainages
will be prevented.
Conclusions
1. The small costs of sediment and erosion control
during construction will maintain the relatively
good quality of small drainages in the town and
will insure the drainages are effective in the
removal of storm runoff.
Solid Waste - New Disposal Site
Impacts
*
1. Closure of the old dump site will improve ground
water and surface water quality in the area.
2. Encroachment on a wetland will cease and wildlife
and aquatic habitat will improve.
3. Operation and design of the new site will minimize
ground water contamination.
Conclusions
1. Relocation for at least a 20 year period.
2. The substantial capital investment will be a
significant deterant to successful relocation
of the site. Alternatives to minimize costs
must be carefully evaluated.
Ground Water/Drinking Water Subplan - Aquifer Protection
Impacts
1. The high quality ground water which is the town's
drinking water source will be protected.
2. Waste disposal practices and a few industrial
uses will be limited in the overlay zone.
3. Residential development density will decrease
1n some areas of the overlay zone.
Conclusions
1. The slight limitations on development within the
overlay zone are a reasonable trade off for pro-
tection of the water supply.
2 Protection will prevent future capital expenditures
to replace or treat the current supply and will en-
hance economic development potential 1n the town.
-130-
-------
Public Sewer Systems/Urban Storm Runoff Subplans - Sewer Rehabilitation
Impacts
1. Removal of infiltration and some storm water
will improve treatment facility effluent quality
and will add needed capacity.
2, Combined sewer overflow frequency will be
lowered and neighborhood flooding will be
minimized.
3. Implementation of the Construction Subplan
recommendations will supplement this action.
Conclusions
1. Continuance of the rehabilitation program is
necessary for the sewage treatment facility to
continually meet effluent standards.
2. Sewer rehabilitation will help to minimize
combined sewer overflows at the least possible
cost.
-131-
-------
MECHANIC FALLS
Construction Subplan - Sediment and Erosion Control
Impacts
1. Sedimentation in the wetlands and drainages in the
town wi 11 be prevented and wi 1 dl i fe and aquati c 1 i fe
protected.
2. Construction costs will increase slightly.
Conclusions
1. The slightly increased construction costs will
not affect the development in the area. The
valuable wetlands will be protected and drain-
ages will affectively transport storm runoff.
Sludge and Septage Subplan - Sludge Site and Septage Receiving Facility
Impacts
1. Land spreading of sludge appears to be the
lowest cost alternative. This method will
allow the continued annual use of a site.
Thereby minimizing long term land require-
ments .
2. Construction of a small septage receiving
facility at the sewage treatment facility
should encourage septic system pumping by
residents not connected to the sewer system.
Therefore, ground water quality in several
areas should improve.
3. The septage facility should not affect effluent
quality as septage will be accepted from only
one or two small towns (i.e. Mechanic Falls and
Poland). The facility will be large enough to
hold septage during low flow periods.
Conclusions
1. The sludge disposal method and site will be
assessed by D.E.P. under the Site Location Act.
2. Land disposal of septage is not viewed favorably.
The facility is a reasonable alternative to
eliminate a possible land disposal site and
thereby will encourage septic system pumping.
-132-
-------
Ground Water/Drinking Water Subplan - Develop New Water Supply
Impacts
1. An improved water supply will reduce treatment
costs and make compliance with the Safe Drinking
Water Act much easier.
2. An improved supply will also allow increased
economic development which should help to in-
crease the economic base and revitalize the
town. Thus, necessary improvements to the
sewer system and solid waste facility will be
more likely to occur.
Conclusion
1. The development of a new water supply will be
further assessed as to cost and impact in a
water utility study which will be undertaken
by the town.
Public Sewer Systems/Industrial Waste/Urban Storm Runoff Subplans -
Treatment Facility, Sewer Use Ordinance and Sewer Rehabilitation
Impacts
1. The facility construction will eliminate the
discharge of raw sewage to the Little Andro-
scoggin River and allow its quality to be im-
proved.
2. Sewer rehabilitation will allow improved treat-
ment efficiencies at the treatment facility and
will be a low cost control measure for the com-
bined sewer overflows.
3. The construction and rehabilnation should in-
crease the development potential of the town.
Increased development should have minimal en-
vironmental impacts due to existing land use
controls.
4. The Sewer Use Ordinance will insure treatment
plant efficiencies are maintained and receiving
water quality is protected.
Conclusions
1. Impacts are further assessed in the Step I, 201
Facility Plan for Mechanic Falls.
-133-
-------
MI NOT
Construction Subplan - Sediment and Erosion Controls
Impacts
1. Sediment and Erosion controls added to the
Subdivision Regulations will minimize sedimenta-
tion in Bog Brook and other streams during con-
struction of subdivisions. Thus the high quality
streams in Minot will be protected from degradation.
Conclusion
1. The slight cost of the controls during construc-
tion will protect the water quality of the
natural drainages.
On-Site Residential Sewage Disposal Subplan - Site Plan Review Ordinance
Impacts
1. The ground waters and surface streams of
Minot will be protected from degradation
by adverse land uses.
2. Development costs will increase slightly
but the amount of development should not
be affected.
3. The ordinance will also help control sediment
entering streams from construction projects.
Conclusion
1. The Site Plan Review Ordinance will allow the
Planning Board to review many of the smaller
type commercial and industrial developments
which might find Minot attractive. The
Planning Board will be able to review the
developments to insure adequate sewage dis-
posal as well as adequate sediment and erosion
controls, surface drainage, and aesthetics.
-134-
-------
NORWAY
Construction and On-Site Residential Sewage Disposal - Subdivision
Ordinance Site Plan Review Ordinance
Impacts
1. Pond and stream quality will be protected from
sedimentation caused by construction related
erosion. The two ordinances will insure control
of most developments.
2. Ground water and surface waters will be protected
from inadequate sewage disposal in most developments.
Conclusions
1. The slight increased cost of development resulting
from these extra controls will not inhibit develop-
ment and will provide needed protection especially
for the generally high quality surface waters in the
town.
Public Sewer Systems/Industrial Waste/Urban Storm Runoff Subplans - Renovate
Lagoons and Sewage System
Impacts
1. Lagoon renovation will increase effluent quality
and help increase the water quality of the Water
Quality Limited Segment of the Little Androscoggin River,
2. Sewer system rehabiliation will increase effluent
quality and help to minimize urban storm water
impacts on the Little Androscoggin River.
3. Sewer system renovation may also create extra
capacity in the treatment facility. This could
prevent treatment facility expansion during the
next 20 years.
4. The Sewer Use Ordinance will insure lagoon
efficiencies are maintained and therefore prevent
further degradation of the Little Androscoggin
River.
Conclusions
The lagoon renovation is the least cost alternative
to upgrade the Norway sewage effluent to the re-
quired state and federal standards.
A long term sewer renovation program will minimize
the costs of controlling storm runoff from Norway's
village area.
-135-
-------
OXFORD
Ground Water/Drinking Water Subplan - Aquifer Protection
Impacts
1. Aquifer protection will improve and or protect
ground water quality in the aquifer and aquifer
recharge areas.
2. Industrial land uses will be slightly restricted
in the aquifer protection zone.
3. The town will enact townwide zoning in order to
enact the aquifer protection controls.
4. Zoning may restrict certain land uses and may
increase development costs. It will also provide
controls over erosion and subsurface disposal.
Conclusions
1. Increased land use controls are necessary to pro-
tect drinking water sources in the town in which
there are two high yield wells supplying the
villages of Norway and Oxford. Oxford may possibly
develop another well within the next five years.
2. The high quality ground water in the aquifer is
the towns most important resource.
3. Zoning will enhance the utilization of the resource
and will not hinder further economic development
in the area.
On-Site Residential Sewage Disposal/Public Sewer Systems Subplan -
Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan Review Ordinance, On-Site Disposal Education
and Ordinance.
Impacts
1. Zoning will restrict both commercial/industrial
and residential development to land most suitable
for these uses. Specifically the ordinance will
place development where waste disposal from the
particular use will not contaminate ground water.
2. The Site Plan Review will protect ground water by
providing increased control of on-site sewage dis-
posal systems.
3. Sedimentation in wetlands and drainages will be
prevented and thus wildlife and aquatic life will
be protected.
4. The on-site disposal education program and ordinance
will improve maintenance of septic systems and there-
fore improve ground water quality.
-136-
-------
Conclusions
1. The implementation of these programs will help
prevent the need of a sewage collection and
treatment system in Oxford. _ .
2. The restrictions on development will not signi-
ficantly affect the rate or type of development
in the town.
3. The cost of development restrictions is con-
siderably less than the four million dollars
which would be required to construct a sewer
system and treatment facility.
-137-
-------
PARIS
Solid Waste Subplan - Construct Sanitary Landfill
Impact
1. A sanitary landfill operation at the old dump
site will help prevent leachate from contaninating
high quality ground water in the underlying aquifer.
2. However, expansion of the dumping facility, even
if operated as a landfill, beyond the old dump site
could produce leachate which could contaminate the
aquifer and limit well field expansion or contaninate
existing wells.
Conclusions
1. The town officials, after carefully considering
the situation, decided to develop a landfill at
the existing site and fund a series of test wells
around the dump and landfill to detect contamination
and determine the exact direction of ground water
movement.
Ground Water/Drinking Water and Construction Subplans - Site Plan Review
Ordinance
Impacts
1. The Site Plan Review Ordinance will control develop-
ment which can occur in aquifer and aquifer recharge
areas and will therefore prevent pollution of ground-
water in the aquifer.
2. Controls will limit a few types of industrial and
waste disposal activities which can occur on the
aquifer or recharge areas.
Conclusions
1. Protection of the aquifer will protect the health
of Norway and Patris residents and prevent future
capital investments to treat water supplies.
2. Protection of this regional resource will increase
the attractiveness of the area for most industrial/
commercial and residential development.
-138-
-------
Sludge and Septage Subplan - Choose Sludge Disposal Site
Impacts
1. Location of the sludge site at the old A.C.
Lawrence site could contaminate the aquifer
which is Norway and Oxford's drinking water
supply.
2. Location of the site at Ryerson Hill could
contaminate ground water and a high quality
stream.
Conclusions
1. An EIS is being conducted specifically for
the sludge disposal in Paris.
2. Landfill of sludge is the only economical
solution.
-139-
-------
POLAND
Construction Subplan - Zoning or Site Plan Review Ordinance
Impacts
1. Sedimentation will be prevented in the numerous
wetlands, streams, and ponds.
2. Development will be directed onto soils most
suitable for the particular use. Ground water
and surface water degradation will be prevented.
3. Development costs will increase slightly.
Conclusion
1. Protection of the wetlands, high quality streams,
and ponds is necessary to the continued economic
stability of the town.
Solid Waste Subplan - Auburn's Incinerator vs_ New Landfill Site
Impacts
1. The current dump site is located in an aquifer
recharge area and could contaminate this high
quality potential drinking water supply.
Conclusion
1. The economics and environmental impacts of
a new site in Poland must be compared with the
regional incinerator.
Ground Water/Drinking Water Subplan - Aquifer Protection
Impacts
1. Aquifer protection through townwide zoning will
protect this resource.
2. Development will be directed into areas so that
goods and services can be more economically provided.
3. Some industrial development and waste disposal
practices will be limited in the aquifer zone.
Conclusions
1. Restrictions on land use will not affect the growth
rate and will not substantially increase development
costs.
2. Protection of the ground water resource will increase
the economic potential of the area.
-140-
-------
SABATTUS
Ground Water/Drinking Water and Construction Subplans Aquifer Pro-
tection, Site Plan Review
Impacts
1. The high quality water in the aquifer will be
maintained for existing and potential public
and industrial uses.
2. A few industrial uses will be restricted from
the aquifer.
3. Zoning will restrict the location of various
land uses and may improve ground water, pond,
and stream water quality also.
4. Sedimentation in wetlands and streams will be
prevented.
Conclusions
1. The Site Plan Review Ordinance will allow the
town to control land uses which may adversely
affect the water quality of the aquifer.
2. This ordinance will be an interim protective
measure until zoning with an aquifer overlay
zone can be implemented.
3. The protection will prevent large future expendi-
tures to develop a new water supply.
Public Sewer Systems/Industrial Waste Subplans - Sewage Treatment Facility
Impacts
1. Implementation of the findings of the 201 facili-
ties plan will improve ground water quality and
the water quality in Sabattus Pond and the
Sabattus River.
Conclusion
1. An Environmental Assessment will be conducted
as part of the 201 facility plan.
-141-
-------
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
-------
ISSUES AND COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC
?Ur1ng X? P]ann1n9 Process, staff met with municipal officials
The foiiowin9 is a sunmry °f
Comments made by:
Comment
Public Sewer Subplan
Mechanic Falls Municipal Officials - upgrading of present wastewater
Norway Municipal Officials -
Sabattus Lake Association
Tripp Pond Lake Association
treatment plants and alleviation
of the delays in the federal funding
of treatment facilities
- need for Environmental Protection
Agency (E.P.A.) to review its faci-
lity construction grants program
and allow for smaller or cluster
waste disposal systems in rural
areas where there are too few house-
holds to warrant the investment in
a large municipal treatment plant
Residential On-Site Sewage Disposal
Oxford Municipal Officials
Sabattus Lake Association
Tripp Pond Lake Association
Congress of Lake Associations
Sabattus Lake Association
Tripp Pond Lake Association
Oxford Municipal Officials
208 Technical Advisory Committee
- malfunctioning septic tanks and
leachfields caused by irregular
maintenance or pumping
- controlling increased surface water
pollution problems caused by mal-
functioning septic systems as a re-
sult of the conversion of seasonal
dwellings into year-round dwellings
- encouraging use of alternative waste
disposal systems in seasonal dwellings,
such as, incinerator toilets, chemical
toilets, and others
- there is a need for a public informa-
tion program to promote the need for
regular septic tank pumping
-------
Sludge. Septage and Solid Waste
Lisbon Municipal Officials
Mechanic Falls Municipal Officials
Paris Citizens
Auburn Citizens
Auburn Municipal Officials
Lewiston Municipal Officials
Sabattus Municipal Officials
- there is a lack of acceptable land
disposal sites for sludge from sewage
treatment plants and for septage
generated by septic tank pumping
- need for new solid waste disposal
methods because there are insuffi-
cient solid waste disposal sites
- new technologies must be utilized
to dispose of solid waste
- agricultural spreading of chicken
manure on the land is a problem in
some lakes watersheds
Ground Water/Drinking Hater Subplan
Paris Municipal Officials
Oxford Municipal Officials
Lisbon Municipal Officials
Auburn Municipal Officials
- there is a need to protect ground
water drinking supply sources through
controlling the land uses over aquifers
and aquifer recharge areas
- protection of surface water bodies
which are drinking water supply sources
or are used for recreational purposes
by controlling the land use activities
within the watershed
Mechanic Falls Municipal Officials - new ground water drinking supply
sources will need to be found as
demand for water service increases
Construction Subplan
Lisbon Municipal Officials
Mechanic Falls Municipal Officials
A* V*K*r*Vr*
- erosion and sediment runoff from
construction sites is not adequately
controlled
- poorly designed subdivisions and
multi-family development projects
can cause land use and water quality
problems
- there is a need for better site plan-
ning for industiral and commercial
development
-------
Land Use Management Subplan
Sabattus Municipal Officials
Poland Municipal Officials
Norway Municipal Officials
Fish and Game Association
Paris Municipal Officials
Paris Municipal Officials
Sabattus Municipal Officials
Minot Municipal Officials
Mechanic Falls Municipal Officials
Paris Municipal Officials
Norway Municipal Officials
Poland Municipal Officials
Oxford Municipal Officials
Poland Municipal Officials
A.V.R.P.C.
Lisbon Municipal Officials
lack of full-time qualified person-
nel to enforce municipal codes,
ordinances and regulations, (especially
the Plumbing Code and Shore!and
Zoning Ordinances,) is a problem in
all municipalities
- there is a need for improved moni-
toring of subdivision developments
in order to determine if the sub-
divisions are being developed in
conformance with the approved plan
- there is a need for zoning ordinances
to control spiralling growth
t
- there is a need for local subdivision
regulations to provide for procedural
guidelines for reviewing subdivision
plans
- there is a need for site plan review
ordinances to deal with major indus-
trial, commercial and residential
developments
- there is a need for local subsurface
disposal ordinances to deal with mal-
functioning septic systems because
of lack of regular pumping
- there is a need for codification of
existing municipal ordinances, codes
and regulations
- community growth problems related to
the extension of sewer and water lines
and the suitability of soils for septic
disposal systems
- controlling growth through limiting
the number of building permits issued
for single-family and multi-family
dwelling units
-------
SUMMARY OF LISTING OF THE 203 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
EFFORT BETWEEN AUGUST 1, 1975 AND MAY 1, 1977
1 Technical Newspaper,
Involved Towns/Agencies/Groups Meetings Assistance2 Articles ;
Norway
Paris
Oxford
Mi not
Mechanic Falls
Poland
Auburn
Lewis ton
Sabattus
Lisbon
Subtotal
Utility Districts
208 Policy Advisory Committee
Special Advisory Committee
Federal and State Agencies
Public Workshops
TOTAL
8
12
14
8
11
7
9
11
9
10
99
6
25
20
43
6
199
12
19
2
17
9
12
4
19
10
104
9
6
119
8
29
3
6
1
1
11
2
61
15
5
10
3
94
1 This represents the number of meetings that were either attended or
sponsored by the 208 staff concerning the 208 planning program. Most
of the meetings that were held with the towns were with the Planning
Boards.
2 This number represents the different occasions in which technical
assistance was provided by the 208 staff. The types of technical
assistance that was provided ranged from on-site analysis of solid
waste and sludge disposal sites to consultations on the
interpretation of Maine's various planning and land use laws. Also,
technical assistance was usually provided at planning board meetings.
3 This represents the number of different newspaper articles in which
the 208 Areawide Water Quality Planning Program was highlighted-or in
which a name of a 208 staff member was mentioned in relationship to
a particular 208 town, special interest group or special local project.
-------
SUMMARY OF LISTING OF THE 208 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
EFFORT BETWEEN MAY 1, 1977 AND DECEMBER 31, 1977
Involved Towns/Aqencies/Groups
TOTAL AUGUST 1 , 1 975 A MAY 1 , 1 977
Norway
Paris
Oxford
Mi not
Mechanic Falls
Poland
Auburn
Lewis ton
Sabattus
Lisbon
Subtotal
Utility Districts
208 Policy Advisory Committee
Special Advisory Committee
Federal and State Agencies
Public Workshops
TOTAL
Meetings
199
5
10
6
1
10
1
5
13
6
57
1
1
14
3
76
Technical
Assistance2
119
2
3
1
5
3
3
4
9
7
37
5
3
45
Newspaper
Articles3
94
10
6
1
7
1
4
5
1
35
1
5
41
PROGRAM TOTAL
275
164
135
This represents the number of meetings that were either attended or
sponsored by the 208 staff concerning the 208 planning program. Most
of the meetings that were held with the towns were with the Planning
Boards.
This number represents the different occasions in which technical
assistance was provided by the 208 staff. The types of technical
assistance that was provided ranged from on-site analysis of solid
waste and sludge disposal sites to consultations on the
interpretation of Maine's various planning and land use laws. Also
technical assistance was usually provided at planning board meetings.
This represents the number of different newspaper articles in which
the 208 Areawide Water Quality Planning Program was highlighted or in
which a name of a 208 staff member was mentioned in relationship to
a particular 208 town, special interest group or special local pro-
ject.
-------
Septic Systems
Proper Maintenance Can Help to Prevent
Messy, Dangerous Problem
Sewage disposal. To those who
live in major cities where there
are public waste collection
systems, a discussion of what to
do with waste material may be
unimportant. But for those who.
live in rural areas, a discussion
of what to do with their
sewerage and how to keep their
particular system functioning
can be very important, ac-
cording to Water Quality
Planner Fergus Lea of the
Androscoggln Valley Regional
Planning Association.
Sewage admittedly is not a
pleasant topic to talk about, but
it can become an even more
unpleasant one when, because of
a lack of proper maintenance, s
system begins to function in-
properly.
"When septic systems Junc-
tion improperly," says Lea,
"serious health and water
quality problems can result."
One of the problems that can
arise from an improperly
maintained system is a failure
in the leach field. This, Lea says,
can result in the surfacing of
"offensive effluent (treated or
partially treated wastcwater)
and/or the contamination of
ground and nearby surface
water.
Lack of maintenafae heads
Lea's list of reasons why septic
systems fail, though the pboner
cites four other reasons as weN
Under maintenance. Lea sayl
the most Important procedure is
"the periodic removal of sludge
and scum from the tank, com-
monly called pumping."
The reason tanks need
periodic pumping. Lea says, is
because the biological
decomposition occuring in the
tank is incomplete and results in
a buildup of solid waste
material. These solids do not
stay in the septic tank but are
passed on to the leach field
where (hey are deposited and
clog the field.
"The solids form slime layers
Njn the surfaces where the leach
field contacts the natural soil,"
says Lea, "and this slime layer
or clogging docs not allow the
effluent to be absorbed and
treated properly in the natural
soil."
This condition worsens, ac-
cording to Lea, as more water
enters the leach field either
froip the house or from a high
groundwater table.
Plumbing problems, in the
form of backup of toilets, can
occur as well as surfacing ef-
fluent or groundwater con-
tamination.
Seasonal high water table is
the second reason for septic
failures.
What happens in this instance,
according to Lea, is the water
table rises and floods the leach
field so that it cannot drain.
Contamination of groundwater
may also result from a high
groundwater table in the
disposal area.
While the contamination of
groundwater doesn't seem like a
serious problem, it can be,
because along with this con-
tamination can come the con-
tamination of wells and surface
waters.
Improper construction
techniques can also result in a
septic failure, according to tea.
The major construction
problems do not usually occur
in the tank but in the con-
struction of the leach field.
These problems are the com-
pacting of the leach field area by
heavy machinery during its
construction, and the con-
struction of adjacent structures
which change the drainage
characteristics of the soil from
what was noted during the pre-
conslructionsoil evaluation.
Smearing of natural soils on
the surface of the bed can also
reduce the capacity of the leach
field.
All construction problems,
says Lea, are aggravated by
high soil moisture content.
"Crushing of shallow drain
tiles by heavy equipment, over
compaction of the leach field
during backfilling or improper
backfill so (hat ponding of
surface water occurs on top of
the leach field, are all things to
watch out for," says Lea.
An inadequately designed
septic system can result in a
number />f problems. What
usually happens in these cases is
the family increases and the
load on the system increases,
often going beyond the capacity
of the field as it was originally
designed.
A dishwasher. Lea adds, If
only used once a day to do all the
family dishes, does not
significantly affect water usage.
Installation of the system in
unsuitable soils is the final
reason Lea cites for failures in
systems.
Many systems in the AVRPC
area, says Lea, were designed
prior to the new plumbing code
(1974) and consequently are
constructed in soils that are
incapable of handling the
amount of waste that is
discharged.
Having discussed some of the
problems that can arise and the
reasons they do. Lea has
suggested some ways to prevent
these problems.
Better maintenance is the first
preventive measure. Tanks",
according to Lea, should be
pumped every three to five
years. He qualifies this
statement by saying that small
tanks, less than 1,000 gallons,
used by three or more people
with a clothes washer should be
pumped every three years,
while tanks of 1,000 gallons or
more, used by four or fewer
family members may be
pumped every five years.
Better construction controls is
another preventive measure
suggested by Lea. Being at the
site when the local plumbing
inspector performs his in-
spection is one way to learn
more about your system, he
says.
Reducing water usage in the
home can help prevent problems
as can sewering the area, which,
he notes, is a very expensive
process.
In the event that a system
should malfunction, surfacing
effluent can cause a serious
problem when pets and children
come in contact with the bac-
teria, either through direct
contact or through rodents who
are carrying it.
If .an improperly function
sewer system contaminates a
weH, viral 'and other bac-
teriological diseases can result,
including an infant's disease,
methcmoglobcncmca, a critical
disease where the infant's blood
will not maintain an adequate
oxygen level.
The effluent can also enter
Likes where diseases may be
contracted by bathers.
-------
Lakes, Ground Water to Be
Primary Section 208 Focus
ByJEANSTREETER
Shying away from making any
direct .policy decisions because
of a need tar more study on
several issues, members of the
AVRPC Section 208 Policy
Committee hope soon to be able
to formulate an approach for
implementing'a plan to combat
the water quality problems of
the ten town area.
What was decided Wednesday
night, however, was to focus
most of the work on studying
ground water and the quality of
lake water as opposed to in-
vestigating - agriculture and
forestry as non-point pollutants
which was not identified by
AVRPC staff memberCraig Ten
Broeck as one of the major
problem areW.
' It was also voted to focus most
of the project on broad-based
problems, as opposed to acting
as regulatory agency for
specific violations.
Briefing members on the
Section 208 program,' Ten
Broeck outlined approaches to
determine the nature and extent
of water quality problems and
presented, related policy
questions to be considered as the
program develops.
Water quality data was
collected in 19 stations last year
through the Department of
Environmental Protection, he
explained and AVRPC staff
members wfll collect water
quality data for approximately
22 stations in 1976 through the
DEP, The Little Androscoggtn
River, Sabattus River and
Sabattus Lake will be included
in fhe scattered focus as well as
Sprague Mill, Leeds Junction
and Topsham Bridge
Ten Broeck also stated that
cooperative study with the State
Bureau of Forestry on logging
operations in the ten towns is
included in the approach as well
as work with the Soil Con-
servation Service in assessing
agriculturally related nonpoint
pollution problems..
AVRPC members will work
with the Oxford office andB
McEwin of the And
SOU "amf
District
xanservail
assess.nnj
in
agriculturally related -
nTrtTnhnnnmhlems.
- PUDllC input as to local per-
ception of the priority water
quality problem areas was
stressed by Ten Broeck and
Executive Director John
JaworsW.
Field investigations to focus
on specific problems affecting
priority resources, for example
the impact of dumps on ground
water quality, also will be
conducted.
Ten Broeck indicated that
efforts with in-place sources, or
fixed resources be approached
by land use controls rather than
setting up performance stan-
dards.
While board members were in
sympathy with Ten Broack's
suggestion that such in-place
non-point sources such as
dumps, salt piles, sludge sites,
areas of failing septic tanks, use
of pesticides and construction
activities might be focused on as
first priorities, no final decision
was made on identifying what
would receive the most at-
tention.
It was agreed, however, that
local governments should look
at problems with an eye to the
future while analyzing their
effectiveness with respect to
existing regulations.
Jaworski explained that towns
with ideas for water quality
projects could approach the
DEP to become eligible for
matching federal grant monies.
While some support was ex-
pressed for the inter-local
agreement, or bordering towns
working together on zoning,
there was no decision as to how
the management and im-
plementation arrangements for
the plan be carried out
Reports on the Carroll Taylor
contract for the town of
Sabattus. which has already
begun, and the Dale Carulhers
contract for Oxford were also
given at the meeting.
-------
RADIO AND T.V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Nine area radio stations and two television stations broadcasted the
following announcements as a public service.
-------
Regional Planning Commission
70 Court Street Auburn, Maine 04210
783-9186
Tel. (207) 784--0-1-S1
October 4, 1977
Mr. Steven Rogers
WOXO Radio Station
Box 72
Norway, ME 04268
Dear Mr. Rogers:
I would appreciate it if you would air one of the following two alter-
native announcements either as a public service announcement or as a news
item. This information is of particular interest to municipal officials,
special interest groups and individual citizens who are concerned with
improving the quality of the surface waters and ground waters in Andros-
coggin, Oxford and Franklin Counties.
I. The Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission, Auburn,
Maine, will be holding* two public workshops on the 208 Water
Quality Plan that has been developed over a too year planning
period. The workshops will be held on Wednesday, October 19,
1977, at 6:45 p.m. at the Oxford Hills High School in South
Paris and on Thursday, October 20, 1977, at 6:45 p.m. at the
Lewiston Multi-Purpose Center. The sessions will provide the
public with the opportunity to learn more about the 208 pro-
cess and to comment on the major findings, policy recommenda-
tions and implementation strategies contained in the 208 Plan.
For further information call A.V.R.P.C. at 782-9186.
2. The 208 Areawide Water Quality Program, which the Androscoggin
Valley Regional Planning Commission, Auburn, Maine .has been
conducting for the past tao years is in its final stages. The
major findings, policy recommendations and implementation
strategies for improving surface and ground water quality have
been incorporated into a 208 Water Quality Plan. Tao workshops
will be held for the public to learn more about the 208 Plan
and to comment on the plan. The first workshop will be held on
Wednesday, October 19, 1977, at 6:45 p.m. at the Oxford Hills
High School in South Paris. The second workshop will be held
on Thursday, October 20, 1977, at 6:45 p.m. at the Lewiston
Multi-Purpose Center. For more information call A.V.R.P.C at
783-9186.
-------
Mr. Steven Rogers
Page 2
October 4, 1977
If your station's News Department would like to do a special feature
either on the 208 Water Quality Plan or the public workshops, please feel
free to contact me.
Your assistance in publicizing the 208 Water Quality Plan and the
workshops on the plan will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Craig W. Ten Broeck
Planning Director
CTB:jev
Enclosure
-------
APPENDIX B
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
-------
AVRPC Sets
"208" Water
Workshops
The Androscoggin Valley
Regional Planning Commission
will be1 looking for public Input
into Us 208 Water Quality Plan at
two workshops to be held next
week
The first workshop has been
scheduled for Wednesday, Oct.
19, at Oxford Hills High School.
The second will be held Thur-
sday, Oct. 20, in Lewislon at the
Multi-Purpose Center on Birch
Street.
The agendas for both sessions
will be the same and both will
commence at 6:45 p.m.
AVRPC Chairman Paul Fuller
will deliver the introductory
remarks which will be followed
by a summary and slide show
presentation of Hie 208 program
by project director Craig Ten-
Broeck.
From 7:45 to 8:45 the first
workshop session will be held
with all staff present. A 15-
inule intermission will follow
with the second workshop set for
9p.m. to 9:45.
A summary of the contents of
the workshop session will be
presented by all staff from 9:45
to 10:15 and then until 10:45 will
be a question and answer period.
Ten-Brocck will offer
closing comments at 10:45 p.m.
Water Quality Workshop Set Tonight
SOUTH PARIS The
first of two workshops to
help area residents learn
more about the 208 Water
Quality Programs will be
held tonight beginning at
7:45 at Oxford Hills High
School.
Tne Androscoggin Valley
Regional Planning Com-
mission, which has been
conducting the program for
the past two years, will
present the plan which in-
corporates the. major fin-
dings, policy recom-
mendations and im-
plementation strategies.
The program takes in a 10-
town area including Auburn,
Lewiston, Lisbon,
Mechanics Falls, -Minot,
Norway, Oxford, Paris,
Poland and Sabattus.
-------
APPENDIX C
MEETING FLYER
-------
o
u
LnJ
1
ID,
Regional Planning Commission
70 Court Street, Auburn, Maine 04210
Tel. (207) 783-9186
September 28, 1977
The Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission has prepared
a 208 Water Quality Plan in accordance with Public Law 92-500, The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. This plan,
for the A.V.R.P.C. Ten Town 208 Area, which includes Auburn, Lewiston,
Lisbon, Mechanic Falls, Minot, Norway, Oxford, Paris, Poland and Sabattus,
deals with a wide range of subject categories as they pertain to surface
and ground water quality.
Summaries of program recommendations and complete plans are avail-
able for review at town offices and at the A.V.R.P.C.
Two meetings have been scheduled to discuss program findings and
recommendations, they are October 19, 1977, at Oxford Hills High School,
S. Paris and October 20, 1977, at Lewiston Multi-Purpose Center. The
following agenda will be used for both meetings.
AGENDA
Time
6:45
7:15
7:45
8:45
9:00
9:45
10:15
10:45
Session
Introductory Remarks
Summary and Slide Show
of 208 Planning Process
First Workshop
Intermission
Second Workshop
Summary Comments on
Workshops Sessions
Questions and Answers
Closing Comments
Speaker
Paul Fuller, Chairman
A.V.R.P.C.
Craig W. Ten Broeck
Project Director
All Staff
All Staff
All Staff
All Staff
Craig W. Ten Broeck
Project Director
-------
SWAN
BUILDING
SUPPLY
20S
SO PARIS
MAIN ST
OXFORD HILLS
HIGH SCHOOL
TIME: 6:45pM
DATE:OCT.I9,I977
PLACE: SO. PAR I SAT
OXFORD HILLS HIGH
SCHOOL LIBRARY
TIME: 6:45 PM
DATE: OCT. 20,1977
PU\CE: LEWISTON
MULTI PURPOSE CENTER
-------
APPENDIX D
NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF WORKSHOPS
-------
^Vorkshop Session Held on
PARIS-" F ,v
the public the opportunity lo"Teara*atxmUhe
208 Water Quality Management Plan and the
Environmental Impact Assessment was held
at Oxford Hills High School. Wednesday
evening. *
The workshop provided the public an op-
portunity to comment on the program and
offer input for the final preparation for the 208
plan, which is expected to be completed in
November. After the final plan is reviewed
and approved by the Androscoggin Valley
Regional Planning Commission, it will be
submitted to Governor James Longley for his
approval. The plan will -be forwarded to the
Region One Environmental Protection
Agency administrator in Boston for his
adoption.
The 10 towns that have been involved in the
plan are Norway, Paris. Oxford. Minot
Mechanic Falls, Poland, Auburn, Lewiston,
Lisbon and Sabattus.
The 208 Water Quality Plan was funded by a
grant from the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under Section 208 of the
Federal 'Water Pollution Control Act
amendments of 1972.
The session was opened by Craig Ten-
Broeck, project director. He introduced Paul
Fuller, chairman of the AVRPC board of
directors, who in turn greeted those present
and explained what the 208 Water Quality
Program meant Fuller pointed out that the
important thing about the program was that if
the plan was approved, there were additional
funds for its continuation. Fuller introduced
the chairman of the 208 Policy Committee,
Earl Tarr of Auburn, director of that city's
water district
The problems with the major waU.r she/1-
around the Androscoggin River were ex-
plained by Ten Broeck, who noted that there
was a six-mile area surrounding the river
between Paris and Oxford covering that
contained the lowest water quality in the state
of Maine.
Various aspects of overflow, ground water,
erosion and water shed, showing there is a
need for sewage treatment, were explained
by Ten Broeck. He also explained that there
are 20 water sampling stations in the area.
Colored slides assisted In explaining the
program, revealing local dumps, Hooded
areas and sewage leachate. Following the
slide presentation the AVARPC staff mem-
bers conducted a series of workshop sessions
on the various subplans connected with the
208 plan.
Form Group
The Implementation, strategy, forestry and
construction session was under the direction
of TenBroeck. Howard Charles, Hebron, of
the Maine Forestry Service, Jollne Vachon,
Ten Broeck's administrative assistant,
Robert Nunan, Augusta, 208 coordinator for
AVRPC, DEP, and Lawrence Brewer. Paris
selectman, sal in with TenBroeck and learned
that be did not think that the problems in
Paris were that severe. TenBroeck also
pointed out that (here was no present non-
point legislation that would be used providing
local action is not taken by the municipal
officials. TenBroeck further explained that
"sltuauon
In his bid for comments from
the public for their ideas of 208 program.
Fergus Lea, AVRPC water quality
engineer, directed the workshop on
residential on-slle sewage disposal. Sludge
septic, public sewer systems and industrial
waste treatment were some of the subjects
discussed. Comments seemed to be aimed to
the area's sewage treatment plants. Mem-
bers of the Paris Utility District who sat at
this table were Tom Clifford, chairman of the
PUD directors; Walter Gray, clerk; a former
PUD director, Chandler Briggs; and Francis
Anderson, superintendent of the Paris
Sewage Treatment plant. Others Included
Vernon McFarlin. Paris Conservation
Commission; Robert Butters, town of Norway
sewaee disposal: Clarence Tvner. Oxford
Planning Board; Claire Matolcsy, Paris;
Fergus Lea and Les Stevens. AVRPC
Surface Water
Bob Thompson, AVRPC water quality
planner, discussed surface water quality
assessment, agriculture, solid waste and
other sources including roadside ditches,
snow dumps, road salt storage, application,
pesticides, petroleum storage and mining. Gil
Arsenault, AVRPC research developer, and
Robert Littlefield, Farmington planning
assistant, discussed surplus water quality
concerns with Thompson.
Rodney Lynch, AVRPC community planner
and public participation coordinator, led a
discussion on land use management. This
area covered existing controls, proposed
legislation, the 208 ordinances, growth
management and the municipal mapping
program.
A group also sat down with John Attig,
AVRPC geologist, and members of the
Norway and Paris water districts joined in a
discussion concerning the ground water,
drinking water and solid waste problems.
Paris Utility District's water field and its
location near the Paris solid waste disposal
area became the controversial issue In this
session. Paul Brown, Paris town manager.
and Danny Morse, PUD superintendent,
offered their ideas as to how this particular
problem should be handled. The PUD feels
that the dumping area should be moved and
the town manager staled that the town should
not go to this expense if it is not necessary.
The dumping area is "grandfathered" back
to its earlier existence at its present location.
Break Then Reform
Following the first workshop session light
refreshments were served and the groups
reformed.
A team of seven CETA employes assisted
the 208 staff in contacting the federal, state
and local agencies to provide the information
on agriculture, pesticide uses, construction
activities, septic tank problems, sludge
disposal, solid waste sites, road salt storage
and the application of this salt and its con-
tamination of domestic wells.
The 208 staff expanded the background
information through its efforts and
cooperative studies. These studies included a
sediment delivery study with the United
States Soil Conservation Service, the survey
of forest harvesting operations and Its impact
on water quality with the Maine Bureau of
Forestry and the ground water study with the
United States geological study. Consultant
studies included the waste treatment
facilities with Oxford and Sabattus and a
combined sewer overflow study for Lewiston
and Auburn. A table for the surface water of
the 208 study area gave the names of several
areas that do not meet the swimmable and
fishing standards.
The review of the agriculture subplan has
not shown that there is any major source of
pollution, based on studies that show (hat this
source of pollution does not show a major non-
point factor. Special funding is recommended
for participation in the existing program.
The major findings of the forestry program
study were summarized, showing that there
were significant erosion problems, caused
mainly by the spring harvest of the forests,
with the transportation phase the most
significant.
Some of the major sources of construction
associated pollutants are caused from
sediment,, storm water, solid waste and
petroleum products.
Construction Subplan
The construction subplan Involves
disturbances of larger land areas than the
rural housing construction and has the
potential, because of scale, to generate
greater levels of sediment It was especially
recommended by the 208 plan that road salt
piles should be placed on concrete pads and
under cover, among other ideas.
The popular method for solid waste disposal
in the 208 area has been the open burning
dumps but now all must turn to other
suggested methods it was learned. Four of the
towns in the 208 area have disposal sites
located on aquifers and aquifer recharge
areas. State laws and existing inventories of
sludge and septic, disposal methods must
comply pretty much to the new guidelines, the
208 plan states.
As a portion of the 208 Water Quality
Program, AVRPC entered into a co-operation
study with the water resources decision of the
United States Geological Survey to evaluate
the ground water resources' of the 10-town
area. The towns of Paris, Norway, Oxford,
Lisbon and Sabattus now draw their public
water supplies from ground water sources
and the town of Mechanic Falls is in-
vestigating the idea of developing a ground
water supply. The ground water in the area is
good. However, poor land practices such as
salt storage and solid waste tiisposals near
aquifers have caused a significant
degradation of larger quantities of ground
water, often on locations that would be ideal
for municipal use.
The 208 program has prepared "Aquifer
Protection Ordinances" to be used by toe
municipalities wishing to take steps toward
-------
208 Water Quality Program
J-J
'-"',* f <***"'*>
^-fe*m
; rfe^tl
In Conference
preserving ground water quality. These
recommendations provide suggestions to
zone certain critical aquifer recharge and
production areas, Including the relocating of
solid waste disposal sites that are located on
or near productive aquifers. It is recom-
mended by the 208 program that federal and
slate legislation should be enacted to provide
for zoning regulations and comprehensive
ground water protection programs,
I Reviews Show
Reviews of the various techniques of
sewage disposal systems proved that the
malfunctioning of septic systems in part of
the 10-town areas, especially Poland and
Oxford, could cause a degradation of the
regional aquifers which are in use as
municipal water supplies. Some priority
concerns are in the areas of Norway, Oxford,
Poland and Auburn, where septic systems
could degrade the area lake waters. There
are certain areas in all of the municipalities
where there are health hazards that have
resulted from .malfunctioning of these
systems. The samples of the weus show that
possibly up to 25 percent 'of all private
drinking water sources 'are contaminated.
Code enforcement regulations and sewer
extensions are recommended for some of the
areas by the 208 program, suggesting that
there is federal and state funding available to
take care of these problems.
Recommendations were made in the 208
plan for some of the areas to provide for
major sewer rehabilitation programs,
especially in Sabattus, Mechanic Falls and
some areas in Lewiston. It was also pointed
out that the facUity in Norway needed
renovation and that Lewiston-Auburn
facilities could some times exceed their
capacities. This same problem is under study
in Mechanic Falls. A recommendation is to be
made to the slate to determine the waste load
allocation and chromium balance for the
Little Androscoggin River in the Paris and
Norway area and that the Paris Sewage
Treatment Plant be optimized through
technical assistance from the EPA and DEP.
Meet Requirements
The 208 report stated that all of the in-
dustries in the 10-town area producing
significant quantities of discharges are
discharging into public treatment facilities
and are meeting their licensing
requirements. The 208 program did offer
several recommendations for requirements,
cost recovery, licensing and enforcement at
the federal and state levels.
'One of the most comprehensive elements of
the 208 plan is the land use management
subplan which recommends the use of the
existing stale and local land use management
controls; the need for additional controls to
implement the 208 plan, especially to provide
the towns with legal authority. Several model
ordinances were suggested for adoption by
these area towns, which is to be a part of the
208 Water Quality Plan. Growth management
control policies and techniques are addressed
with alternatives that the towns may adopt to
regulate local growth,
Municipal maps have been prepared for
each of the 208 towns and recommendations
are offered for their use in preparing and
administering zoning ordinances. The land
management subplan has compiled a book
that can be used as a handbook for municipal
officials.
Ten Broeck requested tha the public should
make an effort to make known their thoughts
concerning the 208 Water Quality Program to
their town officials. Ten Broeck said that he-
would need a letter from each town by the end
of October or the first of November, in-
forming him as to whether pr not the 208 plan
was endorsed. Ten Broeck said that the plan
has already been approved by Norway, but
that Oxford and Paris are looking for public
input to make their decisions.
The draft environmental impact statement
on the draft 208 waste treatment management
plan for the'Androscoggin Valley Regional
Planning Commission was made available to
those who wanl a copy. This manual provides
all the information gathered during the study.
This book was financed by a grant from the
EPA, funded by provisions made by Section
208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Am men'dments of 1972.
Robert Mendoza, who is in charge of the
environmental impact assessment ~ from
Region One of the Environmental Protection
Agency of Boston, was present at the meeting
to offer, his input. Several officials from the
DEP, the State Forestry Service and. several
staff members, directors and commissioners
from AVRPC were available to assist /In
conducting the workshop and to answer
questions. Those attending the workshop
were mostly from the local water and sewer
districts.
WORKSHOP SESSION - The 208 Water Quali-
ty Program was the topic of a workshop session
held in South Paris on Wednesday night. Discuss-
ing surface water; quality assessment,
agriculture and miscellaneous sources were, left
to right. Bob Thompson, AVRPC staff member;
Gil Arsenault,' research developer for AVRPC;
and Robert Littlefield, Farnungton planning.
assistant (Photo by Henderson)
-------
Water quality hearing fljur4.sv.
AVRPC wants public's view
SOUTH PARIS - The Androscoggin
Valley Regional Planning Commission
(AVRPC) is holding a workshop for area
residents next Wednesday. Sludge andl
sewer systems plans and recommendations
will be discussed.
The workshop will air the summary of a
two-year study conducted by AVRPC in
area 208 to determine water quality. The
recommendations include goals and
deadlines.
The workshop is being held so that
AVRPC representatives may note the
public's opinion of present sewer systems,
aludge disposal sites, purity of ground
drinking water and Industrial waste, to
'name just a few. Recommendations on these
subjects could have enormous impact on the
Androscoggin Valley and specifically
Norway-South Paris area, town officials
agree.
They feel, therefore, as does AVRPC, that
public attendance at the workshop is ex-
tremely important "The workshops are
designed to provide the public with the
opportunity to learn more about the 208
process and to comment on the recom-
mendations of the Water Quality Plan,"
AVRPC states. "Public participation has
been a major concern of the 208 program
and must continue to be if the program is to
be successfully implemented. For this
reason, it is extremely important that
municipal officials, representatives of
special interest groups.and the general
public attend these workshop sessions."
Vernon McFarland, chairman of the South
Paris Action Research Committee (SPARC)
echoed AVRPC last week when he urged all
SPARC members and the public to attend
the workshops. Discussion will Include the
past controversial Paris sludge and sewage
treatment plant, he noted. "We have an
obligation to ourselves to attend the
meeting,'" he said
The workshop will begin at 6 -lo p.m next
Wednesday in the Oxford Hills High School
Library. With one coffee and refreshment
break, it is scheduled to last until 10 45 p m.
Each issue will be introduced by AVRPC
according to a printed schedule available to
the public at town offices. The problem will
be assessed a.nd identified, the technical
findings will be aired along with issues,
alternatives and recommendations. The
workshop will end with a half-hour question-
and-answer period between AVRPC
representatives, representatives from the
state Department of Environmenta
Protection, and the publ><*
For more information, call the Norway 01
South Paris town offices.
_,....,, . ..., **a.-r- T.^TTT* '<« 'Cwl* I. £'** t
r *»<-". a«4*'i'S.^ ?-xa ."' *- -.** *sy t»
n1 . . --, '> , -v ''^ ' .^»».J.*-^:
< .«/ « > > _Ak>^ . v. .
B^US^^I^Hl&VH.vl^AdraHfin9HMKn^'tf*^-3«*'* JPHWWWJtMB* :<*^Mrr-c^*r ~ » - ^-- " ----
«^ :^> I*-"""" nrivau? cround and surface water protection, for the 10-town area
FINAL WORKSHOP - The Androscoggin Valley Regional £2J3ta«UwWM Auburn. Sabattus, Lisbon. Mechanic Falls,
Planning Commission held Its final public hearing-workshop on the
-
208 Water Quality Program Thursday night at theLewiston Multi-
Purpose Center.The plan contains technical help suggestions for
suciT problems as zoning, sewerage disposal both public and
. , .
Norway. Paris, and Oxford. (Staff Photo by
-------
AVRPC Completes Workshop^gf,
Phase of 208 Water Quality
Another step In the Androscoggin Valley
Regional Planning Commission's 208 Water
Quality Program was completed Thursday
night as the AVRTC held its final public
hearing-workshop on the program at the
Mulli-Purpose Center in Lewlslon.
The Lewiston workshop was the second
this week, with the first held Wednesday night
at Oxford Hills High School.
Group discussions were held on the 12
technical subplans, including agriculture,
forestry, construction, miscellaneous sour-
ces, solid waste, sludge and sctpage,
groundwater and drinking water, residential
on-site sewage disposal, public sewer
systems, industrial waste treatment, land use
management and specific implementations
actions.
The AVRPC staff has worked to provide a
technical plan for helping towns in the
designated area of Auburn, Lewiston, Minot,
Mechanic Falls, Poland, Norway, South
Paris, Lisbon, Sabaflus and Oxford to cope
with water quality related problems.
In the area of agriculture, it was noted,
the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection will be asking Governor Longley to
be allowed to introduce a piece of legislation
concerning conservation plans for farmers
during the next session.
The legislation would reportedly require a
farmer to draw up a conservation plan for his
fanning operation, have it approved and
abide by it.
Several persons expressed concern over
the cost to the farmer of preparing such a
plan, and it was noted that the preparation
and compliance with the proposed regulation
would be subject to funding aid available to
the farmer, so as to lessen the economic
impact
The importance of protecting aquifers
which are subsurface water supplies was
stressed. The program includes suggestions
for protective zoning of aquifers, particularly
not allowing solid waste disposal sites to
locate on top of or near productive aquifers. ,
The Little Androscoggin River, a section of
which has a Class D rating, making it one of
the two worst in the state, was a major con-
cern of the program. -The AVRPC staff has
suggested a study .of Paris Treatment
Facility and the A. C. Lawrence Tannery
wastes, which a synopsis of the program
indicates are still questionable with respect to
meeting the quality specifications of the
contract.
Sewage disposal problems in Mechanic
Falls, it was noted, are also causing problems
for the Little Androscoggin. Some 36 or so
private homes in that town are piping raw
sewage into the Little Androscoggin.
The situation there, the AVRPC indicated,
will be improving as funds are obtained.
The AVRPC has also devised a set of model
zoning ordinances for towns where no or little
zoning exists.
Rules and regulations whether new or
existing, it was stressed, are useless unless
they are enforced.Code enforcement was
considered one of the most important
elements in a successful program im-
plementation.
Several of the towns in the )0-town area
lack code enforcement.
Before the program can be approved by the
commission it must be approved by all 10
towns. At present, only Norway and Sabattus
have written letters of approval. After
commission approval, the program goes to
the governor for his approval and then on the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency
for implementation if approved.
------- |