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€
                              D€PARTM€NT  OF  TRANSPORTATION
ROG€R 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   flju€r4.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.

-------