FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
.rboro
N jKennebuhisport
Limington
Tw \ Wesft GorharnS^, \rf
' Gor&^r
/est \\Grovewlle
jxton , \ '
uxton Center0 '
k yBuxton,
*Bar Mills/
v .,.~j.lijj Center
rtClarHs Mill/
/ My "W
4
"•«""/ / „¦ -> _ 2;
— ^ UJ
a
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
VOLUME I
PROPOSED WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
SCARBOROUGH, MAINE
PREPARED BY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
jjyuii V ltd <.«-<-<* l
'egional Administrator
Date
-------
This Environmental Impact Statement displays the best pos-
sible concept, from both environmental and cost-effective
viewpoints, of the sewage system needs for the Town of Scarborough.
During the development of this Environmental Impact Statement,
as has been stated in other sections of this document, many options
for this system have been explored: these considerations started
on ones developed and proposed over the years by the Town's con-
sultants, and continued to those which were developed as emana-
tions from the original alternative systems. The proposed option
(referred to as "Alternative G") developed eventually as a result
of the extensive participation by the public in these considera-
tions.
The alternative which has been presented as the proposed
system in this Final EIS was not developed, therefore, in the
customary fashion (by the Town's consultant). In consequence, many
items of excluded data, engineering and fiscal parameters, which
would have been developed by a Town's consulting engineer in the
course of his activity as the company progressed to design work on
the option. The consultant normally would have these feasibility
factors evolving during the course of this preliminary, conceptual
system design work, for the purpose of saving time later, during
the design and construction stages.
The Environmental Protection Agency has not striven to develop
all of this data, for two primary reasons: its development is
normally a function of the design stage; and all the factors neces-
sary to successfully gauge the projects possibilities are not yet
available because they have not been determined by the Town.
Therefore, the proposed option for the Town's sewage system
project is presented in the Environmental Impact Statement as the
concept which is appropriate for this stage of project develop-
ment; and therefore can serve as a model for similar EIS's.
1
-------
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared pursuant to
P. L. 91-190, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and Execu-
tive Order 11514, "Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality" dated
March 5, 1970. Both NEPA and Executive Order 11514 require that all Federal
Agencies prepare such statements in connection with their proposals for major
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
This EIS has been prepared in accordance with the regulations and
guidance set forth in the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Guidelines dated August 1, 1973, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Final Regulations CFR 40-Part 6, dated April 14, 1975; both
concerning the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements.
Under the statutory authority of P.L. 92-500, the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the EPA is charged with administering
Federal financial assistance for the construction of publicly-owned waste-
water treatment facilities and their appurtenances. In addition, the EPA
will issue permits to municipal governments to allow the discharge of
treated wastewater effluent into navigable waters in such a manner as to
protect the health and welfare of the public and the environment. P.L. 92-
500 further establishes a national goal of eliminating the discharge of
pollutants by 1985, and wherever attainable, an interim water quality
goal by July 1, 1983, which provides for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and provides for recreation in and on the
water.
For purposes of the Environmental Impact Statement, EPA, Region I,
Boston, Massachusetts is the "Responsible Federal Agency" as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act.
To insure that the public is kept fully informed regarding this action,
and that it participates to the fullest extent possible in the Agency's
decision-making process, this final EIS is being circulated for a 30-day
review as required by the CEQ, August l, 1973 Guidelines.
3
-------
MAILING LIST FOR SCARBOROUGH, MAINE EIS
U.S. Environmental P.rotection
Agency
Region II
Attn: Barbara Metzger
26 Federal Plaza, Room 907
New York, NY 10007
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region III
Attn: Stephen Torok
Curtis Building
Fifth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region IV
Attn: Bob Howard
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
Attn: Gene Wojcik
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicage, 111. 61604
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region VI
Attn: Clinton Spotts
1600* Patterson Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region VII
Attn: Mary O'Donnell
17 35 Baltimore Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64137
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region VIII
Attip Bill Geise, Jr.
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region IX
Attn: George Terramotto
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region X
Attn: Richard Thiel
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
U.S. Dept. of Health,
Education and Welfare
Attn: Donald Branum
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Lt. Christopher Gregory
U.S. Coast Guard
First Coast Guard District
150 Causeway Street
Boston, MA 02114
John A. Busterud, Ac. Chrmn.
Council on Environmental
Quality
711 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Col. John P. Chandler
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02154
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
Attn: Jordan Tannebaum
1522 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
U.S. Dept. of the Interior
Attn: Bruce Blanchard
Environmental Project Review
Washington, DC 20240
5
-------
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Attn: Regional Administrator
Mr. Donald George
Airports Division
U.S. Dept. of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
New England Region
12 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
Ms. Susan Watkins
Office of Federal Activities
(A-104)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Director, Office of Public
Affairs - A-107
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 2046C
Commander
Third Coast Guard District
Building 107
Governors Island
New York, NY 10004
Mr. Oliver Brazier
N.Y. Zoological Society
Weston Road
Lincoln, MA 01773
Mr. Robert E. Kirby, Regional
Administration
Federal Highway Administration
4 Normanskill Blvd.
Delmar, NY 12054
Dr. Hugh F. Mulligan
10 Fogg Drive
Durham, NH 03824
Conservation Law Foundattion
506 Statler Office Building
Boston, MA 02116
Government Publications
Off ice
University of Rhode Island
Library
Kingston, RI 02881
Mr. Peter Navarro
The Urban Services Group,
Inc .
Pennsylvania Building,
Suite 1230
425 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Mr. Paul J. Folkman
Post Office Box 294
Burlington, VT 05401
Ms. Catherine Whiting
c/o E.M.S.
Box 2142
So. Burlington, VT 05401
Ms. Mollie Beattle
Box 161
Charlotte, VT 05445
Maine Sierra Club
Post Office Box 1324
Bangor, ME 04401
Maine Audubon Society
57 Baxter Blvd.
Portland, ME 04101
Maine Association of
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 347
Kennebunkeport, ME 04046
U.S. Dept. of Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Attn: M. Evans
55 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH
Board of Trustees
Scarborough Sanitary District
P.O. Box 302
Scarborough, ME 04074
Ms. Mickey Kline
Council on Environ. Quality
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
6
-------
Mrs. Lillian C. Lee
6 Kirkwood Circle
Scarborough, ME
Mr- Rocco C. Risbara, Jr.
Risbara Construction Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 485
Scarborough, ME 04074
Dr. Howard C. Jackson,
378 Black Point Road
Scarborough, Maine 04074
Mr. Richard Manthorne
52 Columbus Road
Cape Elizabeth, Maine 04107
Mr. Linwood M. Higgens
10 Church Street
Scarsborough, ME 04074
Thomal Griffin Assoc., Co.
562 Congress Street
Portland, Maine 04101
Whitman and Howard, Inc.
89 Broad Street
Boston, Mass. 02110
Attn: Robert Hickman
George P. Lord, M.D.
7 Bramhall Street
Portland, Maine 04102
Mr. Charles H. Warren
371 Payne Road
Scarborough, Maine 04074
Editor
American Journal
Westbrook, Maine
Mr. Louis Sanik
Borden Inc.
180 E. Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Mr. W.E. Gallant
Snow Food Products
P.O. Box F
Old Orchard Beach, Maine 04064
Mr. William Brooks
26 Morning Street
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Frederick Sheehan
Greater Portland Council
of Governments
169-A Ocean Street
South Portland, Maine 04106
Risbara Construction Co, Inc.
P.O. Box 485
Scarborough, Maine 04074
Mr. Phineas Sprague
Birds Nest Street
Prouts Neck, Scarborough, ME
Editor
Portland Press Herald
Portland, Maine
Mr. Robert Steele
Town Manager
Town Hall
Scarborough, Maine 04074
Mr. Thomas G. Griffin, P.E.
65 Berkeley Street
Portland, ME 04103
Dino Gianatti
Kirkwood Road
Scarborough, Maine 04074
Dr. Richard Levy
128 Chadwick Street
Portland, Maine
Mr. Kenneth Cashman
15 Gunstock Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Ms. Sylvia Fengler
Mitchell Hill Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. H. Paul Friesema
Associate Professor
Northwestern University
Center for Urban Affairs
2040 Sheridan Road
Evanston, 111. 60201
7
-------
Mr. Scott G. McMullin
Appraiser
Desmond, Milne & Adams, Inc.
66 Pearl Street
Portland, ME 04111
Colorado State University
Morgan Library
Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Attn: F. Schmidt, Doc. Lib'n.
Mr. Paul D. Muskowitz
Science Monitor
Environmental Defense Fund
162 Old Town Road
East Setauket, NY 11733
Senator Edmund Muskie
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Senator William D. Hathaway
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Rep. David F. Emery
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Rep. William S. Cohen
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Mr. Steven Murray
30 Exchange Street
Portland, ME
Mr. Robert Pelletier
11 Gunstock Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Porter W. Frederick
17 Chamberlain Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Regional Administrator
Bur. of Sports, Fisheries
& Wildlife
Post Office & Court House
Boston, MA 02109
National Parks Service
Attn: District Chief
150 Causeway Street
Boston, Mass. 02109
U.S. Geological Survey
80 Broad Street
Boston, Mass. 02109
National Parks Service
Northeast Regional Director
14 3 South Third
Philadelphia, PA 19109
U.S, Dept. of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Washington, DC 20240
Regional Director
U.S. Dept of Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
600 Arch Street
Philadelphia., PA 19106
Col. John Mason
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02154
Dr. William Aron, Dir.
Office of Ecology & Env. Con.
Nat'l. Oceanic & Atmospheric
Admin. '
6001 Ex, Boulvard
Rockville, Maryland
Mr. Sherman K. Sprague
State Director
Farmer's Home Administration
Box 588
Montpelier, VT 05602
8
-------
Mr. Sidney R. Aller
Deputy Ass't. Secretary for
Environmental Affairs
Dept. of Commerce
Washington, DC 20230
Ms. Beth Dennis
A-95 Coordinator
Maine State Planning Office
184 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333
Mr. Osmond Bonsey, Exec. Dir.
Greater Portland Council
of Governments
169-A Ocean Street
South Portland, Maine 04106
Myra Harrison
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
Washington, DC 20240
Director
Maine Historic Pres. Comm.
31 Western Avenue
Augusta, Maine 04330
William R. Adams, Jr. Comm.
Dept. of Environ. Protection
State House
Augusta, Maine 04330
George Gormley, Chief
Bur. of Water Poll. Control
Dept. of Environ. Protection
State House
Augusta, Maine 04330
Earle W. Tibbetts, Director
Div. of Engineering
Maine Div. of Health & Wei.
State House
Augusta, Maine 04330
Ronald Dearborn , Chief
Div. of Solid Waste Mgmt.
Dept. of Environ. Protection
State House
Augusta, Maine 04330
Donald C. Hoxie, Ass't. Dir.
Health Engineering
Dept. of Health & Welfare
State House
Augusta, Maine 04330
Fred Pitman, Director
Bur. of Air Pollution Control
Dept. of Environ. Protection
State House
Augusta, Maine 04330
Dept. of Inland Fisheries
and Game
State Office Building
Augusta, Maine 04330
Attn: Mr. Lee Perry
Dept. of Sea & Shore Fish.
State House Annex
Augusta, Maine 04330
Maine Fish & Game Club
Route 90
Thomaston, Maine 04861
Dept. of Marine Resources
State House Annex
Augusta, Maine
Rep. George Sprague
State House
Boston, Mass. 02133
Mr. Daniel Boxer
c/o Pierce, Atwood, Scribner,
Allen & McKusik
One Monument Square
Portland, ME 04111
Mr, Charles Anderson
Town Planner/Engineer
P.O. Box 327
Scarborough, Maine 04074
Mr. Gerald Applebee
Chairman, Scarborough Sanitary
District
P.O. Box 302
Scarborough, Maine 04074
9
-------
Mr. Elwood R. Mitchell
Director Public Works
P.O. Box 327
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. David Jorden
14 Ash Swamp Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Robert Hodgdon
Ocean Avenue, Higgins
Beach
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. J . H . Lee
Kirkwood Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Ms. Valerie Lee
Apt. 50 B
550 Memorial Drive
Cambridge, MA 02139
Mr. Donald Dargie
Whitman & Howard
45 Williams Street
Wellesley, MA 02181
Paul Frinski
Bernstein, Shur, Syer & Nelson
One Monument Square
Portland, ME 04101
Mr. Karl R. Strauch
7 Holly Street
Scarborough, ME 04074
James Doughty
16 Bayberry Lane
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Ronald Stewart
City Manager
25 Cottage Road
South Portland, ME
Mr. William K. Bayley
East Grand Avenue Ext.
Pine Point, ME
Mr. Skip Werner
266 Black Point Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Messers. H. & G. Pillsbury
Holmes Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Dr. Joan Kelly
8 Bayview Avenue, Higgins Be.
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Shanker Steven
18 Morning Street
Higgins Beach
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mrs. L. Allen
Dunster Avenue
Scarborough, ME 04074
Ms. Beth Humstone
VT. State Planning Office
Pavillion Office Building
Montpelier, VT 05602
Theodore W. Logan
35 Hunnewell Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
John W. Griffin
100 Spurwink Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Kent
Town Manager
Town Hall
Old Orchard Beach, ME
Mr. Wallace Fengler
Mitchell Hill Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. W. Hillock
56 Saco Street
North Scarborough, ME
Mr. David MacDonald
5 Vesper Street
Higgins Beach
Scarborough, ME 04074
10
-------
Mr. Anthony F. Attardo
51 Black Point Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Clifford H. Goodall
15 Western Avenue
Augusta, Maine 04330
Mr, Richard Harvey
3 Fern Circle
Scarborough, Maine 04074
Mr. Neal A. Jannelle
15 Ferry Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. J.F. Hunnewell
Jocelyn Road
Prout Neck, Maine
Mr. Howard Jackson
378 Black Point Road
Scarborough, Maine 04074
Mr. Alvin Keene, Superintendent
Scarborough Sanitary District
P.O. Box 302
Scarborough, Maine 04074
Mr. Thomas Kuczowski
17 Martin Avenue
Scarborough, Maine 04074
Mr. Ogden Ross
Box 2 7 2
Manchester, MA 01944
Mr. Steve Murray
30 Exchange Street
Portland, Maine
Mr. Richard A. Hesslein
29 Highland Ave
Scarborough, ME 04074
Dana L. MacDonald
212 Holmes Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mrs. Nan G. Jackson
378 Black Point Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Elwin Barnes
17 Old Ironside Lane
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Frank J. Zayac
Greater Portland Council
of Governments
331 Veranda Street
Portland, ME 04103
Mr. Charles L. Webber
81 Winnocks Neck Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Thomas Gagnon
4 Plymouth Drive
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Ralph Lorfano
187 Spurwink Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Robert L. Lothrop
56 East Grand Ave Ext.
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Charles L. Bradford
16 Herbert Drive
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Donald J. Clark
271 Black Point Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Calvin Austin
264 U.S. Route #1
Scarborough, ME 04074
Mr. Charles J. Anderson
Planner/Engineer
69 Coachlantern Lane East
Scarborough, ME 04074
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
SUMMARY
I. BACKGROUND
1.1 Grant Applicant
1.2 Project History
(1) Cost Analysis
(2) Natural Environmental Impacts
(3) Secondary Impacts
1.3 Water Quality Problems in the Scarborough Area 4
1.3.1 Local Problems
1.3.2 Areawide Problems j_ 5
1.4 Objectives of the Proposed Action
1.5 Areawide Plans for Attainment and Retention of 7
Water Quality Standards
1.6 The Proposed Project j_7
II. PRESENT ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS
2.1 Natural Environment II- 1
2.1.1 Physical Features II- 1
(1) Topography
(2) Geology and Soils
2.1.2 Atmosphere 6
(1) Climate and Meteorology
(2) Air Quality
(3) Odor
(4) Noise
2.1.3 Sensitive Areas 11-10
(1) Surface Water
(2) Wetlands
(3) Beaches
(4) Flood Plains
(5) Woodlands
2.1.4 Water Quantity 11-12
(1) Surface Water
(2) Ground Water
13
-------
2.1.5 Water Quality
11-15
(1) Sources of Water Pollution
(2) Water Quality Standards
(3) Water Quality
2.1.6 Aquatic Life
(1) Plant Life
(2) Animal Life
2.1.7 Terrestrial Life
(1) Birds
(2) Land-Based Wildlife
(3) Vegetation
2.2 Man-Made Environment
2.2.1 Demographic Characteristics
(1) Population Profile
(2) Employment
(3) Income
2.2.2 Economic Characteristics
(1) State
(2) County and Local
2.2.3 Economic Projections
2.2.4 Present Land Use Planning and Patterns
(1) Administrative Planning Process
(2) Planning Related Activities
(3) Land Use Patterns
(4) Land Use Planning and Control
Regulations
2.2.5 Future Land Use
(1) Growth Trends
(2) Opportunities and Constraints
2.2.6 Historical/Archeological Sites
(1) National Register Properties
(2) Sites of Historic/Archeological and
Local Interest
11-20
11-21
11-24
11-25
11-29
11-32
11-35
11-46
11-53
14
-------
2.2.7 Community Facilities and Services 11-55
2.2.8 Municipal Fiscal Capabilities 11-58
2.2.9 Transportation Facilities 11-58
(1) Air
(2) Railroad Service
(3) Highways and Streets
2.2.10 Resource Use 11-60
(1) Energy
(2) Sand and Gravel Pits
2.2.11 Water Supply and Wastewater
Management 11-63
(1) Potable Water Supply
(2) Wastewater Management
2.2.12 Solid Waste And Sludge Management 11-66
(1) Solid Waste
(2) Sludge
III. ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Background and History III-l
3.2 Estimation of Waste Loads and Treatment Levels
for Alternatives III-2
3.3.Identification of Service Area and Projection of
Population Growth III-3
3.4 Waste Load Projections III-3
3.5 Identification of the Effluent Quality Classifica-
tions from the Maine DEP III-5
15
-------
3.6 Alternatives Considered During EIS Process III-5
3.6.1 Alternative A - Single Plant at
Prout's Neck III-5
3.6.2 Alternative B - Individual Package
Plants III-9
3.6.3 Alternative C - Expand and Upgrade
Oak Hill Plant III-9
3.6.4 Alternative D - Partial Transfer 111-13
3.6.5 Alternative E - Split Transfer 111-14
3.6.6 Aternative F - Full Transfer 111-16
3.6.7 Alternative G^Expand Oak Hill to Fore
River 111-16
3.6.8 Alternative H - No Action 111-19
3.7 Alternative Methods for Sludge Disposal 111-19
3.7.1 Alternatives for Disposal on Land 111-19
3.7.2 Requirements for Alternatives 111-21
3.7.3 Feasibility of the Alternatives 111-21
3.8 Costs of Alternatives 111-23
3.9 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 111-30
3.9.1 Environmental Effects of Alternative
A - Single Plant at Prout's Neck 111-30
3.9.2 Environmental Effects of Alternative
B - Individual Package Plants III-30
3.9.3 Environmental Effects of Alternative
C - Upgrading and Expanding the Oak
Hill Plant 111-31
3.9.4 Environmental Effects of Alternative
D - Partial Transfer to Old Orchard
Beach of South Portland III-31
3.9.5 Environmental Effects of Alternative
E - Split Transfer to Old Orchard
Beach of South Portland III-32
3.9.6 Environmental Effects of Alternative
F - Full Transfer to South Portland III-32
3.9.7 Environmental Effects of Alternative
G - Expand Oak Hill with Discharge
to Fore River III-32
3.9.8 Environmental Effects of Alternative
H - No Action III-33
16
-------
3.10 Political and Administrative Feasibility of
Alternatives
111-33
3.11 Overall Comparison of Alternatives 111-34
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
4.1 Project Subsystems IV-1
4.2 Facilities Operation and Maintenance IV-9
4.3 Project Costs, Financing and Scheduling IV-10
4.4. Cost Per Dwelling Unit IV-14
4.4.1 Projected Number of Users IV-14
4.4.2 Estimated Cost Per Dwelling IV-14
4.5 Description of Dredging Requirements of the
Proposed Project IV-17
4.5.1 General Location of the Wetlands and
Waterways Expected to be Dredged and Filled IV-18
4.5.2 Quantity of Dredged or Fill Material IV-18
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.1 Natural Environment V-l
5.1.1 Physical Environment V-l
5.1.2 Atmosphere V-2
5.1.3 Sensitive Natural Areas V-8
5.1.4 Water Quantity V-9
5.1.5 Water Quality V-9
5.1.6 Aquatic Life V-12
5.1.7 Terrestrial Life V-12
5.2 Man-Made Environment V-13
5.2.1 Demographic and Economic Conditions V-13
5.2.2 Land Use V-14
5.2.3 Historical/Archealogical Sites V-14
5.2.4 Community Facilities and Services V-14
5.2.5 Impacts on Municipal Infrastructure V-15
17
-------
VI. Mitigation Measures and Planning Recommendations
6.0 Introduction VI-1
6.1 Primary Impacts VI-1
6.2 Secondary Impacts VI-4
6.2.1 Community Development and Growth
Management Recoomendations VI-4
6.2.2 Presentation of Natural Resources VI-6
6.2.3 Environmental Performance Standards VI-7
18
-------
INDEX OF TABLES
Page
Number
2.1-1 Selected Flood Discharges, Nonesuch River 11-14
2.1-2 Marine Water Quality Classifications (October 11-17
1973)
2.1-3 Fresh Water Quality Standards 11-18
2.1-4 Coliform Levels in Water and Accumulated 11-19
Coliforms in Clams, Sampled in Typical
Clam-Growing Areas in Scarborough in April-
May 1971
2.2-1 Population by Decade and Growth Scenario 11-26
2.2-2 Projected Employment Levels 11-27
2.2-3 Projected Median Family Income 11-28
2.2-4 General Land Use Patterns in Scarborough 11-41
2.2-5 Zoning Districts in Scarborough 11-47
2.2-6 Residential Building Permit Activity 11-52
2.2-7 Energy Consumption in Scarborough 11-62
2.2.8 Public Water Supply in Scarborough 11-64
3.4-1 Industrial Contribution III-5
3.5-1 Estimated Treatment Levels for Alternatives for III-6
the Various Growth Scenarios
3.7-1 Comparison of Sludge Disposal Alternatives 111-22
3.8-1 Alternatives Cost Comparison 111-25
3.8-2 " " " 111-25
3 8-3 " " " 111-27
3". 8-4 " " " 111-28
3.8-5 " " " 111-29
19
-------
3.11-1
Ranking of Most Feasible Alternatives
111-37
4.1-1
Proposed Treatment Facility Design Data
IV-6
4.3-1
Capital Requirements for Phase I Construction
IV-11
4.3-2
Local Costs and Funding Sources
IV-12
4.3-3
Cost Per Dwelling Unit
IV-13
4.3-4
Operation and Maintenance Costs
IV-12
4.4-1
Cost of the Collection System
IV-16
4.4-2
Total Cost Per Dwelling Unit for Phase I
IV-17
5.1-1
GSA Construction Noise Specifications
V-6
5.2-1
Impacts of Moderate Growth Scenario
V-16
5.2-2
Man Power Needs for Moderate Growth Scenario
V-17
20
-------
•1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
•1
¦1
¦2
¦3
¦4
INDEX OF FIGURES Page
Number
General Location of Scarborough, Maine 1-2
Natural Drainageways in Scarborough II-3
Generalized Surficial Geology of Scarborough II-5
Waterbodies in Scarborough 11-11
Special Flood Hazard Areas in Scarborough 11-13
Marine Water Classifications 11-16
Clam Growing Areas in Scarborough 11-22
General Land Use Patterns 11-43
General Community Areas in Scarborough 11-45
Zoning Map for the Town of Scarborough 11-49
(Amended January 2, 1974)
COG Planning Activities 11-50
Proposed Shoreland Zoning 11-51
Major Community Facilities in Scarborough 11-56
Traffic Volume on Major Roads in Scarborough 1974 11-61
Areas Considered for Providing Sewer Service in III-4
Scarborough
Alternative A - Single Plant at Prout's Neck III-7
Alternative B - Individual Package Plants 111-10
Alternative C - Expanded and Upgraded Oak Hill Plant III-ll
Alternative D - Partial Transfer to Old Orchard Beach 111-12
21
-------
3.6-5 Alternative E - Split Transfer to Old 111-15
Orchard Beach and South Portland
3.6-6 Alternative F - Full Transfer to South Portland 111-17
3.6-7 Alternative G - New WWTP at Oak Hill with Dis- 111-18
charge to Fore River
3.7-1 Alternative Sludge Disposal Sites 111-20
4.1-1 Proposed Project IV-2
4.1-2 Site of Proposed Treatment Plant IV-3
4.1-3 Flow Diagram of Key Facilities IV-4
4.5-1 IV-19
thru Location of Facilities in Relation to Sensitive thru
4.5-4 Areas IV-22
22
-------
APPENDICES
Page
Number
A. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS A-l
B. NONDEGRADATION CRITERIA FOR AIR QUALITY B-l
C. NOISE: UNITS AND STANDARDS C-l
D. MAINE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS D-l
E. MAINE REGULATIONS ON ALTERING COASTAL WETLANDS E-l
F. MAINE GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL SHORELAND ZONING ORDINANCES F-l
23
-------
SUMMARY
25
-------
Summary and Conclusions
Final Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
Boston, Massachusetts
1. Name of Action
Administrative (x)
Legislative ( )
2. Description of Proposed Action
The proposed project involves Federal financial assistance
for the design and construction of a sewage treatment plant
and a series of interceptors, pump stations, and force mains
to service the six Consent Ordered areas plus Prout's Neck
and Pleasant Hill, within the Town of Scarborough. The pro-
posed sewage treatment facility is to be located on the site
of the existing Oak Hill treatment facility, and is designed
to handle 13 million gallons per day. This 1.8 mgd facility
is expected to serve a projected sewered population of
14,558 by the year 2000.
The effluent from the new Oak Hill treatment plant will be
discharged to the Fore River in So. Portland and the sludge
will be disposed at one of the sites recommended in this
Final EIS. It is estimated that the proposed project will
cost $17,970,000. Annual operation and maintenance costs
will be $187,000. The Estimated user charges will be ap-
proximately $158 with FHA funding and $178 without FHA as-
sistance.
Federal financial assistance has been requested under the
statutory authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. The Scarborough Sanitary District
will be applying to EPA, via construction grant applications,
for financial aid in the design and construction of the pro-
posed project.
3. Purpose of the Proposed Action
The primary purposes of the proposed project are basically
threefold: (1) provide an immediate and long term means
of properly handling Scarborough's wastewater needs for its
27
-------
present and future population (year 2000), (2) improve the
Town's surface and groundwater quality particularly as they
relate to the Scarborough estuary, since the Town's future
recreation and economic uses will benefit from such improve-
ments, and (3) protect the public health and general welfare
through the prevention of water related problems.
4. Project Evaluation
A. Needs Justification
Currently, only a small portion of the Town is served
by a public sewer system. The existing plant does not
have a capacity to service additional problem areas.
In 1972, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
identified six areas in Scarborough needing sewerage
systems to abate existing water pollution. These areas
include Higgins Beach, Blue Point, West Scarborough,
Pine Point, Oak Hill and Willowdale. The Town of
Scarborough has signed a consent order with the DEP to
provide sewerage systems in these areas.
These problem areas are discharging untreated sewage
into water bodies causing violation of water quality
standards in many areas.
B. Design Sewage Capacity
The proposed 1.8 mgd facility will be designed to serve
a population of 14,500 by the year 2000. The draft EIS
proposed a 3 mgd facility to be located on Prout's Neck.
This facility would have sewered a future population of
27,0.00. As a result of public opposition to the popu-
lation projections for which the 3 mgd facility was
being designed, three new population scenarios were de-
veloped by the Greater Portland Council of Governments,
and utilized by EPA, for the evaluation of alternative
treatment schemes. These alternatives were presented
in a Supplement to the Draft EIS on October 197 6.
Subsequent to the development of the growth projection,
the Planning Board, Town Council and Sanitary District
elected to adopt the moderate growth scenario which
projects 18,000 as a total population in the next 25
years. This projection in turn is equivilent to the 1.8
mgd future waste treatment needs for the Town.
C. Environment Benefits and Costs
The anticipated beneficial effects of the proposed pro-
ject include:
(1) Eliminates many of Scarborough's existing
failing septic systems in areas immediately
adjacent to surface water bodies.
(2) Discontinues raw sewage discharges at Higgins
28
-------
Beach and other problem areas cited in the
Consent Order.
(3) Pollution abatement would help reopen the
closed clam growing areas in Scarborough
which have been closed as a result of pol-
lution from point and non-point sources.
(4) The proposed project could guide and direct
future growth in a manner so as not to impact
upon areas designated as environmentally sen-
sitive. The opportunity to guide growth and
develop environmental performance standards
is now available since the Town is in the
process of developing a new comprehensive plan.
As a result, the beneficial environmental impacts of the
project will cause the improvement of ground and surface
water quality, improvement of aquatic habitat, increase
Scarborough's recreational opportunities, and reduce pub-
lic health hazards.
Short-term adverse impacts are expected to occur during
the construction of the project. These construction
associated impacts will be primarily minor in nature such
as temporarily increased erosion and sedimentation, nutri-
ent loading to water bodies adjacent to construction activi-
ties, disturbance of aquatic and wildlife habitats and
disruption of social, economic and aesthetic conditions.
However, many of these impacts can be mitigated through
sound conservation and construction techniques.
Long-term adverse impacts are related to impacts on land
use, socioeconomic characteristics and air and water
quality. These impacts have the potential of being moder-
ate to significant and can be mitigated only through
adoption and/or enforcement of appropriate controls.
5. Alternatives Considered
A number of different alternatives have been considered
during the EIS process. The draft EIS evaluated the
following five alternatives:
A proposed 3 mgd secondary treatment plant at Prout1s
Neck with an ocean outfall to treat all of
Scarborough's wastewater.
Full transfer of Scarborough's wastes to South
Portland.
, Split transfer to Old Orchard Beach and South Portland.
29
-------
, Two treatment plants in Scarborough to handle the
wastes internally.
No Action alternative.
Due to public comments, further analysis was done on the
above alternatives plus the following three additional
ones. This additional evaluation was presented in a
Supplement to the Draft EIS in October 1976.
Individual package plants
Partial transfer, which would involve some wastewater
transfer from Pine point to Old Orchard Beach with
the remaining flows going to an expanded and upgraded
Oak Hill Plant.
Expanded and upgraded Oak Hill plant to treat the
total waste load.
Subsequent to the release of the Supplemental Report, a
new alternative was presented at one public workshop.
The new alternative was:
Expand the Oak Hill facility with a discharge to the
Fore River.
Throughout the ;EIS process, there have been extensive pub-
lic comments. The above solution, which in fact is the
recommended action, results from continued public par-
ticipation in an effort to develop the most cost-effective
and environmentally sound alternative for the Town.
6. Public Comment
The Draft EIS was filed with the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) in January 197 6. The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) Region I advertised and held a public
hearing at the Scarborough Junior High School on January
29, 1976 on the Draft EIS . In addition to the minimum
required comment period of 45 days, the public hearing
record was held open until March 1, 197 6. Comments and
responses are contained in Volume II of this Final EIS.
In April 1976, EPA sponsored a public workshop with all
interested citizens and local agencies invited. The pur-
pose of the workshop was to generate communication between
local agencies and citizen groups who were opposed to the
proposed project. The major issue revolved around a
future growth management plan for the Town.
30
-------
In May 1976, EPA began work preparing a supplement to the
Draft EIS. This supplement reevaluated several previous-
ly considered alternatives as well as studied several new
options. Each alternative was analyzed with respect to the
low, medium and high growth scenarios developed by the
Greater Portland Council of Governments. Local agencies
and interested citizens were contacted in order to obtain
public input into the evaluation of new possible altern-
atives .
The supplement was released in October 1976 and several public
workshops were held in November of 1976. EPA received
many comments on the supplement to the Draft EIS in writh-
ing and at the workshops. Most comments favored alterna-^
tive F, the full transfer to South Portland.
While the Draft Supplement was under review for public
response, EPA became aware of a serious infiltration prob-
lem existing in the South Portland sewerage system.
Efforts were made to determine whether this infiltration
problem precluded Scarborough from participating in the
regional alternative. EPA and the Maine DEP agree that
Alternative F no longer is technically feasible.
As an option to Alternative Ff several groups petitioned
EPA to study a new solution involving the construction of
a new wastewater treatment facility at Oak Hill with a
discharge to the Fore River in South Portland. This
alternative was analyzed and accepted by EPA to be cost-
effective and environmentally sound.
Because of the extent of public and local input in the
development of this new alternativef EPA has determined
that public response in the form of a revised Draft EIS
is not necessary. The Final EIS will undergo a 30 day
review period for public comments.
EPA invites all interested citizens and agencies to sub-
mit their comments on the recommended plan. Consideration
will be given to all comments received during the review
period.
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposed project will achieve the stated objectives
of the Scarborough Sanitary District and is consistent
with the goals and objectives of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-^500) . The
project represents the most administratively feasible,
31
-------
cost-effective, and environmentally acceptable approach
to abate water pollution in and for the Town of
Scarborough.
The Final EIS proposes a series of measures, both
administrative and legal, which should be incorporated
by the Town in order to ensure attainment of the projects
anticipated benefits and to mitigate adverse environmental
impacts. These measures are summarized as follows:
a. It is extremely important that action be taken to
eliminate the potential of system overflows or
bypassing of sewage into old lines during instances
of flooding or plant malfunction. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Sanitary District remove or
render inoperable all old sewer outfalls. It is
anticipated that the installation of the proposed
treatment facility will enhance water quality and
cleanse shellfish areas that are currently closed.
b. It is recommended that the Town of Scarborough give
high priority to the development of a growth manage-
ment plan structured around the moderate growth
scenario. While preparing this plan, the Town should
consider adopting interim development controls
regarding new residential growth in order to provide
flexibility in keeping growth options open, and for
the protection of natural resource areas.
c. Because of the unique character of the marshlands in
the Town, some of which are in close proximity to the
project area, development in these areas must be
carefully regulated under authority of Title
38 M.R.S.A. §471-478 (1975) which allows permits
for certain activities in coastal wetlands. In
addition to this wetlands protection authority which
the Town may assume from the Maine Board of Environmental
Protection, one planning recommendation is to establish
a "green belt" or buffer zone with strict performance
criteria which would control and define the permissible
uses in districts adjacent to environmentally sensitive
areas. Using environmental performance standards as
general regulations for all development provides the
most important type of controls for resource manage-
ment and protection. Another possibility is to
develop stronger controls for regulating development
as described in "e" below. Essentially these local
controls would supplement the existing regulatory
provisions under the Maine Shoreland Zoning Ordinance.
d. It is recommended that the Sanitary District require
in their contract specification that contractors
32
-------
employ mitigation measures to control soil erosion
and sedimentation problems resulting from construction
activities. Enforcement of these mitigation measures
is essential to preserving water quality. Detailed
suggestions on mitigative measures during construction
are included in Chapter 6.
Since there is a potential for limited development
in areas that are protected under the mandatory
Shoreland Zoning and Subdivision Control Act,
Title 12 M.R.S.A. Sections 4811-4814, it is essential
that the Town strictly enforce the provisions of its
ordinances enacted pursuant to this authority to
control and minimize any such development. It is
recommended that the offer of federal assistance
include a special condition emphasizing the need for
strict enforcement of shoreland zoning ordinances.
It is further recommended that the Planning Board
and Conservation Commission consider the need to
strengthen its shoreland ordinance while preparing
its new growth management plant.
It is recommended that the Sanitary District and
the Planning Board work together to develop
multiple uses of sewerline easements and right-of-
way. Such uses may include green belts, walkways
or bicycle trails in areas offering views of the
marshlands.
33
-------
CHAPTERB
BACKGROUND
35
-------
I. BACKGROUND
According to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for a
major Federal action with potential for causing significant adverse
effects on the environment.d) According to the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendment of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is empowered to make Federal grants to
local municipalities for planning, designing and constructing waste-,2)
water collection and treatment facilities within their jurisdiction.
In the case of this EIS, the EPA, Region I, Boston, Massa-
chusetts, is considering an application from the Scarborough Sanitary
District, Scarborough, Maine, requesting Federal aid for designing
and constructing wastewater collection and treatment facilities in
Scarborough, Maine.
The Environmental Protection Agency determined that the pro-
posed project submitted by the Sanitary District could have an adverse
impact on the environment, thereby requiring that the potential impacts
be evaluated through the EIS process. This decision came as a result
of significant public controversy regarding the project.
The EIS is prepared in accordance with the CEQ and EPA
guidelines. '^) it examines the existing environment in Scarborough
in terms of the natural features, such as geology and wildlife, and
socioeconomic features, such as schools and employment. It analyzes
the alternative means of solving the water quality problems in Scar-
borough in terms of their cost effectiveness and explains the reasons
for selecting the proposed project. The proposed project is described
in detail and its primary and secondary effects on the environment
are presented. Finally, measures to mitigate adverse environmental
effects are discussed.
This chapter describes the grant applicant, history of the
project, water pollution problems in the area and the water quality
objectives of the proposed project.
1.1 GRANT APPLICANT
The town of Scarborough is located in Cumberland County,
Maine and is a part of the Greater Portland area. Figure 1.1^1 shows
the general location of Scarborough. (4) Detailed maps of Scarborough
are presented in later chapters, The Scarborough Sanitary District,
which has applied for the Federal grant, encompasses that portion of
the town of Scarborough east of the Maine Turnpike,
1.2 PROJECT HISTORY
The town of Scarborough constructed its first sewage treatment
facility in 1962-196 3, consisting of a primary sewage treatment plant
and a small interceptor sewer designed primarily to serve the Scarborough
High School complex. In 1963, E.C. Jordan, Inc., proposed four treat-
ment plants to be built to handle all domestic and industrial wastes
from Scarborough, with a fifth plant to be built at Prout's Neck in the
future. (-5) no action was taken on the proposal.
1-1
-------
FIGURE 1.1-1
General Location of
Scarborough, Maine
A^NADA
|
I
I
MAINE
.BANGOR
AUGUSTA
NEW
HAMPSHIRE
1>
-jiWx
c
• j.
PORTLAND If
SCARBOROUGH
CONCORD
PORTSMOUTH?.*
VT. I
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
j f BOSTON
MAS SACHUSET TS
ha"rttord I ¦ PROV^"
3
CONN
I
R. I.
&
•'p*
LOCATION MAP
SCALE l"=37.5 MILES
1-2
-------
During the next five years, the town sought commercial and
industrial development along Route 1 and Pleasant Hill Road. The
town retained Whitman and Howard, Inc., to design an additional sewer-
age system. In 1966, Whitman and Howard, Inc. recommended upgrading
the existing treatment facility from primary to secondary treatment.
Based on their recommendation, a secondary treatment plant with a
capacity to handle 320,000 gallons per day of wastewater flow was
constructed during 1967-1969.
In 196 7, Whitman and Howard, Inc. reviewed alternative means
of providing more economical collection and treatment of all wastewaters
within the town of Scarborough and recommended a two-plant system in-
stead of the five-plant system proposed by E,C. Jordan, Inc. '¦ ' The
two-plant system would be more economical to operate and maintain than
the five-plant system. Also, it would discharge over 75 percent of
the treated effluent to the ocean rather than to the estuaries as in
the five-plant system. The design of the two^plant system was based
on 25-year design population of 13,000,
During the next few years following the 1967 study, the
population of Scarborough increased rapidly. Although no new treat-
ment plants were built, construction of additional interceptor and
collection sewers took place. In 19 72, Whitman and Howard, Inc. pre-
pared an update of the 196 7 report, in which they predicted that the
population would increase to 27,000 by 1997.(7) This increase in
population over the 1967 predictions necessitated a change in earlier
treatment facilities plans. In their 1972 report, Whitman and Howard,
Inc. evaluated three alternative wastewater collection and treatment
systems for the town of Scarborough:
An internal Scarborough system with a single treat-
ment plant
An internal Scarborough system with two treatment
plants as proposed in their 1967 report but with
greater capacities
Transfer of wastes from Scarborough to a treatment
plant in South Portland.
They recommended the internal system with a single treatment plant as
the most cost-effective system to the town of Scarborough.
In 1974, Whitman and Howard, Inc. presented a report on
water quality off Prout's Neck which determined the optimum economical
location of the proposed ocean outfall.(8) The report concluded that
treated effluent discharged from the outfall would not cause violation
of marine water quality standards.
The results of the outfall location study and an environmen-
tal assessment of the proposed project prepared by Whitman and Howard,
Inc., were discussed at two public meetings held in Scarborough in
June and July, 1974. (9) Significant comments against the proposed
project raised during these meetings are discussed below:
(1) Cost Analysis
Questions were raised about how Whitman and Howard, Inc.,
1-3
-------
compared the cost of the proposed action to the alternative involv-
ing transfer of wastes to South Portland, a question was also
raised about the possibility of transferring part of Scarborough's
wastes to Old Orchard. As a result, the State of Maine hired Hunter
and Ballew Associates to review and update the cost estimates pre-
pared by Whitman and Howard, Inc., in 1972.
Hunter and Ballew Associates analyzed three alternative
systems:
The construction of a new 3 mgd* wastewater treatment
facility at Prout's Neck with an ocean discharge
Total transfer of wastes from Scarborough to a treat-
ment plant in South Portland
Split transfer of wastes from Scarborough to treatment
plants in Old Orchard Beach and South Portland.
The Hunter and Ballew Associates' study substantiated the conclu-
sions of Whitman and Howard, Inc., that the Prout's Neck alternative
would have lower capital cost to the town of Scarborough, although
the total regional capital costs of the three alternatives would
not be significantly different.
(2) Natural Environmental Impacts
Questions were raised about the validity of Whitman and
Howard's interpretation of their effluent dispersion study results.
Some people were concerned about the treated effluent potentially
reaching swimming areas in Scarborough and the human health hazards
associated with live viruses which may have the potential for remain-
ing in the bathing areas.
(3) Secondary Impacts
Some people felt that the availability of additional sewerage
would stimulate excessive growth in the town with subsequent socio-
economic as well as natural environmental effects.
1.3 WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS IN THE SCARBOROUGH AREA
In addition to the local water quality in the town of Scar-
borough, there are areawide Water quality problems in the Greater
Portland Area which have direct or indirect effects on Scarborough's
water quality. These are discussed below.
In April, 1975, The Environmental Protection Agency issued
a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on
the proposed design and eventual construction of a wastewater treat-
ment and collection facility to be located at Prout's Neck. The
Notice of Intent indicated that the proposed action could have a sig-
nificant impact on the environment within Scarborough, and that a
further evaluation of both population projections and secondary
impacts, such as social, physical and economic considerations, needed
to be analyzed.
~Million gallons per day
1-4
-------
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released in
December 1975 and a public hearing was conducted at the end of Janu-
ary. Based on the availability of information at that time, then
existing State policies, cost, environmental effects, and political
and administrative feasibility, the draft EIS concluded that the
proposed 3 mgd facility at Prout's Neck was the most feasible alter-
native among the five wastewater collection and treatment alterna-
tives considered to serve the Scarborough Sanitary District. During
the public review of the draft EIS, several issues were raised regard-
ing the alternatives evaluation. These issues included the following
ideas:
The proposed 3 mgd facility at Prout's Neck would have
too great a capacity and would induce undesirable
growth in Scarborough.
Multiple small treatment plants to serve the existing
population could be more economical and would prevent
undesirable growth.
The feasibility of the alternatives involving transfer
of Scarborough's wastewater to South Portland and Old
Orchard Beach were not adequately evaluated.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) also
indicated its willingness to consider individual package plants for
the various areas in Scarborough, provided that the effluent quality
met the DEP requirements. In light of the public comments and the
change in DEP's policy, the Environmental Protection Agency initiated
further study to consider the above concerns and issued a supplement
to the original draft EIS in October 1976. A series of workshops
were held during November to obtain public comment on the supplemental
report.
The supplemental report did not recommend one specific
"alternative" but evaluated six alternatives with respect to cost,
public health, administrative feasibility, primary effects, secondary
effects, and political controversy. The report also considered the
impacts of each alternative with respect to the low, moderate and
high population scenario developed by the Portland COG 208 program.
Subsequent to the preparation of the supplemental report,
EPA was informed by the City of South Portland and the Maine DEP that
the alternative of full transfer of Scarborough's wastewater to the
South Portland treatment facility was an unacceptable solution.
This was due to an excessive infiltration problem in the
South Portland sewerage system and an apparently inadequate capacity
at the South Portland treatment facility to treat flows from both
South Portland and Scarborough. This alternative of full transfer
to South Portland looked favorable with respect to the evaluation
criteria and received extreme interest at the public workshops.
EPA, realizing the interest in this alternative conducted
several meetings with agency officials from both communities, but
due to severe problems with treatment capacity and excessive infil-
1-5
-------
tration this alternative no longer appears technically feasible.
During the public workshop, a recommendation was presented
to investigate a new alternative. This alternative, which is analyzed
in the Alternatives Chapter, would involve constructing a 1.8 mgd
wastewater treatment facility at the site of the present treatment
plant at Oak Hill. Effluent from the plant would be pumped along
the old railroad grade right-of-way to the Fore River, Although this
alternative (Alternative G) was not considered in the original draft
EIS nor in the supplement to the Draft, EPA concludes that this alter-
native represents the most environmentally acceptable and cost-effective
solution for the people of Scarborough,
1.3.1 Local Problems
Currently, only a small part of the town of Scarborough is
served by a public sewage treatment plant, which does not have capacity
to treat additional wastewater. In the remaining part of the town
the sewage is either treated in individual septic systems or no treat-
ment is provided. Also, poor soil conditions have caused malfunction
of the septic systems throughout the town.(7) Because of the lack of
adequate sewage collection and treatment facilities, untreated sewage
is being discharged into water bodies in the town of Scarborough cau-
sing violation of water quality standards in many areas. The shell-
fish harvesting areas have, therefore, been closed for recreational
harvesting. (.8) A popular beach known as Higgins Beach was also tempo-
rarily closed for bathing because of water pollution.
In 1972, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
identified six areas in Scarborough needing sewerage systems to abate
existing water pollution. These areas included Higgins Beach, Blue
Point, West Scarborough, Pine Point, Oak Hill and Willowdale. The
town of Scarborough has signed a consent order with the DEP to provide
sewerage systems in these areas.(12)
1.3.2 Areawide Problems
The water quality problems in the Greater Portland area are
similar to those in Scarborough. In addition, runoff from nonpoint
sources is contributing to waste loads to Lake Sebago. This is the
principal source of domestic water supply to the Greater Portland
area including Scarborough.
Although frequent small oil spills are a continuing source of pollution
in the Portland Harbor, they have not affected Scarborough's waters.
Occasional major oil spills, however, have resulted in the closing of
shellfish-growing areas in the Greater Portland area. Because of
difficulty in finding suitable disposal sites, management of septic
and treatment plant sludge is causing regionwide problems. These
problems and others, such as urban run-off and storm water drainage
in the Portland area, are a major part of the Portland COG 208 water
quality management plan.
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The objectives of the proposed project are to abate the
steadily increasing water pollution levels in and around Scarborough,
to attain the applicable water quality standards and to maintain them
by provisions for orderly growth in the town of Scarborough. The
1-6
-------
alternative recommended is considered by EPA to be the most environ-
mentally acceptable and cost-effective solution to abate water
quality problems: in the study area.
1.5 AREAWIDE PLANS FOR ATTAINMENT AND RETENTION OF WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
The Greater Portland Council of Government (GPCOG) is
responsible for developing an Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Plan for the Greater Portland area. The GPCOG was designated as the
representative planning agency for this area by the Governor of Maine
in March, 1974, pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as amended in 1972. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency approved the designation and earmarked $770,000to pay 100 per-
cent of the cost of the planning process over two years.(11)
The GPCOG is a voluntary association of 17 cities and towns
in the Portland area including the town of Scarborough. The planning
area consists of 19 municipalities including 16 members of the GPCOG.
The GPCOG is in its second year of planning.
1.6 THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project calls for construction of a 1.8 mgd
secondary treatment facility, pumping stations, interceptor sewers,
and an outfall. The treatment plant will be located at the site of
the present facility at Oak Hill with the effluent pumped through
an outfall located along the old railroad grade to the Fore River.
The project will service the entire portion of the town of Scarborough
east of the Maine Turnpike. The plans call for a two-phase construc-
tion program to be completed by December, 1984.
The total cost of Phase I on the project is estimated at
$17,970,000. Of this, $6,129,000 are eligible for Federal and State
funding. The proposed operation and maintenance costs are $187,000
per year. The estimated annual uses cost is $158.00 per dwelling
with Farmers HOme Administration assistance and $178. per dwelling
without FHA assistance.*
*See Chapter IV for detail cost description
-------
REFERENCES
1. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190
2. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public
Law 92-500
3. Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements: Guidelines,
Title 60 Protection of Environment, Chapter V. Council of Environ-
mental Quality Part 1500, Federal Register, Volume 38, No. 147,
August 1, 1973.
4. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Massachusetts
5. Comprehensive Development Plan for Scarborough, Maine, James W.
Sewall Company, 1969.
6. Report on Pollution Abatement for the Town of Scarborough, Maine,
Whitman and Howard, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, December, 1967.
7. Supplementary Report on Proposed Sewerage System, Scarborough
Sanitary District, Scarborough, Maine, Whitman and Howard, Inc.,
Boston, Massachusetts, November 1972.
8. Optimum Location of the Proposed Prout's Neck Ocean Outfall, Scar-
borough, Maine, Whitman and Howard, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts,
March, 1974.
9. Public Hearings on the Proposed Prout's Neck Sewage Treatment
Plant in Scarborough, Maine, June and July 1974.
10. Pollution Control Program Review Scarborough, Maine, for Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, Hunter-Ballew Associates,
Portland, Maine, July 17, 1974.
11. Areawide Water Quality Management Planning Work Plan, Greater
Portland Council of Governments, South Portland, Maine, April, 1975.
12. Consent Order, Maine Department of Environmental Protection,
November, 1972.
13. Private communication with Mr. Bradford Sterl, Regional Biologist,
Maine Department of Marine Resources, Augusta, Maine, July 1975.
1-8
-------
CHAPTER II
PRESENT ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS
-------
II. PRESENT ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS
In order to provide a basis for analyzing the impact
of the proposed actions on the environment, this chapter describes
the existing environmental setting. The setting can be divided
into two parts: natural environment and man-made environment. The
natural environment includes physical, chemical, and biological
environment, whereas the man-made environment includes social, cultu-
ral, and economic environment.
Since each of the alternatives involve facilities located
in, and would serve the portion of the town of Scarborough east of
the Maine Turnpike, the discussion of the existing environment will
focus on this area. Consideration will be given to neighboring
areas as necessary.
2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Air, water, land and plant and animal life make up the
natural environment. The discussion of these elements is organized
in the following subsections:
Physical features
Atmosphere
Sensitive natural areas
Water quantity
Water quality
Aquatic life
Terrestrial life.
2.1.1 Physical Features
Local topography, geology, and soil composition are the
important physical features that can influence land use.
(1) Topography
The terrain of the study area is generally flat.
The highest point in this area is Scottow Hill
with an elevation of 150 feet above mean sea
level.(1) Other points include include Blue Point
Hill, with elevations ranging from 80 feet to 140
feet. The elevations in the area west of the
turnpike are generally higher than those in the
eastern portion. The highest elevation there is
215 feet. The natural drainageways in Scarborough
principally consist of the various rivers flowing
through the town to the ocean. These and other
natural drainageways are illustrated in Figure 2.1-1.
The drainage areas served by two adjacent drainage-
ways are separated from each other by a ridge or
elevated portion between the two. Figure 2.1-1
also show boundaries of the various drainageways.
II- 1
-------
(2) Geology and Soils
Geological studies provide data related to the
formation and structure of subsurface as well as
surface materials of the earth. Such formation is
useful in determining the seismicity, availability
of ground water and mineral resources, and develop-
mental suitability of the land. The subsurface
structure and soils are discussed separately below.
Subsurface structure. Relatively little
is known about the geology of Scarborough
and its neighboring communities. The
information included here is based on a
generalized description of the geology of
Maine. Maine nas underlying bedrock at
depths varying from the surface to more
than 300 feet below in some river valleys.
The bedrock found in Scarborough and its
neighboring communities is generally made
up of various types of schists and slates.' '
There are metamorphic rocks created by trans-
formation of other types of rocks by heat,
water, and pressure.
The east coast of the United States and
Canada is generally considered to be rela- ..
tively free from major earthquake activity. *
Maine is adjacent to active regions in Canada,
both in New Brunswick and along the St.
Lawrence River. According to the "Earthquake
History of the United States, "23 earthquakes
are listed within Maine's borders. Most were
felt over an area of less than 20,000 square
miles, but the 1904 shock was felt over at
least 150,000 square miles. The State of
Maine may be considered an area of minor acti-
vity with an occasional severe tremor within
or near its borders." (5) earthquakes
have been reported within a 25 mile radius
of Scarborough.
The availability of groundwater will be
discussed in the section on water quality.
Soils. Along the Atlantic coast in Maine,
the surface material consists predominantly
of marine clay, silt, and some sand. The
soils in Scarborough have been classified
into approximately 50 different soil series.
A soil series is made up of soils that have
surface layers that are similar in thickness,
II-2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
arrangement, and other important charac-
teristics. A landscape that has a dis-
tinctive proportional pattern of soils,
makes up a soil association. Scarborough
has 3 predominant soil associations:
Windsor-Hickely-Deerfield, Hollis-Windsor-
Au Ores, and Scantic-Buxton-Windsor.(71
Detailed description of the soils in
Scarborough is given in the Scarborough
Soil Survey.* Generalized surface charac-
teristics in Scarborough are illustrated
in Figure 2.1-2 and are briefly described
below.
Shallow Ledge - "The areas desig-
nated as shallow ledge have thin soil cover,
i.e., of less than four or five feet thick-
ness, or no soil cover at all. Occasional
deeper pockets may occur due to undulations
of the ledge surface. Utilization of ledge
terrain will be limited by higher costs of
excavation for foundations and public util-
ities. Heavy structures, such as industrial
or public buildings, would have stable foun-
dations in these areas. Septic tank sewage
disposal is often not feasible in areas with
shallow ledge." (2)
Marine Clay - "This material is char-
acterized by poor internal drainage and fair
bearing capacity. Its stability may be ade-
quate to support light structures, such as
homes, but its bearing capacity under heavy
loads is questionable. Disposal of septic
wastes should not be attempted in clay."
Sand and Gravel - "These are granu-
lar and loosely compacted materials. They
have good internal drainage usually permit-
ting septic tank sewage disposal, except when
found in low areas with a high water table.
Bearing capacity is fair to good."(2)
*Interim Soil Survey Report Scarborough Township, Cumber-
land County, Maine, Cumberland County Soil and Water
Conservation District, Soil Conservation Service, USDA,
et al, 1971.
II- 4
-------
Swamps and Marshes - "Most of the
swamps and marshes consist of decayed
organic material (peat). They are very
poorly drained and unstable foundation
material. The marshes sometimes are
underlain by sand. At Nonesuch Cove,
five to six feet of peat was observed,
underlain by sand. This appears to be
the condition in the estuaries of
Scarborough River, Nonesuch River and
Mill Brook. Here the sand would pro-
vide a more stable base than a deep
deposit of peat."(2)
2.1.2 Atmosphere
This section discusses climate meteorology, air qua-
lity, odor, and noise. Although existing levels are primarily
determined by human activities, air quality, odor, and noise are
included here as they form part of the physical environment.
(1} Climate and Meteorology
The climate in Scarborough is characterized
by cool to moderately warm summers and fairly
cold winters.
Normal annual precipitation is 40 inches, in-
cluding the water equivalent of snowfall, which
varies considerably from year to year. (6) The
average seasonal total is about 7 0 inches, and the
average seasonal maximum depth of snow on the
ground at any one time is 15 to 20 inches.(7)
The average annual temperature is 45°F.
Temperatures well below zero are recorded frequent-
ly each winter. The lowest recorded temperature to
date is -39.0°F; the highest is 100°F.
On the average, there are 108 clear days,
97 partly cloudy days, and 160 cloudy days in a year.
Winds in the Portland area are generally quite
light. The annual mean wind speed is 8.8 mph and
the prevailing wind direction is from the south. The
highest wind velocities are confined mostly to March
and November. The occasional northeasterly gales have
recorded velocities up to 76 mph in these months. But
these gales have normally lost much of their severity
before reaching the coast of Maine.(6)
11-6
-------
(2) Air Quality
Ambient air quality is determined by the concen-
tration of air pollutants in the air. Federal air qual-
ity standards have been established for six pollutants:
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter,
hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and photochemical oxi-
dants. The State of Maine has also established state
air quality standards which are in some cases more
stringent than the federal standards. These standards
include primary and secondary standards. The primary
standards were developed to protect the public health.
The secondary standards were developed to protect the
public welfare, which included protection against dam-
age to property, vegetation, and aesthetics. These
standards are given in Appendix A.
Scarborough is part of the Metropolitan Port-
land Air Quality Control Region (AQCR). Although
there are a number of air quality monitoring sta-
tions operated by the Maine Department of Environ-
mental Protection in the AQCR, none of them is located
in Scarborough. The nearest air quality monitoring sta-
tion to Scarborough is located at South Portland Junior
High School in South Portland. It is approximately two
miles northeast from the boundary between Scarborough
and South Portland and about six miles northeast from
the site of the proposed sewage treatment plant. This
station monitors only sulfur dioxide and particulates.
Monitoring of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and oxi-
dants is conducted at monitoring stations located in
Portland. In the absence of actual monitoring in
Scarborough, the data obtained at the monitoring sta-
tions in South Portland and Portland must be used to
provide some indication of the air quality in Scarborough
as discussed below.
The highest sulfar dioxide (SO ) concentrations have
been recorded in downtown Portland. At monitoring stations
away from downtown Portland, lower SO levels have been re-
corded. The annual average levels recorded at South Port-
land Junior High School in 1974 were 10.6 mg/m , well be-
low the ambient air quality standards.(8) The ambient
SO2 levels in Scarborough would be even lower because:
It is further away from Portland
It does not have large industrial plants
The prevailing wind is from the South.
The particulate concentration in the Metropolitan Port-
land area is variable. However, for the same reasons
as above, the particulate levels in Scarborough would
be lower than those in Portland and South Portland. The
annual average levels recorded at the South Portland
Junior High School in 1974 were 32 mg/m3, also below
the corresponding ambient standards.(8)
II-7
-------
The concentration of nitrogen oxides, photo-chemical
oxidants, and carbon monoxide in the Portland area is
below the ambient standards. The federal motor vehicle
emission standards are expected to reduce the emissions
from future model year vehicles such that the ambient
concentrations of these pollutants would be maintained
below the ambient standands. (9) Ambient concentrations
of hydrocarbons have not been monitored. However, since
hydrocarbons take part in the formation of photochemical
oxidants, and since the concentration of the photochemical
oxidants is below the ambient standards, the ambient con-
centration of hydrocarbons would also be below the ambient
standards.
(3) Odor
Major sources of odor in Scarborough would be
the Oak Hill sewage treatment plant, discharges of
untreated sewage, and the food processing plants. How-
ever, no odor complaints have been recorded against the
sewage treatment plant or the food processing industries.
There have been some complaints about odor and floating
objects in the Higgins Beach area, where untreated sewage
is being discharged into an undersized septic tank. (10)
(4) Noise
Because of its adverse effects on normal human activ-
ities as well as hearing ability, the public is increas-
ingly concerned with the problem of noise pollution. In
certain cases governmental noise level standards have been
established.* For example, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) has established noise level
standards within industrial plants to protect the workers
from exposure to excessive noise. The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EP£) is in the process of establishing stan-
dards for product noise generated by different industrial
and commercial products such as snowmobiles and air com-
pressors. Regulation of community noise is generally the
responsibility of local governments. The EPA, however has
recommended guidelines for allowable noise levels in the
community.*
The town of Scarborough has a noise ordinance in
effect.(11) According to the ordinance, noise may equal
but not exceed, during any consecutive 8-hour period, an
average of 75 decibels at a frequency of 600 cycles per
second (cps) measured at any property boundary line. Dur-
ing the peak activity of 60 minutes in a 24-hour period a
noise may not exceed 100 decibels at 600 cps when measured.
*See Appendix C for noise standards and discussion of the units of
measurements.
II-8
-------
at the source. This ordinance is too vague and therefore
difficult to enforce. Also, since the town does not
have the necessary monitoring instruments, the
ordinance has not been enforced yet.
Prominent sources of noise in Scarborough
include motor vehicles, construction activity, fire
engine sirens, overhead aircraft flights, and
trains.
There have been no reported noise measurements made
in Scarborough. Based on the methods used for estimat-
ing highway noise, the following general outdoor noise
levels are estimated for Scarborough.(12) These
noise levels are given in terms of L^g, which represents
the noise level exceeded for 10 percent of the time.
Approximate day-night sound level (Ldn) can be estimated
from the Lio by using a simple empirical procedure.+
Along Route 1, which carries about 15,000 vehicles
per day, (13) the Liq during the daytime would vary from
about 80 dBA at 50 feet from the edge of the road to
about 75 dBA at 150 feet from the edge of the road.
Assuming 85 percent of the traffic volume on Route
1 occurs during the daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
the estimated Ldn would be 78 dB at 50 feet and 73
dB at 150 feet from the road. Similarly, along
Black Point Road, the estimated Ldn based on
traffic volume of 1,500 vehicles per day, most
of which occurs during the daytime, would be
about 51 dB at 50 feet and 47 dB at 150 feet from
the road. The noise levels in the vicinity of the
proposed wastewater treatment plant on Prout's
Neck would be relatively low because of the low
level of human activity there. The estimated
Ldn there would be about 40 to 4 5 dBA.
+ Private communication with Mr. Al Hicks, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, October, 1975.
II-9
-------
2.1.3
Sensitive Areas
Surface waters, wetlands, beaches, flood plains,
and woodlands are considered as areas sensitive to changes
in the eco-system. These natural areas are described
below.
(1) Surface Water
Surface water bodies in Scarborough consist
of rivers, streams, ponds, marshes, and the ocean.
Nonesuch River, Scarborough River, and Spurwink
River are the major rivers that empty into the
Atlantic Ocean. These and the other water bodies
are shown in Figure 2.1-3.
(2) Wetlands
There are approximately 2700 acres of tidal marsh
located in the town of Scarborough, the largest
single continuous unit of tidal marsh in the entire
State of Maine. (14) Five major tidal marsh units
can be defined which include the Dunston River, Mill
Brook, Cascade Brook, the Nonesuch River, and the
Libbey River, with associated streams and creeks.
The tidal marsh primarily consists of wetland
regularly flooded salt marsh Wetland Type 18.*
There is a transition to irregularly flooded salt
marsh, Type 17, on areas of higher elevations.
Coastal shallow fresh marsh, Type 12, is found west
of Route 1 along Finnard Brook and south along
Cascade Brook. The interior fresh water areas are
primarily shrub and wooded swamps, Type 6 or 7.
Coastal salt flats, Type 15, are found along the course
of the Dunston River.
The wetlands of the United States are divded into 20
different types.
11-10
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
(3) Beaches
The shoreline of Scarborough includes three sandy
beaches: Scarborough Beach, Higgins Beach, and Pine
Point Beach. These are shown in Figure 2.1-3. The
rest of the shoreline is rocky.
(4) Flood Plains
Figure 2.1-4 shows a map of special flood hazard
areas. . These areas are considered to flood on the
average of one time every 100 years. Such areas are
eligible for special flood insurance programs.(15)
(5) Woodlands
Most of Scarborough's woodlands are to the west
of the Maine Turnpike. These are discussed in a later
section.
2.1.4 Water Quantity
(1) Surface Water
Little data is available regarding the quantity of
surface water in Scarborough. A flood hazard analysis
of the Nonesuch River was performed by the Soil Conser-
vation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.(16)
It estimated the peak discharge flow of the river at
several cross-sections for periods of 10,100 and 500
years, which are shown in Table 2.1-1.
Most of the domestic water supply for Scarborough
is obtained from the Portland Water District whose prin-
cipal source of water supply, Sebago Lake, is located
about ten miles to the northeast of Scarborough. Sebago
Lake is about 12 miles long with a maximum width of
eight miles and it does not include Scarborough. The
safe yield of Lake Sebago is estimated to be 56 0
million gallons per day (mgd), of which about 300 mgd
is available for water supply.(17) Current consumption
rate is about 25 mgd.(18)
(2) Ground Water
Little work has been completed in the field of
ground water hydrology and ground water geology in Maine.
Among the few studies completed, none is related specifi-
cally to the Scarborough area. Only a few ground water
wells exist in Scarborough. (19) Since Sebago Lake, the
principal source of water supply to Scarborough, is
expected to have sufficient supply of water to meet the
demands in the foreseeable future, there is no incentive
to develop ground water supplies in this area.
II-12
-------
*
Table 2.1-1
Selected Flood Discharges
Nonesuch River
Location
Drainage Area
sq. mi.
Estimated Peak Discharge
Cubic feet per second (cfs)
10-yr. 100-yr. 500-yr ,
Near Gorham Rd,
18.7
985
2065
2780
Near 1-295
20.1
990
2055
2755
H
H
I
Near U. S. Rte. 1
Near Black Point Rd.
21.0
23.1
995
950
2055
1935
2725
2550
-------
2.1,5 Water Quality
(1) Water Quality Standards
The classification of marine waters in Scar-
borough is shown in Figure 2.1-5. A detailed
description of the various classifications is
given in Appendix D and their brief summary in
Table 2.1-2.
All fresh waters in Scarborough have been
designated Class C, except for Finnard Brook and
Stuart Brook, which have been designated Class
B-2. ' ^A detailed description of the fresh water
classifications is given in Appendix D. A brief
summary of these classifications is given in
Table 2.1-3.
One of the important measures of water quality
from the biological viewpoint is the number of
coliform bacteria present in the water. The pres-
ence of coliform bacteria, which are primarily
found in the intestinal tract of human beings,
indicates the potential presence of other diseases-
carrying organisms in the water. Coliform bacteria
are divided into fecal coliform and nonfecal coli-
form groups. The fecal coliforms constitute about
90% of the coliforms discharged in fecal matter,
whereas the nonfecal coliform usually originate
in soil, grain, and decaying vegatation. (^3) The
number of coliform bacteria is reported in terms
of their most probable number per 100 milliliters
(MPN).
According to the standards, the coliform count
in the water in shellfish-growing areas must not
exceed 70 MPN. There are no fecal coliform stand-
ards for such areas. (For comparison, the fecal
coliform standard for drinking water is 1 MPN.)
Although there are no growing area standards for clams,
there is a market standard of 230 MPN fecal coli-
forms accumulated in the clams. When the fecal
coliform count in the growing area clams approaches
or exceeds 2 30 MPN it is an indication that there
is something wrong in the growing area, and that
the clams may be a public health hazard. • ^
(2) Water Quality
Numbers of coliform bacteria many times
higher than those allowed by the standards
have been observed in many clam growing areas
of Scarborough. The results of water quality
11-15
-------
FIGURE 2.1-5
Marine Water Classifications*
SB-2
SB-2
SA
SA
SC
SB-1
SB-2
SB-2
SC
SB-1
SA
SB-1
SCALE IN MILES
Source: Ref. (21)
11-16
-------
Table 2.1-2
Marine Water Quality Classifications
October, 1973
Classification
Intended Use
Minimum DO
Maximum Coliforms
SA
SB-1
SB-2
l
i-1
-j
sc
SD
Suitable for all clean water usages,
including water contact recreation,
fishing, harvesting and propagation
of shellfish, and for fish and wild-^
life habitat.
Suitable for all clean water usages,
including water contact recreation,
fishing, harvesting and propagation
of shellfish, and for fish and wild-
life habitat.
Suitable for recreational usages,
including water contact and fishing.
Such waters shall be suitable for
the harvesting and propagation of
shellfish, for fish and wildlife
habitat, and suitable for industrial
cooling and process uses.
Satisfactory for recreational boating,
fishing and other similar uses except
primary water contact. Such waters
may be used for the propagation of
indigenous shellfish to be harvested
for depuration purposes, for fish
and wildlife habitat, and for indus-
trial cooling and process uses.
May be used for power generation,
navigation, industrial process
waters or cooling waters, and for
migration of fish.
6.0
Source: Ref. (21)
6.0
6.0
5.0
3.0
70/100 ml
Shellfish
Growing Area
70/10 0 ml
Non-Shellfish 240/100 ml
Growing Area
Shellfish
Growing Area
70/100 ml
Non-Shellfish 500/100 ml
Growing Area
Shellfish
Growing Area
700/100 ml
Non-Shellfish 1500/100 ml
Growing Area
Amounts which will not,
in the determination of
the Board of Environmental
Protection, indicate a
condition harmful to the
public health or impair
any usages ascribed to
this classification.
-------
Table 2.1-3
Fresh Water Quality Standards
Classification
Intended Use
Minimum DO
Suitable for recreation purposes in- Not less than
eluding bathing, and for public water 7 5% saturation
supplies after disinfection. or as naturally
occurs.
Maximum Coliforms
(per 100 ml.)
100
B-l
Suitable for recreational purposes
including water contact recreation,
for potable water supply after ade-
quate treatment, and for fish and
wildlife habitat.
5.0
300
i
00
B-2
C
Same as B-l.
Suitable for recreational boating and
fishing, for fish and wildlife habitat,
and for other uses except potable
water supply and water contact re-
creation, unless such waters are
adequately treated.
Power generation, navigation, and in-
dustrial process.
5.0
5 . 0 except in
certain cases
4.0.
1,000
No standards,
2.0
No fixed standard,
Source: Ref. (22).
-------
Table 2.1-4
Coliform Levels in Water and Accumulated Coliforms
in Clams, Sampled in Typical Clam Growing
Areas of Scarborough in
April-May 1971*
Sampling
Quantity
Sampling Date and
the Most Probable
Station
Sampled
Number (MPN) per
200 Milliliter
4/23
4/27
4/28
4/29
5/4
5/6
Water--coliforms
210
3
43
43
150
460
— fecal coliforms
-
-
-
-
75
93
3
Clams—coliforms
3500
-
5400
5400
5400
16000+
—fecal coliforms
110
-
150
230
640
5400
Water--coliforms
3.6
21
9.1
3.6
150
240
—fecal coliforms
-
-
-
-
150
240
10
Clams--coliforms
3500
-
3500
-
L6000
3500
—fecal coliforms
-18
-
45
78
1100
1300
Water—coliforms
3
-3
-3
93
23
240
—fecal coliforms
-
-
-
-
9.1
23
12
Clams—coliforms
3500
-
3500
5400
3500
16000
—fecal coliforms
78
-
130
330
1300
490
Water-—coliforms
9.1
3.6
3
23
240
—fecal coliforms
-
-
-
-
9.1
93
18
Clams -—coliforms
3500
-
2400
790
2400
16000
--fecal coliforms
310
—
130
230
230
2400
* Dashes in the table indicate lack of data
Source Fer. (24)
-------
sampling conducted at four sampling stations in
Scarborough are shown in Table 2.1-4.
The variability of clam and water quality as
seen from Table 2.1-4 has been observed in Scarborough
for several years with a trend toward general
worsening. ) in addition to the discharge of
untreated and inadequately treated sewage, some
of the other factors affecting the water quality
in Scarborough include:
Poor exchange of salt water in
the area
Tidal variations as they are related
to tidal marshes
(24)
The amount of fresh water runoff.
Aquatic Life
(1) Plant Life
The plant life varies with the type of
water body. Common species expected to be found
near the rocky shores off Prout's Neck include
cupid and ascophyllum, which are common rockweeds
and seaweeds. (25) in the subtidal areas Irish
moss and laminaria are commonly found. Cord grass
is the predominant species found in the tidal marshes.
In the estuarine basin, where the fresh water is in
contact with the sea water for at least part of the
year, widgeon grass, eel grass, and Sago Pondweed
are often found.(25;
(27)
(2) Animal Life 1 '
The area near Prout's Neck is intensively
fished. Striped bass is the most abundant
species of fish to be found in this area.
11-20
-------
Other species of fish include eel, flounder,
mummichog, bluefish, mackerel, shad, alewife,
blueback herring, and stickleback. Among the
invertebrates, shrimp, green crab, mussels,
lobsters, and softshell clams are most common.
Among the birds, eider ducks, American scoter,
white wind scoter and surf scoter are most
common.
In the marsh areas, anadramous fish visiting
the marshes during their spawning season include
alewife, American shad, and blueback herring. The
marshes also support a variety of wildlife includ-
ing various birds as discussed in the next section.
The salt marsh mosquitoes are abundant in this
area.
The clam flats form an important natural
resource in Scarborough. Figure 2.1-7 shows the
location of the clam flats in the Scarborough
area. Although surf clams and mahogany quahog
are found along Scarborough's shoreline, the soft-
shell clams found along the estuaries are of prime
importance. Because of water pollution, all clam
growing areas in Scarborough have been closed for
open digging since 1971 by the Maine Departmemt of
Marine Resources. Only controlled digging with
subsequent depuration is allowed. The depuration
process involves sterilization of the clams for
removing the accumulated bacteria. ^'
According to the records of clam production
in Scarborough, the highest annual production
occurred in 1946, when 118,246 bushels were har-
vested. The lowest annual production of 4,000
bushels occurred in 1957. The current production
rate is about 10,000 bushels per year. (29) If all
areas were reopened for open digging, the clam
production may increase to about 15-20,000 bushels
per year.
2.1.7 Terrestrial Life
Terrestrial life is composed of birds, land-based
animals, and vegetation. These are discussed below.
(1) Birds
Scarborough has a large variety of birds. About
35 different species are commonly sighted, and over
50 species are sighted occasionally.(30>iigratory game
birds visiting the area include scoters, eiders, old
squaw ducks, Wilson's snipe, woodcocks, rails, galli-
nules, mergansers, American coots, and Canadian geese.
11-21
-------
H
M
I
NJ
N)
Sporwink^'
P Si-arUiriiuuh •
•V
£ BUf»
lAt>»n
\ l<
v J K\ K
mm#' \ 1
Ffi-- / y
:\%S yiliggins Bcacly . J/
C. jii Spurwink
' / Hill /
. ,01.1 f»>*l
Blue Point
JtirhmtW
Ida uti "2*
Harbor
/ I »nOifi|
Clam Growing Areas
*>Z:\Sh,
Pine Point
4„ . Grv»d Bt*ch
y.'-' N.
lyf< ^>UlS NtfCk
-v'Tv^
,5- -""n
Chechiv. ^ .' -T .V; ¦
^ * • * •
o
cn en
o n
H
PJ o
cn
h s
G
cr h-
£>
O 3
ra
H iQ
O
NJ
d >
•
vQ H
M
cr (D
1
(u
a\
CO
H-
3
-------
Among the observed species, only the bald
eagle, which is sighted occasionally, is included
in the federal list of rare and endangered species. ^
The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and
Game is in the process of preparing a list of
wildlife species which have historically bred in
Maine and which require special appraisal or treat-
ment because of their tenuous position in Maine as
a breeding animal. Among the species listed in a
preliminary list, snowy egret and glossy ibis are
observed commonly in Scarborough, and Arctic tern,
least tern, and bald eagle are observed occasion-
ally. None of these species has been observed
to nest in Scarborough.
There is a privately-owned bird sanctuary on
Prout's Neck. Stratton Island and Bluff Island,
which are actually within the limits of the city
of Saco, are maintained as bird sanctuaries by the
Maine Audubon Society. The U.S. Department of Fish
and Wildlife is in the process of purchasing land
in the Scarborough area for the proposed Rachel
Carson Federal Reserve to be used as a wildlife
conservatory.
(2) Land-Based Wildlife
Commonly-sighted wild animals in Scarborough
include deer, fox,mink, muskrat, raccoon, river
otter, and weasel. Moose are sighted occasionally.
Muskrat is the most abundant species found in
Scarborough. About 300 to 400 muskrats are trapped
every year. Muskrats are usually confined to fresh
or brackish water areas. They are also found in the
saltwater marshes. As discussed earlier, salt
marsh mosquitoes are very common. Some greenhead
flies are also found. An inventory of other animals
has not been made.
None of the land-based wi-ldlife species found
in Scarborough is included in the federal list of
rare and endangered species or in the preliminary
list of species requiring special treatment prepared
by the State of Maine. '
11-23
-------
(3) Vegetation
Approximately 85 percent of Cumberland
County, in which Scarborough is located, is
covered by woods. In Scarborough, approxi-
mately 50 to 60 percent of the area is covered
with forests, most of which are in the area west
of the Maine Turnpike. These forests consist
mostly of a mixture of hardwood and softwood trees.
Hardwoods species of prime importance include red
oak, white oak, and white ash and softwood species
include eastern white pine, red pine, eastern hem-
lock, red spruce, and balsam firs. Predominant
forests are the white pine and red oak forests
as well as the pitch pine and poplar (aspen) forests.
Alder, a small weedlike tree, is found along the
brooks. Most of the forests are managed by the
Forest Management Division of the Maine Depart-
ment of Conservation and the S.D. Warren Co.
Because of the management practices, the forests
have achieved a steady state, which is commonly
known as cultural climax.(33)
There are no major forests in the Prout's
Neck area. The 8-acre site of the proposed treat-
ment plant is covered with some trees and grass.
Predominant species of trees in this area include
red spruce, white pine, and hemlock.(33^
2.2 MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
This section contains a discussion of the major
elements of the man-made or human environment of the
general project area. The subsections treat existing
and projected conditions in the following basic
subject areas.
Demographic projections
Economic conditions
Land use
Historical/archaeological sites
Community facilities and services
Municipal fiscal capabilities
Transportation
Resource use
Water supply and wastewater management
Other major planned projects.
Discussion of the man-made environment will con-
tain geographic references besides the study area in
order to gain proper perspectives for population and eco-
nomic base conditions. Thus, the population profile will
consider population figures for the study area of the town
of Scarborough as relative figures for Cumberland County,
11-24
-------
Portland, and the State of Maine. The general urban con
text aids in evaluating the study area since interrela-
tionships in the man-made environment encompass both.
Demographic Characteristics
(1) Population Profiles of Growth Scenarios
Subsequent to the preparation of the Draft
EIS which projected a total year round population
of 25,000 in 1995, new population scenarios were de-
veloped by the Greater Portland Councial of Governments.
The projections prepared by GPCOG are part of their 208
water quality management planning process, and were de-
veloped in conjunction with the Scarborough Planning
Board and Town Planner. The three growth scenarios are
referred to as low, moderate, and high depending upon
alternative development assumptions including sewer
capacity, rate of developable land assimilation and sat-
uration, standard household size, plus equal annual
increments of growth under certain distributive assump-
tions including:
Shoreland zoned acreage is not utilized
Acreage shown on SCS Medium intensity soils
maps as unsuitable for building because of
poor soils or steep slope are unbuildable
Acreage in buildable areas is alloted to road-
ways in accordance with Scarborough1s codes
Existing development will not be replaced with
higher density, even if permitted under cur-
rent zoning, nor changed in type
State and Town owned land will not be developed
for residential use.
Maps were prepared which illustrated the growth
scenarios within Scarborough by decade. EPA in turn
prepared Table 2.2-1 with approximate counts of
population taken from the maps and GPCOG's estimates
by area, by growth scenario and by decade for purposes
of sewer plan alternatives analysis.
These three population scenarios were considered by
EPA to be acceptable and useful for purposes of provid-
ing the Town with several growth management alternatives
The projections were included in the supplement to the
draft EIS which evaluates six alternatives utilizing
the low, moderate and high growth scenario for each
alternative.
11-25
-------
Table 2.2-j
Cumulative Population by Area,
By Decade and by Growth Scenario
1980
1990
2000 .
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
Pine Point
1,108
1,114
1,117
1,135
1,147
1,159
1,159
1,180
1,207
Blue Point
655
685
658
691
751
912
721
823
1,057
Higgins Beach
1,000
1,021
1,033
1,027
1,093
1,130
1,054
1,165
1,233
Dunstan
864
922
949
912
1,083
1,169
960
1,246
1,389
Oak Hill
1,600
2,074
2,256
1,660
3,019
3,624
1,720
4,085
4,989
Willowdale
336
557
644
387
1,043
1,308
435
1,532
1,972
Total Consent Areas
5,563
6,373
6,657
5,812
8,136
9,302
6,049
10.031
11,847
Black Point/Prout's Neck
999
1,029
1,041
1,017
1,071
1,147
1,059
1,147
1,328
Pleasant Hill
927
697
979
993
954
1,227
1,059
1,078
1,312
Oak Hill North
951
1,214
1,310
972
1,758
2,050
993
2,302
2,790
Total Optional
2,877
3,140
3,330
2,982
3,783
4,424
3,111
4,527
5,430
Consent Plus Optional
8,440
9,513
9,981
8,794
11,919
13,726
9,160
14,558
17,277
Other Non-Sewered
1,081
2,527
2,673
3,826
3,101
4,274
4,840
3,242
5,013
TOTAL TOWN PEAK 1
11,240
12,040
12,660
12,620
15,020
18,000
14,000
18,000
22,290
Includes overnight seasonal population.
-------
In addition a Planning and Growth Strategy Report
was prepared by EPA and its consultants which analyzed
each growth alternative and its impact on local municip-
al and community services.
Prior to the preparation of this Final EIS , EPA
officially requested the Planning Board, the Town
Council and the Sanitary District to select a growth
management alternative that would represent the
long-term growth objective for the Town.
Letters from those agencies to EPA have endorsed
the low to moderate growth scenario. These letters are
included in Volume II of this Final EIS.
The environmental impacts of each growth scenario
are included in the Chapter on Alternatives and Impacts
of Alternatives in this volume.
(2) Employment
Employment projections by industry for the state
indicates an overall growth rate of 12.5 percent through
1980. Projections through 1990 reflect a slower rate
of 5.5 percent. Table 2.2-2 reflects growth for
Cumberland County and the Portland Area.
Table 2.2-2
Project Employment Levels,
Cumberland County and Portland Metropolitan Area
(1970-1990)
Area
1970
1980
1990
Cumberland County
Portland Metropolitan
Area
77,312
60 ,333
87 ,800
73,462
93,100
74,480
Source: PARC, Portland Chamber of Commerce
11-27
-------
The metro area contained 78 percent of employment
within the county in 1970. The employment forecasts
anticipate through 1980 an employment increase
concentrated within the Portland metropolitan area (839).
By 1990, however, the metropolitan area's percent share
should decline to approximately 80 percent since more
industry relocates to peripheral and developing suburban
areas. General employment changes are expected in the
following manner:
Increasing
Finance, insurance,
real estate
Decreasing
Resource industries
Wholesale and retail
trade
Construction
Services
Metals and machinery
Food processing
(3) Income
Leather and leather
goods
Government
Apparel
Textile mill products
The median family income for Scarborough
should increase and remain above median levels
for the Portland SMSA and County as a whole, as
shown in Table 2.2-3.
Table 2.2-3
Projected Median Family Income
(1969 Dollars)
Area
1969
1980
1990
1995
Scarborough
$10,104
$12,529
$15,285
$16,814
Portland SMSA
$ 9,532
$11,820
$14,420
$15,862
Portland City
$ 8,456
$10,485
$12,792
$14,071
Cumberland County
$ 9,289
$11,518
$14,052
$15,457
Suburban areas
excluding Portland City
$10,350
$12,834
$15,657
$17,223
11-28
-------
The distribution of income within Scarborough
should see increases in the percentage of families
earning over $25,000 per year as well as those
earning $15,000 to $25,000 per year. This is because
of the continuing trend of more spouses of employed
workers entering the work force (hence, more houses-
holds having two incomes) as well as the increasing
cost of land in Scarborough which has led to higher
costs of new and existing housing. Thus, with the
housing opportunities focused upon the middle and
upper income families, the net effect will be to raise
the median family income. The increase in families
earning between $15,000 and $25,000 per year from
1960 to 1970 was a dramatic 1000.9 percent. In
1970, this category contained 15.5 percent of
families in the Suburban Portland SMSA area.
2.2.2 Economic Characteristics
Since the town of Scarborough lies within the
Portland Metropolitan area and Cumberland County,
the economic profile of this larger area contains key
determinants to the health and well-being of Scarborough.
Portland is the largest oil port on the East Coast. Its
metropolitan area, the largest north of Boston, contained
nearly one-fifth of the state's population in 1970. The
state of Maine's major losses in employment during the
decade from 1960-70 were in military and resources
(agricultural/fishing/mining/forestry). The Portland
SMSA experienced a similar pattern as the state, but
felt a more severe drop in resource industries and a
minimal drop in military. The largest gains in the Portland
area were in government, finance, and the service
industries. Manufacturing and wholesale/retail trade
industries experienced modest gains and accounted for
4 5 percent of all employment. Employment increased in
the Portland area at approximately twice the rate of the
state.
(1) State
Economic conditions in the State of Maine
during 1974-75 saw mass layoffs in the textile mill
products, electrical machinery, lumber and wood
products, and leather and leather goods industries
within the state. The current economic
II- 29
-------
recession is reflected by several other indicators
on a statewide basis, including:*
Taxable sales in 1974 rose only 6 percent
over the 1973 level, which in real dollars
(adjusting for inflation) indicates a decline.
Tourism as measured by deflatable taxable
sales in restaurants and lodging for the June
through September period declined 2.1 percent
statewide from 1973-74.
Construction is another segment of the state's
economy which was affected by inflation and
recession. The index of the value of construction
contracts in Maine published by the Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston increased by only 1.4
points between 1973-74. In comparison,
construction in New- England and on the national
level fared much worse during this same time
period, with the indices declining 5.8 and' 8.1
points, respectively. The situation between the
different kinds of construction in Maine in 1974
was one of very substantial contrasts. While
the indices of residential building 17.1 and
31.1 points, respectively, between 1973 and 1974,
the index of nonresidential construction increased
by 56.6 points.
The state's industrial profile, as well as that of
the Portland metropolitan area, is becoming increasingly
dominated by nonmanufacturing activities. The non-
manufacturing sector accounted for 71.1 percent of all
nonfarm wage and salary workers in 1974. Within the
manufacturing sector, the shift is toward durable goods
with metals, machinery, and paper and allied products
showing major gains. The primary metals industry is
concentrated in Cumberland and Androscoggin Counties. The
machinery industry is located primarily in Cumberland,
York, and Penobscot Counties. These growth industries
provide a sound base for the Portland area which
" 1976 Fiscal Year Annual Manpower Planning Report," Maine
Department of Manpower Affairs, May 1975, p. 25.
11-30
-------
has attracted these industries because of its good
transportation and market access via rail, air, sea,
and interstate/turnpike road system, stable labor
market, substantial development of support services,
and location of the banking and finance center within
the state.
Major employers within the Portland metropolitan
area include:
Bath Industries
Fairchild Semi-Conductor
Union Mutual Insurance Company
Songo Shoe Company
Guy Gannett Publishing Company
Maine Mall Regional Shopping Center
(2) County and Local
A brief description of current economic
conditions within the county and metropolitan
area is contained in the "1976 Fiscal Year Annual
Manpower Planning Report" for the State of Maine:
"Certain industrial sectors within
Cumberland are faring well in spite of
the recent economic downturn. One such
sector, is nonresidental construction,
with several major construction projects
either currently underway or earmarked
to begin shortly. These projects include
an $8 million Cumberland County Civic
Center and a $6.2 million Regional
Vocational-Technical Center currently
under construction; an $870,000 class-
room-laboratory complex being built at
the Southern Maine Vocational-Technical
Institute; s $12 million wastewater
treatment project underway at S.D.
Warren in Westbrook; and a $4 million
Riverton Elementary School and community
facility recently approved and funded by
the State Board of Education and the
Portland City Council."
II- 31
-------
Scarborough, a predominantly middle -and
upper-income residential suburb of Portland, has
not experienced major development of employment
activities within the town. Existing employment
is concentrated in manufacturing (Herman Shoe),
food processing (Snow Foods, Humpty Dumpty), and
ser ices—particularly related to seasonal tourist
and recreation-entertainment facilities (Scarborough
Downs).
Snow Foods does not utilize local clams to
process clam chowder. Their approximate $20 million
in gross annual sales has not been affected by
closing the clam flats to open digging. Clam digging
as an industry in Scarborough hit its production peak
in 1946 and its lowest level in 1957.* However, clam
digging has traditionally been of recreational rather
than commercial value to town residents digging their
own clams for supper. The closing of the clam flats
for open digging, because of unacceptable water
pollution levels, has eliminated this recreational
resource. Clams are currently being dug only for
processing through the depuration plants. The 1964
Comprehensive Plan for Scarborough indicated the major
problems of the clam digging industry, aside from
the threat of pollution, were inefficient management
and outdated methods.
2.2.3 Economic Projections
Assumptions regarding the future economic conditions
of the State of Maine and geographic subdivisions, such
as Cumberland County and the Portland metropolitan area,
must necessarily reflect national economic trends.
Nearly 80 percent of Maine's goods and services are
exported from the state. Hence, the state's well-being
is related directly to national economic conditions.
The United States has experienced an unusally long and
"In 1962, the 37 persons who held clam digging licenses dug 3,000
bushels of clams in approximately 200 days, at a value of about
$21,000. In 1946, 250 diggers dug 118,286 bushels during 118 days,
at an approximate value of $340,048. The lowest level of clam
digging activity occurred in 1957 when eight diggers dug 4,000
bushels in 100 days, valued at approximately $4,140. It is
considered possible to maintain production on the high level of 1946
through proper management." 1964 Comprehensive Plan,
11-32
-------
pervasive recessionary period with continued
inflation, increasing unemployment, and a
fluctuating but progressive decline (adjusting for
inflation) of gross national product. Recovery will
be gradual and turnaround is not anticipated to occur
for several more months. Maine follows the nation
economically. In this regard, it is unrealistic to
expect economic growth over 197 0 levels through
1980.
Certain areas of state industry have improved
outlooks. These areas briefly are stated:
Nonresidential construction should show some
strength after 1977. Several construction
projects, either currently underway or
contracted for this spring, total over $1
billion. Of this expenditure, $520 million
is for paper mill expansions and equipment
modernization; $181 million for an electric
power generating facility for Central Maine
Power; $14 million for two new hospitals;
$7 million for a potato processing plant
in Aroostook County; $23 million for outlays
for sewage treatment plants; and $6 million
for an office complex in Bangor,
Machinery production is expected to increase
as demand for capital expenditures and
improvements grows with the economic upturn
predicted in the latter part of the decade.
Primary Maine machinery products are con-
struction equipment, machine tools, and
specialized machinery.
Primary and fabricated metals should follow
the same growth pattern of machinery produc-
tion as demand for plant and equipment
replacement and modernization increases.
Paper and allied products should experience
moderate growth in employment through 1980
with the planned expansion of several plants.
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
has shown recent growth with employment levels,
increasing from 2900 in 1970 to 4100 in 1974.
Although this is a small industry in Maine,
it is one of the fastest growing due to
increasing market demand for these products.
11-33
-------
Printing, publishing, and allied industries
has shown steady growth during the past de-
cade. In Maine, newspaper publishing is the
major source of employment. Thus, continued
growth of the industry is related to continued
population growth and availability of
newsprint.
Transportation equipment has had a very
erratic pattern in the past decade due to the
opposite movements represented by the auto-
motive and shipbuilding industries. Maine
makes automobile accessories and parts, the
demand for which declined sharply in recent
years. Concurrently, shipbuilding and repair
which has higher employment levels expanded
during 1973-74. Through 1980, it would seem
likely for the movements to reverse direction.
As the general economy improves, however, the
automotive industry will accelerate production
and demand for Maine's products, whereas
shipbuilding and repair will decline. Shipbuild-
ing in Maine is highly dependent upon govern-
ment contracting and international trade. The
Congressional mood, which has implemented
cutbacks in military spending, has already
affected Navy shipbuilding contracts with
Bath Iron Works in Portland causing recent
layoffs and potential additional layoffs of
up to 2000 employees., Since shipbuiding and
repair constitutes the majority of the
transportation equipment industry, the near-
term outlook for the state is questionable.
The impact could be more severe in the short
term upon the Portland area than statewide if
Bath Iron Works does proceed with layoffs due
to the cancellation of the Navy P.F. program.
The Portland area should see some modest gains
in transportation employment through the
expansion of the jetport facilities and contin-
ued growth in trucking.
Finance, insurance, and real estate has shown
modest but continued gains on the national,
state, and local levels because this industry
is less sensitive to cyclical downturns in the
economy. Portland, being the financial center
of the state, will see continued growth,
particularly in banking and insurance.
II- 34
-------
Services employment overall has continued to
increase despite declines registered in hotels
and tourist facilities, and personal services.
The major increases in employment levels have
been in the health and medical areas and in
business services.
Government employment has increased in all
sectors: federal, state, and local. In 1973,
3,000 government jobs were added as a result
of federal funding assistance which created
public service positions to reduce high
unemployment rates. This level of employment
can be expected to decline when the economy
returns to a more stable period of growth.
Wholesale and retail trade should not exper-
ience significant growth until the latter
part of the decade and a return to generally
improved economic conditions nationwide.
The Portland metropolitan area has the largest
and most diversified economic base of all Maine
counties which should ensure modest growth through
1980. The return of an improved national economy
will only serve to increase economic growth of the
Portland area during the ensuing decade.
The outlook for Scarborough is somewhat limited
due to its current lack of sewerage, and water
pollution difficulties. The town has little industry
and employment in relation to its residential'
development. This imbalance will place a heavier
revenue support burden on residents as service costs
continue to increase due to inflation and simple
demand increases. Its tourism industry is also
limited by lack of sewerage, and water problems. Loss
of this industry would further hurt the town's economic
base. While Scarborough is predominantly a residential
suburb, it needs its share of metropolitan economic
growth to maintain its position and image as an
attractive community in which to live, work, and play.
The town's growth potential, which is good given
its location and proximity to transportation networks,
is discussed in greater detail in Section 2.2.6
2.2.4 Present Land Use Planning and Patterns
The utilization of land is affected by market demands,
local land use policies, and controls, and natural
11-35
-------
environmental constraints. This section briefly dis-
cusses the planning process and the local agency
participants who shape land use within Scarborough,
the planning and land use control regulations, which
also determine directions of growth and development,
and current land use patterns within Scarborough and
the study area.
(I) Administrative Planning Process
The Planning Board is comprised of seven members
who are appointed by the Town Council to serve staggered
terms ranging from one to three years. The board serves
in an advisory capacity to the Town Council and has been
charged with the task of either updating or revising the
19 64 Comprehensive Plan for Scarborough, (prepared by
consultants for the town under a 701 comprehensive
planning assistance grant) or the preparation of a new
comprehensive plan for proposed adoption by the Town
Council. The board is also responsible for drafting,
revision, and implementation of zoning and other develop-
ment ordinances.
The questions of zoning and subdividion approval
currently occupy the major portion of the workload of
Board Members and absorb an inordinate amount of time
at Board meetings. The Planning Board is responsible
for the formulation of zoning ordinances and adminis-
tration of the subdivision regulations, as well as spec-
ialty land use ordinances including the Resource
Protection Districts and Shoreland zoning. An emergency
ordinance to further protect the sand dunes was enacted
July 8, 1976 and has remained effective until October 6,
197 6. The remainder of the workload is devoted to
addressing the comprehensive planning process. As such,
the comprehensive planning issues are the most defer-
rable items on the Planning Board's agenda when faced
with repetitive applications for approvals for proposed
development projects.
The Planning Board conducted a survey on community
attitudes during 197 3 which elicited the first background
needed for formulation of goals and objectives for the
town of Scarborough. This past year the Planning Board
drafted a statement of community goals for updating the
1964 Scarborough Comprehensive Plan. The statement con-
tains the following general overall community develop-
ment goal:
"To influence the development of the community
through the implementation of plans and
programs; the enforcement and modification of
existing ordinances; and the formulation and
adoption of new regulations, plans, and pro-
grams, in order to maintain and enhance the
quality of life in the town of Scarborough.11
11-36
-------
The statement also contains several specific goals
and objectives designed to evoke community discussion
and feeling regarding their perceptions of the type,
size, and character of this community Scarborough
is and should strive toward.
The Planning Board has circulated the statement
throughout the community and held a set of five public
meetings on the statement on the neighborhood level.
The Planning Board hopes to redraft the statement
based on the findings from the meetings and other
discussions, hold additional review sessions, and
ultimately propose a final statement of goals and
objectives to the Town. Council for adoption. This
action would precede the drafting of policies and
programs necessary to implement the statement. The
Board is determined to maximize citizen participation
in the comprehensive planning process, believing
that without broad community awareness and
consensus, no revised or updated plan would be
practical or politically enforceable.
a. PLANNING STAFF AND RESOURCES
The members of the Planning Board all hold
full time employment positions and hence are
constrained from devoting significant amounts of time
to planning issues and tasks in other than their free
hours after work. The heavy time requirement was
one of several factors which contributed to a 100
percent Ghangeover in Board Membership, other than the
Chairman, in 197 5. The backgrounds and education of
the members are diverse but generally represent a
cross section of community interests including real
estate and development. It is essential for a
Planning Board to have a broad range of backgrounds
and experience, particularly with a practical know-
ledge of development, in order that a balanced approach
can be utilized in the formulation of ordinances and
in deliberations for approvals or denials, based on
practical knowledge and not on emotion or whim. While
the diversity of backgrounds is desirable, the frequent
turnover of members has proved a detriment to efficient
Board operations as it takes considerable time for
a new member to become knowledgeable of legal ordin-
ances and the extent of the Planning Board's
responsibilities.
The Board had no planning staff until 1975 and
had previously purchased technical planning assistance
from the Greater Portland Council of Governments (GPCOG)
•(approximately $5,000 worth of services annually). In
August of 197 5 the Town hired Charles Andreson, a
Planner/Engineer, to fulfill both functions- a planner
for the Planning Board and an engineer for the Town
Council. He is required to wear three hats: Town Planner
reporting to the Planning Board, Town Engineer reporting
11-37
-------
to the Town Council, and Code Enforcement Officer
reporting to the Town Manager. This multiplicity of
functions and lines of authority are sometimes cause
for conflict and will be increasingly difficult to
operate efficiently under in the coming years of
heightened planning and development activity. Charles
Anderson currently estimates his time allocation
accordingly: Approximately 60 percent devoted to
planning activities (primarily, line functions including
subdivision plan review, rezoning applications, etc.),
20 percent of his time to code enforcement activities,
and 20 percent to general engineering functions such
as street and right-of-way location design, recreation
facility design, and town building space layouts.
The Planning Board and staff have access to all
information and materials held and developed by the
GPCOG and are kept current on the Section 208 planning
process. Materials and research data developed specif-
ically for the Scarborough area concerning soils and
water pollution problem areas have been particularly
helpful.
The budget for planning activity expenditures
has remained approximately $8,000 annually for the
past several years with the exception of 1975 when
expenditures were less than half the amount. This
reduction is presumably due to the deletion of GPCOG
assistance and the sharing of the funding of the
Planner/Engineer position for six months of the year.
(2) PLANNING RELATED ACTIVITIES
The Planning Board and staff relate in a variety
of structured and unstructured ways to other boards
and groups within town government and the community.
These are described briefly.
(a) Zoning Board of Appeals
The Zoning Board of Appeals is a seven-member
appointed board which hears appeals of zoning decisions
made by the Planning Board. The official town govern-
ment staff liaison to the Board is the Building
Inspector, although the Board has requested the attend-
ance of the Town Planner at their meetings. The Zoning
Board's record in 197 5 speaks fairly clearly on their
approach to planning and maintenance of the zoning
ordinance. While the Planning Board denied all
applications for rezoning variances, the Zoning Board
of Appeals heard forty-seven appeals and approved
thirty-seven or close to 8 0 percent of their cases.
Eight cases were denied, one was referred to the Planning
Board, and one case was withdrawn. This 80 percent
approval rate has typified Board actions for the past
several years. The Board of Appeals, over the years,
11-38
-------
has appeared unwilling or reluctant to assume the
total responsibility for variance control.
The functions of such a Board in other jurisdic-
tions are usually structured to consider only the
unique problems of an individual property which
would entitle the granting of a variance. If there are
no unique qualities and the situation is typical of
several properties,then the case may exist for rezoning
of an area of properties by the Planning Board. The
widespread granting of variances erodes the character
and force of a zoning ordinance and the ability of
the jurisdiction to control or shape their continuing
development.
(b) Code Enforcement
The Planning Board has no jurisdiction over
Code Enforcement activities, however, the Town Planner
is also the Code Enforcement Officer. Code enforcement
includes the issuance of building permits and the
inspection functions of the Building Inspector. The
Town has contracted out all plumbing inspections to
South Portland which removes effective control from
Scarborough. Scarborough has no local habitation or
housing codes and their building code, adopted in 1958,
is greatly out of date for current application and
enforcement. Thus, code enforcement pertains to new
construction only and does not require inspections
for conversion of seasonal to year round units or allow
for condemnation or issuance of violations on existing
properties.
(c) Conservation Commission
The Conservation Commission was established
by the Town Council in 1972 and consists of five members
appointed by the Town Council. The Town Planner has
established an informal working relationship with the
Commission and will have access to an inventory of
natural resources being prepared by the Commission.
Depending upon the detail of the inventory and analysis,
the product should provide useful information for the
comprehensive plan. The Conservation Commission is also
attempting to organize a land trust for the purpose of
acquiring sensitive resource areas in Scarborough
which are not fully protected under existing ordinances.
(d) Sanitary District
The Planning Board and Sanitary District
Trustees have no formal or official relationship and
have to a great extent functioned totally independent
from each other.Charles Andre son and Alvin Keene have
established a fairly good working relationship and lines
of communication on daily items of mutual interest, such
11-39
-------
as the temporary reservation of sewer permits for
critical industrial use. However, the long range
comprehensive planning and sewer consent order
planning issues have not been viewed from common
perspectives causing the Boards to act in relatively
increasing isolation. The Sanitary District is under
mandate to sewer the areas named in the consent order;
and in planning a sewer system, is required to do so
on a twenty year population base. The Town Planning
Board is charged with revising or redoing the compre-
hensive plan for Scarborough which basically should
set forth the growth potential and pattern for the
next twenty years. The Boards have divided on, but
continue to revolve around the question of whether sewer
and growth can be managed and coordinated; it is a diff-
icult concept that very few municipalities, including
Scarborough, are willing or able to accept and imple-
ment effectively. If the separate boards continue to
make separate decisions in a sequential order rather
than in a controlled and coordinated manner, this
separate and sequential decision process could ensure
the result that either growth will cause sewer or
sewer will cause growth.
(e) Other Related Activities
The Town Planner also serves in an advisory
capacity to the Economic Advisory Commission. The
Commission has been active in sponsoring development
of the Municipal Industrial Park. Their activities
could increase if Economic Development Administration
funds for public works projects become available; under
the federal public works act, sewer line construction
is eligible for 100 percent funding. The Town Planner/
Engineer is also subject to assignments made directly
from the Town Council which have included soil and
beach erosion problems at Higgins Beach, revision of
ordinance language, and the preparation of the emer-
gency ordinance extending the resource protection
district boundaries 100 feet beyond the shoreland
zone boundary.
11-40
-------
Table 2.2-4
General Land Use Patterns, Scarborough
East o
f Turnpike
West oJ
Turnpike
Tota
il
General Land Use
Acreage
Percent of
Township
Acreage
Percent of
Township
Acreage
Percent of
Township
Res identlal
1,058
3.29
462
1. 44
1,520
4 . 72
Commercial
713
2. 22
18
. 06
731
2.27
Industrial
20
. 06
--
20
. 06
Public and semi-public
828
2.57
10
. 0 3
838
2.60
Public marshland
1,035
3.22
—
1,035
3.22
Private marshland
2 , 746
8.53
94
. 29
2 , 840
8.82
Open clam flats
536
1.66
--
536
1.67
Closed clam flats
155
. 48
--
—
155
.48
Other
11, 351.
35. 26
13,163
40.89
24,514
76 .15
TOTAL
18,442
57.29
13,747
42 . 71
32,189
100.00
Source: 1964 Comprehensive Plan - Scarborough.
-------
(3) Land Use Patterns
District land use patterns have developed in
Scarborough, with most of the development taking
place east of the Turnpike. This area comprises
13,747 acres or 57.3 percent of the town area.
The 1964 Comprehensive Plan contained a classifi-
cation of land by general use. This is contained
in Table 2.2-4. The general land use pattern has
not changed much since 1964 (See Figure 2.2-1),
with the major differences being in the closing
of all the clam flats, and additional marshlands
becoming public. The area west of the Turnpike
is still largely vacant and underdeveloped due to
lack of a water system and sewerage.
The area east of the Turnpike, the study area,
developed as a series of residential communities
with their own identities. They are identified in
Figure 2.2-2 and include:
Higgins Beach
Pine Point
Prout's Neck
Blue Point
Dunstan
Black Point
Pleasant Hill
Oak Hill
Hunnewell
Eight Corners
Scottow Hill.
These areas comprise the municipal entity of
Scarborough; there is no town center or original
village square. It has historically been a series
of individual settlements separated by vast stretches
of marsh, woods, and water. The scatter site pattern
had made the provision of public services expensive
and thus limited. The low density development pattern
would be the most costly form of development to con-
tinue from the standpoint of energy efficiency, land
consumption, and service delivery.
Figure 2.2-3 reflects the zoning map for the Town
of Scarborough as of January 1974. The zoning ordin-
ance of Scarborough contains eight basic districts or
categories of land use, including four residential,
three business and one industrial. Briefly, they are
described in Table 2.2-5.
11-42
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
The current land use development pattern is most affected
by the availability of potable water and sewerage, soil condition,
and water table. In areas without sewerage, careful analysis has
to be done on a lot-by-lot basis, because of extremely poor soils
and high water table, to determine suitability for septic tank
and other subsurface disposal systems, well drilling, etc.
Septic tanks in most instances are essentially an interim
solution now in Scarborough. A sewage system is needed within
the town as evidenced by the current water pollution levels in
rivers, estuary waters, and bathing beaches.
Residential development is predominantly single family de-
tached units ranging from mobile homes to high value second homes
on large lots.
Commercial development is concentrated along Route 1 and at
the intersection of Route 1 and 114 and serves a predominantly
local population with convenience retail and services, character-
ized as one story strip commercial. The majority of residents
shop in Portland and at the regional Maine Mall in Westbrook.
Industrial development is scattered throughout the town and
is hampered from expansion because of (1) lack of sewerage, and
(2) transportation access difficulties.
(4) Land Use Planning and Control Regulations
Under law, the State of Maine has encouraged municipalities
to regulate in detail local land use through planning and zoning
activities. Increasingly, municipalities must also address state
and federal land use planning programs and priorities. Issues
involving energy consumption and production, air and water qual-
ity, natural resource protection and preservation, and general
environmental safeguards are requiring inter-governmental plan-
ning, policy, and financial support that often transcends local
zoning. In addition, municipalities are increasingly facing
litigation on the basis of exclusionary zoning practices, many
of which have been struck down by the courts. Heightened sen-
sitivity to natural and human environmental interface on a
regional and national scale has focused traditional land use
planning into the area of growth.policy and control strategies.
The State of Maine is divided into official planning and
development districts with comprehensive planning agencies.
Scarborough is part of the Cumberland District. In terms of
state coastal planning priority areas, Scarborough lies in
priority area 6. Priority was established by the state accord-
11-44
-------
ing to pressures for development of coastline areas. This would
indicate that pressures were greater in coastal areas other than
Scarborough. Figure 2.2-4 reflects the status of municipal plan-
ning activities within the Cumberland District as of October
1974. Scarborough has since adopted a shoreland zoning ordinance,
and a Shoreland Zoning Map is shown in Figure 2.2-5. The Scar-
borough shoreland zoning ordinance was enacted pursuant to the
mandatory shoreland zoning and sub-division control act, Title
12 M.R.S.A., Sections 4811-4814, under the administrative direc-
tion of the State Planning Office. The ordinance establishes
resource protection districts covering all land areas within
250 feet of the normal high watermark of the defined water bodies
and establishes minimum setbacks for dwellings units (65 feet),
septic tanks (100 feet), and other buildings. The adopted
resource protection areas are shown in Figure 2.2-5. The state
guidelines for municipal shoreland zoning ordinances are contained
in Appendix F.
The state also has legislation pertaining to alteration of
coastal wetlands. A copy of the latest amendment to the wetlands
act is contained in Appendix F. Since Scarborough contains large
stretches of coastal marsh, these state regulations must necess-
arily affect local land use planning and regulation.
The State Department of Environmental Protection must also
approve all permits for site location surveys and permits to
discharge into wetlands and estuaries from private package treat-
ment plants. Use of private package plants has been minimal
to date in Scarborough because the continued maintenance and
operations of the plants pose problems. Developers do not wish
to continue maintenance responsibilities, community associations
do not want the responsibility, and the Sanitary Board has thus
far rejected maintenance of private package plants under a con-
tract or fee arrangement.
Scarborough has also reviewed and designated areas subject
to flooding which are eligible for the Federal flood insurance
program as discussed earlier in Section 2.1-3.
2.2.5 Future Land Use
Although residential development will continue to be
a high priority, future land use patterns in the Town of Scar-
borough should change with the emphasis on preserving natural
areas.
11-46
-------
Table 2 . 2-5
Zoning Districts in Scarborough
Zone
Type
Land Use
Special Exceptions
Comments
R-F
Rural residence,
farming
Farm, single-family home,
public/private open recre-
ation facility, nursing
home, hospital
Public utility, cemetery,
gravel pit/quarry, camp
ground, abattoir, piggery,
mobile homes
Downzoning June 1972 -
maximum net resident-
ial density, 1 dwelling
per 2 acres
tt-2
Low-density
residential
Single-family home (no
mobile), church, school,
library, museum, farm/truck
garden open recreation
space
Public utility, cemetary, ken-
nel, poultry/livestock raising
Maximum net residential
density, 2 dwellings
per acre
R-4
Low-medium
density
residential
Same as R-2, also day nurs-
ery, non-profit community
building, home employment
acessory
Nursing/convalescent home, or-
phanage, charitable institu-
tions, funeral home, public
utility
R-10
High-density
year-round res-
idential
Dwelling (no mobile), pub-
lic or non-profit recrea-
tion facility, church,
medical/professional office,
home employment accessory
Public utility, convenience
retail
10 dwellings per acre
if site is municipally
sewered; 2 dwellings pei
acre if not municipally
sewered
r-io(s;
High-density
seasonal resi-
dential
Same as R-4, also lodging,
guest house, motel
Restaurant, retail outlet
Same as R-10 (elimin-
ates private developers
planning large-scale
higher density develop-
ments with private
package plants
B-l
Convenience retail
office development.
Same as R-10, local retail,
outdoor sales/service, per-
sonal services, branch bus-
iness office, municipal
building, accessory uses
Public utility, gasoline ser-
vice station
B-2
General Business
Retail and service establish-
ment including warehousing/
wholesaling, business/profes-
sional office, fully enclosed
assembly building, club,
hotel, motel, guest house,
transportation terminal, ac-
cessory building
Public utility, light manu-
facturing
I
1
]
No junkyards, salvage
operations, outdoor
sales and services, or
fast food operations
B-ll
Business highway
zone
Large-space users, requires
minimum lot street frontage
of 150 feet. Fast food,
drive-in commercial retail
operations
Zone B-ll is for operations
which need heavy traffic
volumes, and accommodate
traffic patterns on and off
highway
Adopted 1974, and ap-
plied to commercial
streches of Route 1
with heavy traffic
I
Industry and
manufacturing
Manufacturing, processing,
treatment, warehousing/stor-
age, distribution and trans-
portation, research lab,
retail service agency to
above uses
Municipal buildings and uses,
public utility including
substations and pumping sta-
tions and sewage treatment
facilities
No use, manufacture,
storage or wholesal-
ing of creosote dis-
infectant insecticide,
poisons, cement, lime
gypsum or plaster of
paris, blast furnaces
gasoline, petroleums,
kerosene, paint, var-
nish or shellac -
without special ex-
ception
II-4 7
-------
These natural determinants include:
Shoreland zoning preservation
Marshland preservation
High water table and unsuitable soil conditions.
Land use will also be affected by external factors, such
as market absorption trends, sewer and water availability,
economic conditions, and local growth policies.
(1) Growth Trends
Several trends have been observed to be applicable to
Scarborough: household size is declining and general lifestyles
are changing, with increasing numbers of women entering the work
force. Family income is increasing, housing and land costs are
rising faster; energy costs are rising with new energy sources
still limited (such as solar energy). These trends may mean
that future years may see residential market preferences grad-
ually shifting to town houses and planned unit developments which
generally provide project amenities in return for less house area,
cost, and responsibility. Recent national consumer studies have
shown new home buyers are less house-oriented.* Higher energy
cost would also tend to support higher density housing which is
more energy efficient.
Concurrently, there is a noticeable trend for office con-
solidation within Portland due primarily to general economic
conditions. Office expansion and relocation to new suburban
sites will probably not take place until economic conditions
improve substantially. Scarborough could conceivably attract
quality office development if and when sewer capacity is avail-
able, and when year-round access to the turnpike is in force.
The same is true for any industrial land absorption.
The predominant land absorption will probably continue to
be residential through 1980. The rate of absorption will
depend upon sewer construction, market and economic conditions
(key determinants of demand), and local discussions to main-
tain a low to moderate growth objective for the Town.
* University of North Carolina, New Communities U.S.A.
Results of a National Study.
11-48
-------
FIGURE 2.2-4
COG Planning Activities
Planning
wjnicipal ity
Jridgton
AV
•
•
S •
•
•
•
Cape Elizabeth
•
•
•
S •
•
•
4
•
•
Casco
•
•
S
•
•
•
Cumberland
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
Falmouth
•
•
•
s ~
•
•
•
•
Freeport
»
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gorham
•
•
«
s •
•
•
•
•
Gray
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
Harrison
AV
•
s
•
•
Naples
•
•
•
•
•
North Yarmouth
•
•
«
•
•
•
Otisfield
s
•
Portland
•
•
•
s«
•
•
•
•
•
Pownal
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Raymond
•
•
s •
•
•
•
Scarborough
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•*
•
Sebago
•
•
•
•
•
South Portland
•
•
•
s«
•
•
•
•
Standish
•
•
•
s«
•
•
•
•
Westbrook
•
•
•
s«
•
•
•
•
•
Windham
•
•
•
s
•
•
•
•
Yarmouth
•
•
•
s«
•
•
•
•
Totals 22
19
21
20
15/14
19
5
19
16
1
17
Percent 100
86
95
91
68/64
86
23
86
73
5
77
• Yes or active
Note: Pownal does not require
Shoreland Zoning.
Municipalities which have adopted their
own shoreland zoniny ordinance, as of October
16. 1974. have the symbol "S" on the chart. This is
used whether the shoreland- zoninu ordinance is
separately adopted or is an amendment to an exist-
ing zoning ordinance which applies to all or part of
the municipality. The symbol "P" indicates an
ordinance, other than a shoreland zoning ordinance,
which applies to only a part of the municipality.
The zoning ordinance column contains two totals:
zoning ordinances other than shoreland zoninu on
the left and shoreland zoning on the ri'jht.
Municipalities havinu either a municipal
subdivision control ordinance adopted by their
legislative body or a subdivision control regulation
adopted bv their municipal reviewing authority
are shown as having a subdivision control ordin-
ance. All municipalities are required to review
requests for subdivision under the terms of State
law. iT /V). * 4^5(11.
II- 5.0
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Given the moratorium of the recent years, a higher rate would be
expected for the first 3 years following completion of the
sewerage system to meet the pent-up demand, followed by a
leveling off to approximately 100 units per year. The new
housing built in Scarborough will continue to be in the higher
price ranges, drawing from a small percentage of the metropolitan
area market population.
- The number of households in the metropolitan housing mar-
ket that had annual incomes in excess of $15,000 in 1970 is
Table 2.2-6
Residential Building Permit Activity
(1964-75)
Year
Single Family
Multifamily
1975*
37
1974
78
-
1973
63
90
1972
149
-
1971
195
-
1970
142
-
1969
117
-
1968
73
-
1967
55
-
1966
53
-
1965
53
-
1964
47
~~
January through June.
Source: Building Inspector, town of Scarborough,
6,711. Assuming the average new house in Scarborough will be
$35,000 and up, this is the income category comprising the
market demand. If we further assume that 2 0 percent of these
households (1,342) are actively looking to buy housing and 139
new units are constructed in Scarborough in any given year, this
results in a capture rate of 10.4 percent.
(2) Opportunities and Constraints
Scarborough presents both opportunities and constraints
to land development use. The opportunities include good regional
transportation, attractive open space and natural amenities,
stable tax rate, educated and skilled labor force, and
pleasant residential neighborhoods. However, severe constraints
exist which temper the opportunities. These include the limited
H-52
-------
availability of buildable land, sewerage and water, and the size
of the metropolitan market area.
The Town at this time is unwilling to extend waterlines
west of the Turnpike and the cost of doing so is prohibitive to
a private developer. Hence the largely vacant land west of the
pike will probably not be developed during the next 10 to 15
years.
Development east of the pike will probably continue in
haphazard fashion until sewerage and treatment facilities are
completed along with new and updated comprehensive planning
controls and treatment strategies. The impacts of various
growth alternatives and sewage treatment strategies are discus-
sed in Chapter V.
2.2.6 Historical/Archeological Sites
The Portland area has a long and colorful history, with
a rich Indian heritage dating from the pre-Revolutionary era.
The discussion of sites of historical and archeological sig-
nificance is divided into two subsections.
Subsection (1) mentions sites that have received recog-
nition of the National Register of Historic Places. Any pro-
perty on this register is protected from negative impacts from
any federally funded project, and eligible for a federal matching
grant for its acquisition or restoration. The state of Maine has
230 properties listed on this register as well as 28 historic
districts and 24 national historical landmarks.
Subsection (2) discusses briefly areas not in the regis-
ter but in the Maine State Inventory of Historic Resources or of
particular local interest.
(1) National Register Properties
Within Cumberland County there are 69 entries
on the National Register, as well as nine historic
landmarks and seven historic districts. The only
entry that is located in Scarborough is the Winslow
Homer Home and Studio, which is also a national
historical landmark. The Winslow Homer Home and
Studio are located in Prout's Neck. At present,
there are no other sites in Scarborough pending or
nominated for register designation.
(2) Sites of Historic/Archeological and Local
Interest
Prout's Neck Historic District (late 19 th-
early 20th century, private) surrounds the
Winslow Homer Studio and was developed
as a summer colony with many residents
originally coming from Philadelphia. These
11-53
-------
annual summer visitors built a number
of significant shingle style cottages,
some of which were designed by out-of-
state architects, including Alexander
Wadsworth Longfellow of Boston and
John Calvin Stevens I of Portland.
This area was also the site of an
early garrison built on Prout's Neck
during the 1680's by settlers for pro-
tection against Indians. The town of
Scarborough, organized in Spring 1658,
was comprised of several places of settle-
ment then called Black Point, Blue Point,
and Stratton Island, some of which were
settled as early as 1636.
Indian Burial Grounds have been tenta-
tively identified by the Scarborough Town
Historian, Mrs. Dorothy Shaw Libbey, in
three general areas within Scarborough.
None of these areas will be affected by the
proposed project.
The King's Highway in Scarborough refers
to the sections of beach at Higgins Beach,
Ferry Beach, and Pine Point Beach which
served as part of the "King1 s'Highway" that
stretched from Portland to Kittery in the
mid-17th century. The hard sand provided
a fairly good "road" for horses and was
clear of trees. The King's Highway was the
only land route between the Province of
Maine and Massachusetts for more than 100
years.
Scottow Hill Road was an early garrison
site (circa 1670); the last Scarborough
man to be killed by an Indian was slain on
the hill slopes.
As a result of comments received on the Draft EIS, an
Archeological survey was conducted on the treatment plant" site for
Alternative A on Prout's Neck. The results of the survey were neg-
ative and no disclosures were encountered.
The area surrounding the existing Oak Hill plant consists
of mostly farmland which has been previously overturned and dis-
rupted for a number of years.
11-54
-------
2.2.7 Community Facilities and Services
Major community facilities are shown in Figure 2.2-6
and are briefly described below.
Library
The town has one public library which is
partially funded by the town.
Town Offices
The town offices are located primarily
in two buildings on Route 1 in the Oak
Hill area. One building houses the School
Superintendant and staff; the second func-
tions as the Town Hall, other Town offices,
and meeting center for the Planning Board,
Sanitary Board and numberous other munici-
pal groups. The building is crowded and
space is inadequate for the growing govern-
mental functions in the Town of Scarborough.
Public Works
The Public Works Department provides garbage
and trash collection, maintains roads and
streets, services all town maintenance equip-
ment and vehicles, and maintains parks and
public recreation facilities. Solid waste
is currently being dumped at the municipal
site.
Scarborough is participating in the planning
for the area-wide solid waste management pro-
gram with the assistance of the Greater,Portland
Council of Governments. This project is
discussed in more detail in Section 2.3.2.
Fire Department
The Fire Department has a full time Chief and
a volunteer staff of over 100 persons. The
Town has six fire stations. Additional new
equipment has been purchased in the past two
years with revenue sharing funds. This has
reinforced the Department's ability to provide
fire prevention and protection services to
Scarborough residents.
11-55
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Schools
The town of Scarborough has one high school,
one junior high, and six elementary schools.
Total school enrollment in 1970 was 2,217,
which represented a 34 percent increase over
1960. Estimated enrollment for 1975 is 2,524,
representing a 13.8 percent increase over 1970.
The school population has stabilized, with
kindergarten through grade 4 enrollments gen-
erally declining. The schools currently have
excess capacity and do not foresee expansion
needs until after 1980.
Police Department
The Scarborough Police Department consists of
a full-time staff of 13 with five cars; in the
summer season a volunteer force is used to
patrol the beach areas and the Scarborough Downs.
The Police Department work out of the new combined
Fire, Rescue and Police Communications Center in
Oak Hill along Route 1. The Center has a joint
24-hour dispatch service which has helped to
coordinate and improve service.
Cemeteries
Scarborough has two municipal cemeteries; Dunstan
Cemetery and Memorial Cemetery. A private non-
profit cemetery is located in Black Point.
Recreation Facilities
Recreation resources within Scarborough are domin-
ated by the natural areas including beachfronts
and marshlands. These are utilized by both the
year round population and the tourists. In co-
ordination with the public schools, recreation
programs are managed utilizing school equipment,
playgrounds and athletic fields. Tennis has
caught the interest of residents and several new
courts have been built by the town for public use.
One public and two private golf courses are avail-
able. Scarborough Downs is a well-known summer
recreation/entertainment facility patronized by
tourists and residents from the entire metropoli-
tan area.
The closing of the clam flats to open digging by
the Maine Department of Marine Resources ended a
11-57
-------
popular family recreation resource in Scarborough.
The flats are now only dug for commercial purpos-
es by licensed depuration plants.
The marshlands also have provided good hunting
grounds and shooting areas. The acquisition of
much of the marshlands by the state preserves
these areas for season-regulated hunting and shoot-
ing. Areas acquired with Federal funding, however,
closes at least 60 percent of the land area to
hunting. The central marshlands were acquired
with combined federal and state money. Prout's
Neck is a state game preserve and has a private
bird sanctuary. A Rachel Carson Federal Preserve
is in the process of planning and designation
north of the Higgins Beach area along the ocean.
Several islands offshore (Stratton, Bluff) are also
bird sanctuaries. However, enforcement during
hunting season is often difficult.
2.2.8 Municipal Fiscal Capabilities
The town of Scarborough has a moderate tax rate which de-
clined in FY 75 from $24.60 to $24 per $1,000 of assessed value.
Assessment is 100 percent of economic value. The decrease in tax
rate resulted from the town's moratorium on growth during the past
two years because of sewer capacity and water pollution difficulties.
The town's source of revenue is from property taxes.
Revenue sharing, moneys are utilized mainly to make purchases of
equipment and capital improvements rather than to initiate
service programs. The major expenditure areas are for education
and schools and for public works. The town's transformation over
the past 25 years from a rural area to a suburban residential area
has increased community needs for school space and public works
services and facilities.
2.2.9 Transportation Facilities
Scarborough is well-located in regard to transportation
facilities networks.
(1) Air
The old municipal airport site in Scarborough was
converted to industrial use. The Portland International
Jetport is just north of Scarborough and west of Portland.
Air traffic at the jetport has continued to increase,
from 48.5 thousand passengers in 1962 to 135.5 passen-
gers in 1972. Air traffic is expected to continue to
increase, according to the manager at the Portland Jetport.
The forecasted increase is from 135.5 thousand passengers
in 1972 to 376 thousand passengers in 1992, with cor-
responding increase in air carrier operations, itinerant
general aviation operations, and local general operations.
There will be a decrease in military operations, however.
11-58
-------
Planning for expansion of runways and facilities is
nearly completed. These forecasts are an additional in-
dicator of economic growth and confidence held for the
future of the Portland metropolitan area. Peak air
passenger traffic is in August during the summer season.
Current year estimates of passenger traffic show a
decline of about 6 percent, which is not unreasonable
considering general economic conditions.
(2) Railroad Service
Scarborough is served by the main doubletracked
Boston and Maine Railroad line that reaches from
Portland to Boston. The line carries only freight and
has two terminals within the town: one at the Snow
Canning Factory in Blue Point, and one called Scarborough
Beach at Black Point. The Rigby terminal is located on
the Scarborough South Portland Town line.
(3) Highways and Streets
The Maine Turnpike traverses the town of Scarborough
and is part of the Interstate Highway System. To date,
there is no year-round interchange within the town,
the nearest being in South Portland. A seasonal inter-
change opens during the summer racing season for Scarborough
Downs. It is likely that when the town population reach-
es a higher level, the interchange may be improved for
year-round use. The other major thoroughfare is U.S.
Route 1, which is four lanes wide through Scarborough.
Numbered routes include State Highways 9, 207, 114, and
77. Scarborough contains over 110 miles of roads and
streets, approximately half of which are town owned.
Figure 2.2-7 reflects relative traffic volume for
the major roads within Scarborough.
Traffic along Route 1 near the intersection of Gorham
Road has increased from a level of 12,320 in 1962 to
approximately 16,375 in 197 3. Traffic along Black Point
Road has increased from 1220 to 3535. The increased
traffic is to be expected with the increased residential
population. These conditions have involved traffic study
and the planned addition of traffic lights and other con-
trol strategies.
Transportation within Scarborough is almost entirely
automobile oriented. The school system does operate
buses for collecting school children and very limited
public bus connections run from Scarborough along Route 1
into Portland. The Scarborough-Portland bus runs only
during business hours and on an hourly schedule. There
11-59
-------
is no bus service to Maine Mall in South Portland, the
regional shopping center. As the Town grows, increasing
congestion and traffic will be generated on the follow-
ing major arterials:
Black Point Road
Pleasant Hill Road
Spurwink Road
Pine Point Road
Route 114.
These roads will need improvement and intersection
controls at key intersections. Route 1 will become in-
creasingly congested as additional commercial develop-
ment attracts traffic, and the lack of year-round access
to the Turnpike channels traffic to Route 1. Construc-
tion of a second access road has been discussed but
not yet approved. This access should serve to lighten
the traffic loads along Route 1.
2.2.10. Resource Use
Use and supply of natural resources play an important
role in the growth of an area. Principal resources used in
Scarborough include energy, sand, and gravel. Clams as a re-
source were discussed in Section 2.1.6. The other resources are
discussed below.
(1) Energy
Energy is primarily used in Scarborough for space
heating, transportation, lighting, and operating elec-
trical appliances. Major industrial users include Snow
Foods Company, Bayley Foods Company, and Humpty Dumpty
Potato Chips Company. Space heating is accomplished by
using oil, electricity, and propane. Use of natural
gas is very limited. The 1974 consumption of electricity
and various fuels in Scarborough is shown in Table 2.2-7.
Electricity is supplied to the Town of Scarborough
by the Central Maine Power Company. They generated
60 percent of the total electrical energy used in Maine
in the first half of 1974. The company plans to add a
fossil-fueled, 600,000 kilowatt plant in Yarmouth in 1977,
and also has plans for a second nuclear plant in 1984.
Fuel oil in the region is imported. Northern
Utilities, Inc., which supplies natural gas, does not
have a distribution system in Scarborough; only a few
shops in the Oak Hill Shopping Plaza are supplied by
the company.
11-60
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Table 2.2-7
Energy Consumption in Scarborough
Energy Resource
Annual Consumption
(1974)
Electricity
27,180,000 kwh
Natural Gas ^
19,376 therms
Heating oil ^
4,277,000 gallons
Gasoline ^
5,141,000 gallons
Diesel ^
650,000 gallons
(a) Source: Central Maine Power Company, Augusta, Maine
(b) Source: Northern Utilities, Inc. Portland, Maine.
(c) Figures based on allocations of the consumption in
the State of Maine according to population. Data
for the state were provided by the State Office of
Emergency Preparedness, Augusta, Maine.
11—62
-------
(2) Sand and Gravel Pits*
There are approximately 100 sand and gravel pits
in the town of Scarborough, 15 to 25 of which are in
active operation. The amount of material excavated
from a pit depends on the demand, and varies from
50,000 cubic yards to over 500,000 cubic yards of mat-
erial per year. For example, when the highway from
Scarborough to Portland was built, about 10 million
cubic years of material were excavated from this area.
Most of the active pits have been in operation for over
10 years, and no new pits have been started recently.
The pit operations provide about 50 steady jobs in the
town of Scarborough.
2.2.11 Water Supply and Wastewater Management
This section describes potable water treatment and dis-
tribution as well as wastewater collection and treatment systems
in Scarborough.
(1) Potable Water Supply
Public water supply in Scarborough is available only
in the area east of the Maine Turnpike. The Portland
Water District provides about two thirds of Scarborough's
domestic water supply. The rest is provided by the
Biddeford and Saco Water Company, which supplies the Pine
Point area. The details of the water treatment and
distribution systems are given in Table 2.2-8.
There are a few privately owned ground water wells
in Scarborough, mostly in the area west of the Maine
Turnpike. The exact number and yield of these wells are
unknown.
(2) Wastewater Management
This section describes the sources of wastewater
and existing collection and treatment systems in
Scarborough.
Sources of Wastewater
Sanitary waste is the principal source of
wastewater in Scarborough, followed by indus-
trial and commerical wastes.
The current average residential waste-
water flow is estimated at 1 MGD, based on
an estimated population of 10,000 and assum-
ing a flow of 100 gallons per capita.
Source: Mr. Robert Prout of Prout Sand and Loam Co.
11-63
-------
Table 2.2-8
Public Water Supply in Scarborough*
Portland Water District
Biddeford and Saco Water Co.
Source of water supply
Sebago Lake
Saco River, 2 miles upstream
from Biddeford
Water treatment
Chlorination (current
water quality meets
federal standards with-
out treatment)
Mixing, flocculation, set-
tling, filtration, disin-
fection, and PH adjustment
Service area
Greater Portland
Biddeford , Saco, Old Orchard,
and Pine Point area of
Scarborough
Total number of customers
36,836
11,000
Total water consumption
25 to 30 MGD (average)
4.75 MGD (average)
Capacity of existing facilities
57 MGD
10 MGD
Number of customers in Scarborough
1,362
564
Consumption in Scarborough
0.6 MGD (average)
0.3 MGD (average)
User rate
Varies from 80<:/100 cu ft
for first 400 cu ft to
10.5C/100 cu ft over
500,000 cu ft
Varies from 92C/100 cu ft for
first 400 cu ft to 20C/100 cu
ft over 90,000 cu ft
* Sources: Portland Water District and Biddeford and Saco Water Company.
-------
The average industrial wastewater flow
is about 0.1 MGD, which includes the dis-
charges from Humpty Dumpty Potato Chip Co.,
Snow Food Products Co., and Paul F. Bayley
Food Processing Co.*
Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities
Only the area along U.S. Route 1 between the
South Portland City line and Scarborough River
is presently served by a sewerage system.
Domestic sewage from this area, as well as
industrial waste from the Humpty Dumpty Potato
Chip factory, are collected and conveyed to the
secondary treatment plant at Oak Hill. The
treated effluent from this plant is discharged
into the tidal Nonesuch River. The average
wastewater flow to the plant is approximately
250,000 gallons per day. The plant has a
capacity of about 320,000 gallons per day,
but the remaining capacity has been assigned
to new development.
Wastewater throughout the remainder of the
town of Scarborough is discharged through in-
dividual septic tank systems and through pipes
without treatment to bodies of water. Unsuit-
able soil conditions have caused sewage over-
flows from the septic tanks into the bodies of
water. The discharges of untreated sewage are
responsible for Scarborough's water quality
problems, which were discussed earlier in this
Final EIS.
Management of the Existing Sewerage Systems
The Scarborough Sanitary District Board of
Trustees is responsible for the management
of the existing sewerage system. The Board
consists of seven members, elected every 4
years. The Sanitary District is independent
of the Town Council and has its own borrowing
authority.
Planned Sewerage System
The Town Council of Scarborough, the Scarborough
Sanitary District, and the Plumbing Inspector
of the Town of Scarborough are under consent
order from the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection to provide for sewage collection and
Source: Supplementary Report on the Proposed Sewerage System,
Scarborough Sanitary District, Whitman and Howard, Inc., Nov.,
1972.
II- 65
-------
treatment in Higgins Beach, Blue Point, Pine
Point, West Scarborough.* The design of the
proposed project, described in detail in Chap-
ter IV, includes sewerage to serve these areas.
2.2.12 Solid Waste and Sludge Management
Solid waste in contrast to recoverable solid resources
means unclean, unwanted or discarded material with insufficient
liquid content to be free flowing . It includes, for example,
rubbish, scrap material, garbage, junk, refuse, inert fill material,
and landscape refuse, but not septic tank sludge. Dewatered sludge,
from a sewage treatment plant, is generally regarded as solid waste.
This section describes the solid waste and sludge management
practices in Scarborough.
(1) Solid Waste
Solid Waste is generated at the rate of approximately
400 to 450 tons per day in the 4 towns consisting of
Portland, South Portland, Scarborough, and Cape Elizabeth.**
This amounts to about 6 to 8 lbs/person/day. The solid
waste from Scarborough is trucked to a land fill site
located off Pleasant Hill Road near the intersection of
Rigby Road and the town line. The Greater Portland Council
of Governments is currently letting bids for a contract
which would resolve the solid waste disposal problem, through
the baling and subsequent removal of the solid waste.
(2) Sludge
The disposal of sludge from the existing sewage treat-
ment plant and septic tanks is discussed separately below.
1. Treatment Plant Sludge
The secondary sewage treatment plant in Scarborough
produces approximately 12,000 gallons of sludge per week.
The sludge is aerobically digested to reduce the number of
pathogenic organisms before disposal. An analysis of
the sludge performed recently indicated the following
composition:***
Total Phosphorous 4 mg/liter
Nitrate 0.3 mg/liter
Nitrite 0.02 mg/liter
Solids less than 1.4%
No heavy metals were detected.
* Source: Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
Maine Solid Waste Management Act, Environmental Reporter, 173,
pp. 1196-0101.
* Personal Communication with Rick Hubbell, GPCOG, South Portland
October, 1975.
* Private Communication with Mr. Gary Howard of Scarborough
Sanitary District, October 1975.
II- 66
-------
The digested sludge is trucked to a disposal site
for land spreading. The Scarborough Sanitary District
is experimenting with different types of sites including
hay fields and agricultural land and has obtained highly
satisfactory results.! The Sanitary District plans to
seek additional sites for disposal.
In addition to the treated sludge, the treatment
plant also produces untreated sludge in the form of
screenings, grit, and scum which are separated from the
wastewater prior to treatment. Although the quantities
of these wastes are very small compared to that of the
treated sludge, they need to be carefully disposed
because of their highly pathogenic nature. Approximately
2 to 3 cubic yards per year of screenings consisting
mostly of rags, 1000 to 1500 gallons of grease per year,
most of which comes from the Humpty Dumpty Potato Chips
Co., and a small quantity of grit are produced each year.
The screenings and grit are disposed of at the solid
waste disposal site off the Pleasant Hill Road. The
grease is chemically treated prior to disposal at a site
approved by the Maine DEP.
2. Septic Tank Sludge
Approximately 400,000 gallons per year of septic
tank sludge is pumped out in Scarborough and taken to
one of two disposal sites in the town for land spreading*.
The site near the intersection of Broad Turn Road and
Burnham-Road, west of the turnpike, is privately operated,
whereas the site off Black Point Road near the cemetary
is operated by the Town. Both sites have been licensed
by the State DEP and the sludge is disposed of in accord-
ance with the state regulations.
i Private Communication with Alvin Keene, Superintendent,
Scarborough Sanitary District, October 1975.
* Private communication with Mr. Charles Andreson, Town Engineer,
Scarborough, October 1975. The volume of sludge is estimated
by using Maine Guidelines for Septic Tank Sludge Disposal on
The Land. The Life Sciences and Agriculture Experiment Sta-
tion and Cooperative Extension Service. University of Maine and
the Maine Soil and Water Conservation Commission, April 1974.
11-67
-------
REFERENCES
1. Portland West, Old Orchard Beach, and Prout's Neck
Quadrangle, Maine, 7-5 Minute Series (Topographic)., Geolog-
ical Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Revised 1970.
2. Comprehensive Development for Scarborough, Maine, James W.
Sewall Company, 1966.
3. Generalized Groundwater Conditions in the State of Maine,
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
March 1968.
4. Economic and Environmental Inventory of the North Atlantic
Region Including the Outer Continental Shelf and Adjacent
Waters from Sandy Hook, New Jersey to Bay of Fundy, The
Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine, Box 2320, South
Portland, Maine, November 1974.
5. Earthquake History of the United States, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
6. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative
Data, Portland, Maine, Environmental Data Service, National
Climatic Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, Asheville, North Carolina, 1974.
7. Soil Survey, Cumberland County, Maine, Soil Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 1974.
8. Private communication with Mr. Dave Dixon, Bureau of Air
Quality Control,Maine Department of Environmental Protection,
July 1975.
9. Maine Department of Environmental Protection Implementation
Plan for Air Quality Control, State of Maine, Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control,
November 1972.
10. Private communication with Mr. Ray Field, Plant Operator,
Scarborough Sanitary District, Scarborough, Maine, August
1975.
11. Zoning Ordinance, Scarborough, Maine, Scarborough Planning
Board, June 1970.
12. J.E. Wesler, Manual for Highway Noise Prediction, DOT-TSC-
FHWA—72-1, U.ST Department of Transportation, March 1972.
II- 68
-------
13. Private communication Maine Department of Transportation
Division of Traffic Engineering, July 1975.
14. Scarborough Wildlife Management Area Management Plan, Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, July 1975.
15. Special Flood Hazard Area, Town of Scarborough, Maine,
Federal Insurance Administration, U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, May 17, 1974.
16. Flood Hazard Analysis, Nonesuch River, Town of Scarborough,
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
April 1975.
17. Preliminary Study of Long-range Water Supply Problems of
Selected Urban Metropolitan Areas, Vol. II, Area Reports,
North Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
November 1971.
18. Private communication with Mr. Joseph Taylor, Assistant
General Manager, Portland Water District, Portland, Maine
July 197 5.
19. Optimum Location of the Proposed Prout's Neck Ocean Outfallf
Scarborough, Maine, Whitman and Howard, Inc., Boston,
Massachusetts, March 1974.
20. Supplementary Report on Proposed Sewerage System, Scarborough
Sanitary District, Scarborough, Maine, Whitman and Howard, Inc.
21. Same as 19 above.
22. State Water Law, Maine, Environment Reporter, Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc., 1973.
23. Water supply and Wastewater Disposal, Gordan Maskew, Fair
and John Charles Geyer, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York
1965.
24. Memorandum by John W. Hurst, Jr., Department of Sea and
Shore Fisheries, State of Maine, May 19, 1971.
25. Private communication with Mr. Bradford Sterl, Biologist,
Department of Marine Resources, State of Maine, July 1975.
26. Same as 14 above.
27. Same as 25 above.
28. Design and Operation of a Cleansing Plant, Bradford Sterl,
Paul J. ReRocher, and John W. Hurst, Department of Marine
Resources, State of Maine.
11-69
-------
29. Same as 25 above.
30. Private Communication with Mr. Sandy Eldridge, Assistant
Biologist, Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife,
State of Maine, Scarborough, Maine, July 1975.
31. United States List of Endangered Fauna, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, May 1974.
32. Private Communication with Mr. Fred Hurley, Department of
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, State of Maine, Augusta,
Maine, July 1975.
33. Private Communication with Mr. Rene Noel, State Forester,
Maine Department of Conservation; Forest Management Division,
Windham, Maine, August 1975.
11-70
-------
CHAPTER III
HISTORY OF
ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED DURING
THE EIS PROCESS
-------
Ill ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Background and History
This chapter describes all of the alternatives that
were considered during the EIS process. The Draft EIS, dis-
tributed for public comment last January, evaluated five differ-
ent alternatives of wastewater treatment and collection for
Scarborough, Maine. Consideration was given to possible regional
solutions to resolve water quality problems, thus two of the five
alternatives considered were common solutions to water pollution
problems in Scarborough, Old Orchard and South Portland. The
alternatives that were considered in the Draft EIS involve the
treating of wastewater from Scarborough at the following loca-
tion:
A single new plant at Scarborough
An expanded regional plant at South Portland
An expanded plant in the town of Old Orchard to
serve flows emanating from the south side of
Scarborough with the northern section served by
the South Portland Facility
An expanded existing Scarborough plant in combi-
nation with a scaled down version of the facility
suggested in Alternative 1.
In addition to the above alternatives, the No
Action Alternative was also considered.
The Draft EIS concluded that a new 3.0 mgd single
plant at Prout's Neck represented the most cost-effective and
environmentally acceptable solution. This conclusion was based
upon EPA's independent assessment of the work performed by
Whitman & Howard, consultants to the Sanitary District.
At the public hearing in January, and during the
three months commenting period to follow, EPA received numerous
letters and petitions in opposition to the recommended alterna-
tive. Comments that were submitted to the Agency raised ques-
tions regarding the sizing of the facility and the cost to users
of the proposed facility.
Due to the extent of public comments, EPA set forth
to reevaluate the conclusions presented in the Draft EIS and
prepare a supplement to the Draft, which was released for public
comment in October 1976. The intent of the supplement was to
perform a more detailed evaluation of each of the alternatives
III-l
-------
considered in the Draft in addition to examining several new
alternatives that were recommended by the public. These two
new alternatives were:
Individual package plants to serve the areas
under consent order
Expanding and upgrading the existing Oak Hill
plant as proposed by Thomas Griffin
The Supplement to the Draft EIS did not recommend any
one specific alternative. It was EPA's intent to circulate this
report to the public and utilize public comments and Federal and
State agency responses to select a final alternative. Several
workshops were held in Scarborough during November to solicit
public comments. During the review period EPA learned that one
alternative, the full transfer to South Portland, may not be
technically feasible due to extreme infiltration problems with
the South Portland sewer system. As an alternative to the South
Portland scenario, several interested groups recommended a new
plan which would involve expanding the Oak Hill facility and
pumping the effluent to the Fore River.
EPA has considered this alternative very carefully
and the costs and environmental impacts of this plan are
included in this Final EIS.
The alternative schemes were evaluated in several
steps. The first step was to estimate waste loads and treatment
levels for each alternative. The second step would be to define
the wastewater handling systems for each alternative scheme in
terms of the following subsystems: interceptors, pumping sta-
tions, treatment plants, and outfalls. Finally, the alternative
systems were compared in order to identify the most economical,
environmentally sound, and politically and administratively
feasible alternative system for Scarborough.
3.2 Estimation of the Waste Loads and Treatment
Levels for the Alternative Systems
In order to estimate the waste loads to be handled
by a wastewater system, it was necessary to identify the service
areas and project the population to be served. Each alterna-
tive was evaluated utilizing each of the three population
scenarios described below. Once the waste loads are estimated,
the effluent quality requirements must be known in order to
determine the required treatment levels. The sewer service
areas, population growth projections, waste load estimation,
effluent quality requirements, and the treatment level esti-
mations are discussed in the following sections.
III-2
-------
3.3 Identification of the Service Areas and Projection
of Population Growth
Figure 3,3-1 - illustrates the potential sewer ser-
vice areas in Scarborough. At this time, the Town of Scarborough
and the Scarborough sanitary district are under a consent order .
from the Maine DEP to provide sewers to the following six
areas because of septic tank malfunctions: Pine Point, Blue
Point, Dunstan, Willowdale, Oak Hill and Higgins Beach. The
Oak Hill North and Black Point/Prout's Neck areas, although
not under consent order, also need sewerage service. Similarly,
the Pleasant Hill area is likely to require sewer service in
the near future.
The population growth projections for the above
service areas were obtained from the Greater Portland Council
of Government (GPCOG), which has recently developed three growth
scenarios (low, medium and high) for the Town of Scarborough.
Of the three growth scenarios developed by the GPCOG,
the low growth scenario assumes sewer service only for the areas
under the consent order. The medium and high growth scenarios
assume sewer service for the areas under the consent orders
plus the Oak Hill North and the Black Point-Prout's Neck areas.
The GPCOG population growth projections for the areas under the
consent order, the optimal sewer service areas, and areas for
which sewerage is not needed to the year 2,000 are shown in
Table 2.2-2;for the purposes of the alternatives analysis, the
population projection to the year 2,000 is considered.
Subsequent to the circulation of the supplement to
the Draft EIS, EPA officially requested the Scarborough Planning
Board, Town Council and Sanitary District, to select a growth
scenario which best represented the long term growth objectives
of the Town. These local agencies have responded by officially
endorsing the low to moderate growth scenario. It is with this
understanding that EPA is evaluating Scarborough's future water
quality needs.
3.4 Estimation of the Waste Loads
The residential and industrial waste loads were
estimated separately. Residential wastewater flows were esti-
mated by assuming an average flow of 100 gallons per capita per
day, which was also the average used by Whitman and Howard. The
flows were verified by comparing the measured sewer flows with
the water supply records. Waste loads from the residential
areas were based on the 1975 and 1976 average loadings of bio-
logical oxygen demand (BOD^) (0.15 pounds per capita per day)
and TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) (0.21 pounds per capita per
day) at the existing Oak Hill Plant.
III-3
-------
i -¦
POftXIAfV
SCARBOROUGH
OCEAN
fW ¦WJ.WEUI
YORK
LEGEND
G Wastewater Treatment Plant
O Pvmp Station
Gravity Sowor
Pare* Main
forvlco Aroa Boundary
Fig.3.3-1
II1-4
-------
Industrial flows and loadings shown in Table 3.4-1
are based on the 0.3 million gallons per day (mgd) future flow
projected by Whitman and Howard and National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NDPES) permit flows.
Table 3.4-1
Industrial Contribution
Flow
BOD 5
TSS
(mgd)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
Snow Foods
0.075
1,000
300
Bayley Foods
0.010
142
95
Humpty-Dumpty
Potato Chips
0.062
430
250
Other (all in Oak Hill)
0.153
_
—
3.5 Identification of the Effluent Quality Specifica-
tion from the Maine PEP
The estimated waste loads were submitted to the DEP
to obtain the DEP's specification of the effluent requirements.
The DEP specified advanced waste treatment (AWT) prior to dis-
charge to the' Nonesuch River or the Goosefare Brook. The degree
of the AWT is to be such that the existing waste loading to these
streams would not be exceeded. No discharge to the Scarborough
River is allowed, because the river flow is too small to support
a pollution load. The DEP required any ocean outfalls to have
best practical treatment (BPT) at Higgins Beach, Prout's Neck,
and Grand Beach. These outfalls would have to extend into the
ocean far enough to ensure dispersal of pollutants and protec-
tion of bathing areas even with degraded plant operation. A
discharge to the Fore River would also require BPT. Table 3.5-1
provides the estimated treatment levels for all of the Alterna-
tives considered in this Final EIS.
3.6 Alternatives Considered During EIS Process
This section describes each of the alternative
schemes. Maps displaying the plants, pumping stations, and
interceptors for each alternative are also presented.
3.6.1 Alternative A - Single Plant at Prout's Neck
Under this proposal a single treatment plant capable
of handling an influent flow of 1.8 mgd (million gallons per
day) would be constructed in the Prout's Neck area of
III-5
-------
Table 3.5-1
Estimated Treatment Levels for All of the
Alternatives-Low, Medium, and High Growth Scenarios
Alternative
A - Single Plant at Prout's Neck
B - Individual Package Plants
C - Expanded and upgraded Oak Hill
Plant
D - Partial Transfer Pine Point
to Old Orchard Beach
E - Split Transfer South Side
to Old Orchard Beach
F - Full Transfer to South
Portland
G - Oak Hill - Fore River
Treatment Plant Location
and Growth Scenarios
Prout's Neck
Low
Medium
High
Pine Point
Low
Medium
High
Prout's Neck
Medium
High
Higgins Beach
Low
Medium
High
Oak Hill*
Low
Medium
High
Oak Hill*
Low
Medium
High
Old Orchard Beach**
Low
Medium
High
Oak Hill*
Low
Medium
High
Old Orchard Beach**
Low
Medium
High
South Portland
Low
Medium
High
South Portland
Low
Medium
High
Fore River
Low
Medium
High
Population
6,049
13,480
15,965
2,840
3,249
3,653
1,147
1,328
1,054
1,165
1,233
2,155
7,919
9,751
6,049
13,480
15,965
1,159
1,180
1.207
4,890
12,300
14,758
2,840
3,249
3,653
3,209
10,231
12,312
6,049
13,480
15;965
6,049
13,480
15,965
Removal
Eff,BODs
%
91
88
88
94
94
93
83
83
84
83
83
86
94
95
96
97
97
86
86
86
96
97
97
91
91
91
85
84
84
91
88
88
91
Removal
Eff.TSS
%
88
88
88
91
90
90
88
88
88
88
88
85
95
96
94
97
97
88
88
88
94
97
97
90
90
91
86
87
87
88
88
88
88
88
* Removal efficiencies and allowable waste loads are based on present Best Practicable Treatment
BODg —30 mg/1 and TSS - 30 mg/1 and flow of 0.41 mgd to give poundage loadings of 102 #/day eaci
** mg/1 quantities and percent removals for Old Orchard Beach include Old Orchard Beach's WWTP des
flow of 1.5 mgd, BOD5 - 210 mg/1, TSS - 230 mg/1, total BOD,, and TSS loadings are based on 30 m-'
with a 1.5 mgd flow.
III-6
-------
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
OUTFALL
OGDEN ROSS OUTFALL
LEGEND
P Wastewater Treatment Plant
Q Pump Station
Gravity Sewer
F«tc« Main
Service Area Boundary
l*i n hf n~rrr
Fig. 3.6-1
111-7
-------
Scarborough. Individual plants would also be built in South
Portland, and Old Orchard Beach. Locations of key facilities
involved in this alternative are shown in Figure 3.6-1. The
facility at Prout's Neck would be large enough to treat
anticipated flows through 1997 from the consent order areas
plus Oak Hill North and the Black Point/Prout's Neck areas.
Effluent would be pumped to an ocean outfall 600 feet offshore.
A secondary treatment scheme incorporating an activated
sludge process with effluent disinfection would be utilized.
The design of this alternative is primarily de-
termined by a set of DEP requirements. The effluent
requirements established by the DEP for BOD and TSS are
30 milligram/liter (mg/1) as a weekly average, 45 mg/1 as
a monthly average, and 50 mg/1 as a maximum daily value.
These requirements also indicate that fecal coliform must
not exceed 15 per 100 milliliters. Furthermore, an ocean
outfall is required which would extend far enough into
the ocean to protect bathing areas even under conditions
of degraded plant operation. These effluent requirements,
referred to as BPT, can be met by a typical secondary
treatment plant under average operating conditions with
special treatment given to fecal coliform residuals. This
special treatment involves a combination of chlorine dosage
concentration and contact time. The 50 mg/1 daily maximum
BOD and TSS requirement is more stringent than a conven-
tionally encountered secondary design; however, the para-
meters can be met through proper design of the sedimenta-
tion units.
Two interceptors would bring waste flows to the
treatment facility. The first would bring waste flows by
gravity from the north side communities of Oak Hill, Wil-
lowdale, Oak Hill North, Higgins Beach, Black Point, and
Prout's Neck. However, Black Point, Prout's Neck and Oak
Hill North would only contribute waste flows under the
medium and high growth scenarios. The second interceptor
would be a force main bringing wastewater from West Scar-
borough, Blue Point, and Pine Point.
Two outfall routes have been proposed for the waste-
water treatment plant (WWTP). The original outfall that
was proposed by Whitman and Howard goes across Prout's
Neck to a point 600 feet offshore with a depth of about
40 feet. The construction of this outfall would require
rock and ledge excavation. The alternative outfall route
that was proposed by Ogden Ross goes around Prout's Neck
to the same point chosen by Whitman and Howard. Dredging
rather than trenching would be required for much of this
alternative outfall route. Figure 3.6-1 illustrates
Alternative A.
III-8
-------
3.6.2 Alternative B - Individual Package Plants
Four WWTP1s serving the various developed areas of
Scarborough are envisioned by Alternative B. (See Figure
2.6-2).
A plant in Pine Point would serve the communities of
West Scarborough, Blue Point, and Pine Point. Waste flows
would be pumped from West Scarborough to Blue Point and then
from Blue Point to Pine Point. This plant would have an
ocean outfall. The Maine DEP indicated that BPT effluent
levels are required. The plant would be similar in design
to the Prout's Neck alternative plant, except that this
alternative included the construction of a separate plant
at West Scarborough as an option. That option was not
evaluated because the DEP will not allow any discharge into
the Dunstan River.
A separate treatment plant at the northeast corner
of Higgins Beach would serve West Scarborough. Wastewater
from the developed areas of Higgins Beach would be collected
in a pumping station and carried in a force main along
the Greenwood Avenue extension across the marsh to the treat-
ment plant. This plant would discharge to the ocean, with
an effluent corresponding to BPT.
The existing Oak Hill WWTP would be expanded so that
it may accept the flows from Willowdale, the industries, and
under the medium and high growth scenarios, flows from Oak
Hill North. That treatment plant would continue to dis-
charge to the Nonesuch River, and advanced waste treatment
would be required so that the current waste load would not
be exceeded.
Under the medium and high growth scenarios, a treat-
ment plant would be constructed on Prout's Neck to serve
both Prout's Neck and Black Point. This plant would dis-
charge a BPT effluent to the ocean south of Prout's Neck
in the same location as the regional Prout's Neck WWTP.
3.6.3 Alternative C - Expanding and Upgrading the
Oak Hill Plant
Alternative C, expanding and upgrading the Oak Hill
Plant, as proposed by Mr. Thomas Griffin would involve the
expansion of the existing Oak Hill WWTP to accept the waste-
water from all of Scarborough. (See Figure 3.6-3)
Wastewater from West Scarborough, Blue Point and
Pine Point would be collected at a pump station at the old
railroad grade north of Blue Point and pumped along this
.grade to the Oak Hill treatment plant. Wastewater from
Higgins Beach would be pumped through Black Point and across
the Nonesuch River to the plant. Under the medium and high
growth' scenarios, Prout's Neck and Black Point would be
III-9
-------
:rw
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
LEGEND
D Wastewater Treatment Plant
O Pump Station
— Gravity Sewer
¦ Perce Main
Service Area Boundary
1 IVi ,0
Fig.3.6-2
111-10
-------
SOUTH'
ATLANTIC
(WEAN
cuwnrti^AN'
LEGEND
D Wastawoltr Treatment Plant
Q Pump Station
¦ " Gravity Stww
>--- Pare* Main
tarvico Araa Boundary
-------
•>v .Jf,y
sow:
ROUGH*^ X
1
/ ATLANTIC
M OCEAN
CBMER Lrt
LEGEND
~ Wastewater Treatment Plant
Q Pump Station
Gravity S*w«r
'¦¦¦ Pare* Main
Service Area lowndary
Fig. 3.6-4
111-12
-------
included as part of the Higgins Beach flow. The present
Oak Hill collection system would be extended to collect the
flows from Willowdale and Oak Hill North in the medium and
high scenarios.
Because of the increased waste loadings, the Oak
Hill WWTP would have to be upgraded as well as expanded.
The degree of treatment would vary for the growth scenarios,
but the total load that could be discharged is fixed by
the present permit for the Oak Hill plant.
3.6.4 Alternative D - Partial Transfer: Pine Point to
Old Orchard Beach, the Remainder to Expanded and
Upgraded Oak Hill Plant
Under Alternative D, partial transfer: Pine Point to
Old Orchard Beach, with the remainder to an expanded and
upgraded Oak Hill plant, wastewater from Pine Point would
be pumped to Old Orchard Beach's WWTP. The wastewater
flows from the rest of Scarborough would go to an expanded
Oak Hill WWTP. (See Figure 3.6-4)
Waste flows from West Scarborough and Blue Point
would be collected in a pumping station located on the old
railroad grade north of Blue Point and pumped to the Oak
Hill plant. The wastewater from Higgins Beach would be
pumped through Black Point, across the Nonesuch River, to
the treatment plant. Under the medium and high growth
scenarios, the wastewater from Black Point and Prout's
Neck wouid also be included. The Oak Hill collection
system would be extended so as to collect the flows from
Willowdale, and in the medium and high growth scenarios, to
collect the flows from Oak Hill North. The flows from these
communities would go to an expanded and upgraded Oak Hill
WWTP which would continue to discharge to the Nonesuch
River.
Wastes from the community of Pine Point would be
collected and pumped to the Old Orchard Beach treatment plant.
This plant would have to be expanded and upgraded to handle
the increased flow. AWT would have to be provided to the
total flow to maintain the load established by the current
permit. At the present time, a 1.5 mgd secondary treatment
plant is being constructed in Old Orchard Beach and should
be completed in 1977. However there is no extra capacity
in this plant for Scarborough's wastewater. In fact, flows
often exceed 1.5 mgd now when the tourist season is at its
peak. As a result, the existing collection system is not
adequate to handle the additional Scarborough flows.
111-13
-------
3.6.5 Alternative E - Split Transfer; South Side to Old
Orchard Beach, North Side to South Portland
In Alternative E, split transfer, the waste flows from
the south side of Scarborough would be sent to an expanded
Old Orchard Beach WWTP and the wastewater flows from the
north side sent to the South Portland WWTP. (see Figure
3.6-5)
The wastewater from West Scarborough would be pumped
to Blue Point and from Blue Point the wastes would be pumped
to Pine Point. From Pine Point the wastewater would be
pumped to the Old Orchard Beach WWTP which would have to be
expanded and upgraded. Because of the increased service
area and flows, the required level of treatment at Old"
Orchard Beach would be higher than that required for
Alternative D.
On the north side of town, the waste flows from
Higgins Beach would be combined with the flows from Prout's
Neck and Black Point and pumped through Pleasant Hill under
the medium and high growth scenarios. Since this line would
go through Pleasant Hill, the flows from Peasant Hill could
be added to the waste flow from Higgins Beach without sub-
stantial additional cost.
The wastewater from Oak Hill, Willowdale, and Oak
Hill North would be collected in the Oak Hill WWTP, which
would be converted to a pumping station. The wastewater
would be pumped northeast along the old railroad grade
where the Oak Hill and Higgins Beach flows would be mixed
and transported via force main and gravity sewer to the
South Portland WWTP.
Two routes for transporting Scarborough's wastewater
to the South Portland WWTP were proposed. Whitman and
Howard proposed an interceptor system generally following
the route of Main Street and Broadway. The interceptor
would go between those two roads and the railroad tracks
to the Fore River and then east to the treatment plant.
The second route, which was proposed by the engin-
eering staff of South Portland, would go from Pleasant Hill
down Highland Avenue through South Portland to the treat-
ment plant. As opposed to the interceptor proposed by
Whitman and Howard, the Highland Avenue interceptor would
collect flows in South Portland from future developments
along Highland Avenue.
The South Portland plant, which is now under con-
struction, is a 5.5 mgd secondary treatment facility. The
facility design does not include primary treatment, neverthe-
less space is reserved for future primary tanks if needed.
111-14
-------
V-
S C »R B O R OU O H SiS
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
RL A
LEGEND
D Wastewater Treatment Plant
O Pump Station
Gravity Sewer
Farce Main
Service Area Boundary
hi iff! Mil
111-15
-------
3.6.6
Alternative F - Full Transfer to South Portland
In Alternative F, full transfer to South Portland,
all of the wastewater from Scarborough would be transferred
to the South Portland WWTP via gravity sewers and force
mains (See Figure 3.3-6).
The wastewater from West Scarborough, Blue Point,
and Pine Point would be collected at a pump station at the
old railroad grade north of Blue Point and pumped along
this grade to Oak Hill. This flow would be added to the
flows from Higgins Beach and Prout's Neck/Black Point under
the medium and high growth scenarios.
The wastewater from Scarborough would be transferred
to the South Portland WWTP by one of two routes. As part
of Alternative E, Whitman and Howard proposed an inter-
ceptor system generally following Main Street and Broadway
to the Fore River. The interceptors would run in the
undeveloped areas between the roads and the railroad tracks.
The wastewater would then travel east along the river and
be pumped up to the WWTP.
The second route described in Alternative E, and
suggested by the engineering staff of South Portland, would
follow Highland Avenue from Pleasant Hill through South
Portland to the WWTP. This route differs from the Whitman
and Howard route in that it is not entirely a Scarborough
system but would collect wastes from the undeveloped sec-
tion of South Portland along Highland Avenue.
3.6.7 Alternative G - Expanding Oak Hill with a Discharge
to the Fore River
In Alternative G, expanding the Oak Hill facility
and discharging to the Fore River, all of the wastewater
from Scarborough would be treated at a new 1.8 mgd treat-
ment facility at Oak Hill and the effluent then pumped to
the Fore River (See Figure 3.6-7).
Wastewater from West Scarborough, Blue Point and Pine
Point would be collected at a pump station at the old rail-
road grade north of Blue Point and pumped along this grade
to the new Oak Hill treatment plant. Under the medium and
high growth scenarios,Prout's Neck and Black Point would
be included as part of the Higgins Beach flow. The present
Oak Hill collection system would be extended to collect the
flows from Willowdale and Oak Hill North in the medium and
high growth scenarios.
The treated wastewater would then be pumped along
the railroad grade to the Fore River. This discharge would
be located in the proximity of the South Portland outfall.
111-16
-------
:T
~&k 'j^r
9*5^52
'sc AkBOR ottoH JiV
¦¦¦?.. x-,vw\.
/ I ATLANTIC
f \ (WEAN
YORK
LEGEND
~ Wastewater Treatment Plant
Q Pump Station
Gravity Sewer
•---Parce Main
- Service Area Boundary
Fig. 3.6-6
111-17
-------
'WW®
.south;
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
LEGEND
~ Wastewater Treatment Plant
Q Pump Station
"" Gravity Sewer
,mmm parse Main
Service Area Boundary
Fig. 3.6-7
111-18
-------
3.6.8
Alternative H - No Action
The term "no action" is defined here in terms of no
wastewater system within the town of Scarborough. To
maintain the existing system would result in further degrada-
tion of the surrounding environment, continued closure of
shellfish harvesting areas, and contamination of the swimming
areas. The no action alternative discussed in the Final EIS
represents no change from the Draft EIS.
3.7 Alternative Methods for Sludge Disposal
Although the Scarborough Sanitary District has been
successful in disposing of the sludge from the existing Oak Hill
treatment plant by land spreading, the feasibility of such an
approach for the proposed larger treatment plant needs to be
evaluated. This section provides such an evaluation and also
compares land spreading with land filling. This section is
organized in the following sections:
Alternative methods for sludge disposal on land
Comparison of sludge disposal requirements for
each alternative
Feasibility of the alternatives
3.7.1 Alternative Methods for Sludge Disposal on Land
Three alternative methods of sludge disposal on
land are evaluated: land spreading of liquid sludge, land
spreading of dewatered sludge, and land filling.
The two land spreading methods would entail utili-
zing the nutrients in the sludge for plant growth. The
sludge could be applied to farmland, grassland, or wood-
lands whenever the ground was not frozen or wet from prior
precipitation. Care must be taken in the selection of the
disposal site so that leachate from the site cannot contami-
nate ground or surface water supplies. Also, the sludge
must not contain excessive amounts of heavy metals.* The land
area required for sludge disposal primarily depends upon the
sludge volume, its nitrogen content, and the soil capacity
to absorb the nitrogen. Liquid sludge can be applied to the
land by spray irrigation or spreading through the use of
tank mounted trucks, whereas dewatered sludge is applied to
the land by spreading on the land and plowing it into the
soil. For both methods, the sludge must be stored whenever
the ground is frozen or wet from prior precipitation. Liquid
sludge may be stored in a lagoon, whereas dewatered sludge,
The heavy metals tend to accumulate in the plants.
111-19
-------
FIGURE 3.7-1
WISTBROOK
General Location of Potential Sites
Suitable For Sludge Disposal in Scarborough*
•CARIOAOMM
..A-
2
/'
*Jki
AlOGC
' 5 :;SP€CO«r*v
X.
\
• SITES SUITABLE FOR LAND SPREADING OF SLUDGE
(•) SITES SUITABLE FOR LAND FILLING OF SLUDGE
IAC<
* Based on the Maine DEP guidelines for
the disposal of stabilized sludge.
111-20
-------
because of its smaller volume, may be stored in a concrete
tank. The lagoon for liquid sludge may need to be lined
with impervious material to prevent leaching of the sludge
into the groundwater.
Land filling of dewatered sludge consists of
depositing the sludge on the land as a waste product. The
sludge is deposited in layers with a cover material spread
on top of each layer. The land area required for land
filling primarily depends upon the sludge volume and is
substantially less than that required for land spreading.
The leachate from the site must be monitored so that run-
off from the site does not contaminate water supplies.
3.7.2 Comparison of the Requirements for Each Alternative
The sludge disposal requirements for the proposed
activated sludge secondary treatment plant at Prout's Neck
are estimated for a design year capacity of 1.8 mgd. The
sludge is assumed to be anaerobically digested. A compari-
son of the sludge characteristics, the storage capacity, land
requirements, and the cost for the land spreading and land
filling alternatives is illustrated in Table 3.7-1.1
costs given in Table 3.7-1 are additional to the costs of
the treatment plant. The comparison indicates that land
spreading of the liquid sludge is the least costly alterna-
tive, but requires the largest land area. However, the
land is not wasted as in the case of land filling. Although
land spreading of dewatered sludge requires less land com-
pared to land spreading of liquid sludge, land spreading is
the most costly alternative.
3.7.3 Feasibility of the Alternatives
Scarborough has several potentially suitable sites for
spreading sludge on the land. The general location of these
sites is illustrated in Figure 3.7-1. These sites were
identified by the Greater Portland Council of Governments
based on the guidelines established by the Maine Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP). The estimated area
suitable for the disposal of digested sludge is approximately
150-200 acres, which includes farmland, grassland, and
woodland.
There are two potential sites suitable for land filling
as shown in Figure 3.7-1. The area suitable for land filling
is estimated to be approximately 20 acres.
1. The sludge characteristics are based on those of the sludge
'from the existing Oak Hill plant, which contains about 5.4
percent nitrogen (dry weight) and small quantities of heavy
metals, well within the limits set by the Maine DEP.
Ill-21
-------
Table 3.7-1
Comparison of the Sludge Disposal Alternatives"
ALTERNATIVE
Sludge Characteristics
Volume
(gallon per day)
Solids Content
(percent)
Nitrogen Content
(lbs per day)
LAND SPREADING
LIQUID SLUDGE
3,400
4
120
LAND SPREADING LAND FILLING
DEWATERED SLUDGE DEWATERED SLUDGE
1,100
20
100
1,100
20
100
Storage Capacity
Required (cu. yd.)
Land Required (acres)
Useable
Total
2,3
3, 047
150
250
1,002
125
205
2,004/yr
2+ buffer zone
Costs ($)
Annual Amortized Capital 4,4 55
Annual O&M 30,000
Total Annual 52,975
31,486
62,000
92,206
28,417
53,000
78,037
1. For a 1.8 mgd activated sludge plant
2. For land spreading based on land capacity to absorb 300 lbs of
nitrogen per acre per year and assuming only 60 percent of the
total land is useable for land spreading because of soil con-
ditions and storage requirements
3. For land filling, the land requirement is for over 20 years
operation
4. These costs take into account storage costs for land spreading
and savings resulting from a duplication or exclusion of treat-
ment processes. The EPA technical report "Wastewater Sludge
Utilization and Disposal Costs", September 1975 was used for
estimating the costs. A 20 year life and 6 3/8 percent
interest rate was assumed.
111-22
-------
The land requirement and costs given in Table 3.7-1
are for a 1.8 mgd plant operating at its capacity. However,
in the initial years, the plant is expected to operate at
about 1.0 mgd. Therefore, the land requirements for land
spreading would be reduced to about 125 acres for liquid
sludge and 100 acres for dewatered sludge. The farmers in
Scarborough are generally willing to accept the sludge for
agricultural land spreading. However, they may be unwilling
to provide land for land filling of the sludge. Also, the
total costs for land spreading would be reduced to about
$30,000 per year for liquid sludge, and about $62,000 per
year for dewatered sludge. The total costs for land
filling would be reduced to $5 3,000 per year.
Based on the costs and the availability of suitable
land as discussed above, land spreading of liquid sludge,
with storage during winter, appears to be the most feasible
alternative for Scarborough. However, if a greater quantity
of sludge than that expected from Scarborough alone is to
be disposed of on land, for example, the sludge from a joint
Scarborough and South Portland facility, the land filling
option becomes most feasible.
3.8 Costs of the Alternatives
The alternatives costs comprise both capital outlay
and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Capital outlay
includes costs for the treatment plant, interceptors, pumping
stations, outfalls, and collection system. However, because
the service areas for the various alternatives for a given
growth scenario are the same, the collection systems are also
the same. Capital costs are incurred during the design and
construction of the facilities, but they are amoritzed
over the useful life of the facilities using a suitable
interest rate. Thus, an annualized value of the capital out-
lay is obtained.
The O&M costs are incurred every year during the
operating life of the facilities. The total O&M costs
increase with the number of users because more waste load has
to be treated. However, the O&M costs per user may or may
not increase depending upon the relative increase in the
total costs and the number of users. For the purpose of costs
comparison, the O&M costs corresponding to the operation of
the treatment plant at its capacity are considered in this
report. The O&M costs will be affected by inflation, but
since the rate of inflation cannot be accurately predicted
and all the alternatives will be affected by the same rate,
the effect of inflation is ignored in the costs comparison.
111-23
-------
The annualized capital outlay and 0 & M costs are
combined to yield a single cost, which is one of the cost
indicators used to compare the various alternatives.
Since some of the alternatives involve transfer of
Scarborough's wastes to Old Orchard Beach and South Portland,
the total costs of providing wastewater service to the three
communities are considered under each alternative along with
Scarborough's share of the total costs. Scarborough's share
was estimated by assuming the costs to be proportional to
the flow contribution. Also because the EPA and the State
together provide 90 percent of the capital outlay for the
major wastewater facilities including the treatment plant,
interceptors, outfalls, and pumping stations, the impact of
these grants on the ultimate costs to Scarborough is also
considered. In addition, the costs per capita are evaluated
to aid in comparing the alternatives for different growth
scenarios.
The costs comparisons for the four most viable alter-
natives are presented utilizing the medium growth scenario
adopted by the Town. These costs are included in Tables 3.8-1
thru 3.8-7. A comparison of the total amortized capital and
O & M costs for Scarborough, South Portland, and Old Orchard
Beach indicates a difference of less than 10 percent among the
alternatives for the moderate growth scenario. This difference
is not significant because it is within an estimated 15 percent
range of uncertainty in the cost estimates.
A comparison of the capital costs and the 0 & M
costs for serving Scarborough alone under the different
alternatives indicates taht the alternatives with high capi-
tal costs have low 0 & M costs and vice-versa. This results
in approximately equal overall costs for the different alter-
natives except for Alternative B which is slightly more costly
than the remaining five alternatives.
The costs which will be borne directly by Scarborough
residents largely reflect 0 & M costs because Federal and
State grants amount to 90 percent of the capital outlay.
Because the 0 & M costs are higher for AWT, which is required
in Alternatives B, C and D, these alternatives involve higher
O & M costs than the other alternatives which provide only
secondary waste treatment.
Ill-24
-------
Table 3.8-1
Alternatives Cost Comparison
PLAN
A CFG
Total Costs
17,566,000
16,860,000
18,166,000
17,970,000
EPA Grant 1
4,804,000
4,275,000
5,254,000
5,108,000
DEP Grant 2
961,000
855,000
1,051,000
1,021,000
FmHA Grant 3
2,014,000
2,014,000
2,014,000
2,014,000
Local Share
9,878,000
9,716,000
9,847,000
9,827,000
Sewer Assessments
2,900,000
2,900,000
2,900,000
2,900,000
Amount to be Amortized
6,887,000
6,816,000
6,947,000
6,927,000
Amortizing Period
4
4
4
4
Amortizing Interest Rate
5
5
5
5
Annual Amortized Cost
416,400
412,600
423,800
420,100
Annual O&M Cost
187,000
211,000
194,000
187,000
Total Annual Local Cost
603,400
623,600
617,800
607,100
Annual Ind. & Comm. Fees
6
176,000
169,000
182,000
180,000
Annual Cost to Dwellings
427,400
454,600
435,800
427,100
Total Dwelling Units
7
1,821
1,821
1,821
1,821
1. 75% of eligible costs
2. 15% of eligible costs
3. From Table 2.2.4
4. 20 yrs. for treatment plant and pump stations, 40 yrs. for
sewers
5. 5% for 40 yrs. on EPA ineligible items; 6 3/8% for remainder.
Assumes FmHA loan for EPA ineligible items
6. Assumed at 1% of total project costs
7. Assumes 6,373 people at 3.5 people per house
III-25
-------
COMPARATIVE TABLE 3.8-2
A
$000
C
$000
Item
Elig.
Non-Elig.
Total
Elig.
Non-El i<
1.
1.8 mgd Secondary
Treatment Facility
at Oak Hill
2,020
0
2,020
2
,874
0
2.
Outfall
670
0
670
230
0
3.
Higgins Beach-
Prouts Neck Area
Sewerage System
835
3,094
3,929
469
3,094
4.
Oak Hill-Black
Point Road Area
Sewerage System
691
2,107
2,798
388
2,107
5.
Willowdale Area
Sewerage System
0
1,600
1,600
0
1,600
6.
Pine Point Area
Sewerage System
636
1,653
2,289
357
1,653
7.
Total Construction
Cost
4,852
8,454
13,306
4
,318
8,454
8.
Construction
Contingencies (10%)
485
845
1,330
432
845
9.
Technical
Services (15%)
728
1,268
1,996
648
1,268
10.
Legal 6 Fiscal (1%)
49
85
134
43
85
11.
Administrative (1%)
49
85
134
43
85
12.
Project Contin-
gencies (5%)
243
423
666
216
423
13.
Total Project
Costs
6,406
11,160
17,566
5
,700
11,160
NJ
CTl
F
$000
G
$000
Jtal
Elig.
Non-Elig.
Total
Elig.
Non-Elig.
Total
,874
994
0
994
2,020
0
2,020
230
1,450
0
1,450
1,693
0
1,693
563
1,105
3,094
4,199
558
3,094
3,652
495
915
2,107
3,022
462
2,107
2,569
600
0
1,600
1,600
0
1,600
1,600
010
842
1,653
2,495
425
1,653
2,078
772
5,306
8,454
13,760
5,158
8,454
13,612
277
531
845
1,376
516
845
1,361
916
797
1,268
2,065
774
1,268
2,042
128
53
95
138
52
85
137
128
53
95
138
52
85
137
639
266
423
689
258
423
681
860
7,006
11,160
18,166
6,810
11,160
17,970
-------
ELIGIBLE
Table 3.8-3
NON-ELIGIBLE
OSM
USER FEES
fa
C
o
Eh W
M J
>*
Ph X
Eh
CU «
X
<$
o c
W
< H
c
M
O
o o
3
Eh
W Eh *H
o W CM
*>2
H n
Eh
D
a D
ai J w
5
o
C O
D <
NHS
O
o
S O
HfeO
& w
o
H o
OIJO
N W O
fa Ei in-
tJ o
< o
< O
M O
J O H
< o
Eh
g
H
< M
« <
D e
M
<
0<
O ftt
O O
Z W
fL
<
o <
2 O
Z O
2
p<
O
J O
< t-3
c o
0
A
6,406
640.6
52.4
4
.65
11,160
C
5,700
570.0
48.6
4
.31
11,160
F
7,006
700.6
59.8
5
.30
11,160
G
6,810
681.0
56.1
4
.97
11,160
w Q
tJ w
n o
s§
fa < M Q < g O
O HO WD EH 01 „
MM Eh J M Eh ft R * rr> f)
fa X Eh fti J WW ft. W wo « o
O *£ CO ri!W O nt qCuJW •>
3 o O I O • O hJU 5,n ^ S 5i r-
Ht CU O Pm ^ = S^.. ^ £ Eh ¦ < < • M o> < J CJ „ 5 ^ £ rfQl
CM «< D Eh D O Q O Eh < $ M M H C«
O ftj QO ZW 2> 2 CO Eh « ft 2i ^ £ £l gS
Odl SO ZO Z < Z O OW ^ < & S3 So
JO < O < —- CO EHP< JOM Z O 6H»
9,146 364 32.27 187 16.58 53.50 15.60 37.90 132.65
9,146 364 32.37 211 18.71 55.29 14.98 40.31 141.09
9,146 364 32.27 194 17.20 54.77 16.13 38.64 135.24
9,146 364 32.27 187 16.58 53.82 15.96 37.86 132.51
1. 10% of capital outlay. Assumes 75% EPA grant and 15% DEP grant.
2. From Table 3 (STP + PS + INT)
3. Assume 11,280 initial population
4. 65% of capital outlay. Assumes 35% FmHA grant.
5. Includes $30,000 for sludge disposal
6. Amortized (6 3./8%, 40 yrs.) value form Table 4, assumes 11,280 initial population.
7. Assumes 3.5 people per house, average
H
H
H
I
NJ
vj
-------
Table 3.8-
4
FUNDING SOURCES
A
C
F
G
$000
Eliqible
Non-Eliq.
Total
Eliqible
Non-Eliq.
Total
Eliqible
Non-Eliq.
Total
Eliqible
Non-Eliq.
Total
Total Costs
6,406
11,160
17,566
5,700
11,160
16,860
7,006
11,160
18,166
6,810
11,160
17,970
EPA Grant 1
4,804
0
4,804
4,275
5,254
0
5,254
0
5,254
5,108
0
5,108
DEP Grant 2
961
0
961
855
0
855
1,051
0
1,051
1,021
0
1,021
FmHA Grant 3
0
2,014
2,014
0
2,014
2,014
0
2,014
2,014
0
2,014
2,014
Local Share 4
641
9,146
9,787
570
9,146
9,716
701
9,146
9,847
681
9,146
9,827
Sewer Assessments
2,900
2,900
2,900
2,900
Amortized Amount
6,887
6,816
6,947
6,927
1. 75% of eligible amounts
2. 15% of eligible amounts
3. 35% of non-eligible (assumes)
4. Remaining costs
-------
Table 3.8-5
STP P.S.
JOT OOLL
STP P.S.
INT OOLL
STP
P.S. INT OOLL
STP
H
to
10
Total
Cost
local
Share
Amortized
Amount
Term
(Vrs)
1 2,666 1,175 2,563 11,160 3,794 693
1,214 11,160 1,678 2,488 3,205 11,160 2,666
2
P.S. IHT OOLL
1,604 2,538 11,160
267
267
20
118
118
20
256 9,146
256 6,246
40
40
379 69
379 69
20 20
121 9,146
121 6,246
40
40
168
168
20
249
249
20
321 9,146
321 6,246
40 40
267
267
20
160
160
20
254 9,146
254 6,246
40 40
% Rate 5 6 3/8 6 3/8 6 3/8
5 6 3/8 6 3/8 6 3/8
5 6 3/8 6 3/8 6 3/8
5 6 3/8
Capital
Recovery
Factor
Annual
Cost
.08993 .08993 .06963 .0582B .08993 .08993 .06963 .05828 .08993 .08993 .06963 .05828 .08993
6 3/8 6 3/8 5
.08993 .06963 .05828
24,000 10,600 17,800 364,000 34,000 6,200 8,400 364,000 15,100 22,400 22,300 364,000 24,000 14,400 17,700 364,000
416,400
412,600
423,800
420,100
1. Includes contingencies, etc. 0 32%. See Table 3.8-2
2. Present worth value
3. 10% of total cost for eligible, see "Cable 3.8-4 for local share
4. Assures $2,900,000 assessments applied to collector system costs
5. Assures RtHA loan at 5% for local share of collectors
-------
3.9
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
This section discusses the major environmental effects
of the alternatives. These effects include those resulting from
construction in natural sensitive areas and those from discharge
of treated wastewater effluent to the water bodies. The effects
of each alternative are discussed in the following section.
3.9.1 Environmental Effects of Alternative A - Single
Plant at Prout's Neck
Major effects of Alternative A would arise from the
construction of the ocean outfall through Prout"s Neck, con-
struction of the interceptor across the Scarborough River
estuary near Pine Point, and the discharge of secondary
treated effluent off Prout's Neck.
Outfall construction would require blasting of the
ledge through the residential area of Prout's Neck and under-
water offshore. Blasting through the residential ares would
cause some annoyance and inconvenience to residents along
the outfall route, and blasting underwater might disrupt
aquatic life. However, by scheduling the blasting in the
winter or early spring, such disruptions could be minimized.
The interceptor connecting Pine Point to the treatment
plant at Prout's Neck would require dredging of the Scar-
borough estuary to lay pipe. By properly scheduling the
dredging, the impact on the aquatic life could be minimized.
The secondary treated effluent from the treatment
plant would be discharged to the ocean. The initial dilu-
tion of the effluent caused by mixing with the sea water
would be expected to be more than sufficient to help meet
the state water quality standards. However, there would be
a potential for the highly diluted effluent to reach Scar-
borough's beaches. Although the effluent would be dis-
infected prior to its discharge to the ocean there is some
public concern about live viruses remaining in the effluent
and creating a health hazard at the beaches. Because of
the lack of epidemiological data, the degree of health risk
from such effluent discharge cannot be determined. However,
there has been no reported correlation between the outbreaks
of infectious diseases and discharge of secondary treated
effluent to the ocean. Although an ocean outfall is con-
sidered safe, from a health perspective, by the EPA and the
Maine DEP, there exists considerable public opposition to
an ocean outfall in Scarborough.
3.9.2 Environmental Effects of Alternative B - Individual
Package Plants
The major potential effects from Alternative B would
arise from the ocean outfalls and the effluent discharge to
the Nonesuch River.
Ill-30
-------
Ocean outfalls would occur off Higgins Beach and
Grand Beach under each of the three growth scenarios in addi-
tion to an ocean outfall of f Prout's Neck under the medium and
high growth scenarios. In order to lay the outfall pipe, the
outfalls off Higgins Beach and Grand Beach would require dredg-
ing in the beach areas, whereas the outfall off Prout1s Neck
would require blasting through the ledge. The adverse environ-
mental effects of this construction could be minimized by
properly scheduling the construction as discussed previously.
In addition to the construction effects there could
be some impact on the water quality from the discharge of
the effluents. The ocean currents in the Higgins Beach and
Grand Beach area have not been studied, but the outfalls would
be submerged under water deep enough to provide adequate ini-
tial dilution, so that the state water quality standards could
be met under all conditions. Nevertheless, because a poten-
tial would remain for the diluted effluent to reach the
beaches, there would exist a limited and uncertain public
health risk as in Alternative A.
There would be a continued discharge to the Nonesuch
River from the Oak Hill plant. Although advanced waste
treatment would not increase the existing waste loading to
the Nonesuch River, the DEP would prefer eliminating the
discharge to the river because of its potential threat to
the clam resources in the estuary.
3.9.3 Environmental Effects of Alternative C - Upgrading
and Expanding the Oak Hill Plant
The major potential effects of Alternative C would
arise from the continued discharge to the Nonesuch River at
the existing level of waste loading. This condition would
involve some continued risk to clam resources as discussed
in the analysis of Alternative B.
3.9.4 Environmental Effects of Alternative D - Partial
Transfer to Old Orchard Beach
The major potential effects of Alternative D would
arise from the continued discharge to the Nonesuch River at
the existing level of waste loading, which was previously
discussed in the case of Alternative B & C. In addition,
there would be a discharge to the Goosefare Brook at the
existing level of waste loading, which is not likely to
have significant adverse effects on the water quality.
II1-31
-------
3.9.5
Environmental Effects of Alternative E - Split
Transfer to Old Orchard Beach and South Portland
The major adverse effects of Alternative E would arise
from discharges to the Goosefare Brook and the Fore River.
The effects of discharge on the Goosefare Brook would not
be significant because although the existing level of waste loading
to the Pore River would be increased, it would not be expected
to violate the water quality standards.
Alternative E would have a beneficial effect in that
the interceptor from Scarborough to South Portland would pass
through the Pleasant Hill area in Scarborough thus providing
an economical means to provide wastewater service to that
area. This area is currently not sewered and is not included
in the consent order areas. However, the Pleasant Hill
residents have been experiencing septic tank malfunctions.
3.9.6 Environmental Effects of Alternative F - Full
Transfer to South Portland
The environmental effects of Alternative F would be
similar to those of Alternative E, except that there would
be no discharge to the Goosefare Brook. However, if an
interceptor across the Scarborough River near Pine Point was
constructed to transport the wastes from the Pine Point, Blue
Point, and Dunstan areas, there would be short-term adverse
effects on the water quality of the river. These effects
could be avoided by selecting an alternate route such as
pumping the wastewater along the railroad right-of-way to
the Oak Hill facility.
3.9.7 Environmental Effects of Alternative G - Expand
Oak Hill with Discharge to Fore River
The major environmental effects of Alternative G would
be short-term and temporary in nature. Minor disruption
would result from construction of the new treatment facility,
pump stations, interceptors and outfall to the Fore River.
Although the waste loading to the Fore River would be increased,
it would not be expected to violate the water quality stan-
dards .
Alternative G would involve no ocean outfall and there-
fore no potential public health problem at the beaches result-
ing from possible live viruses remaining in the disinfected
effluent.
One of the beneficial impacts of this alternative would
be the removal of the present discharge to the Nonesuch River
which has affected the clam resources in the estuary.
Ill-32
-------
3.9.8
Environmental Effects of Alternative H - No Action
The environmental impacts of the no action alterna-
tive would be both short and long tern in nature. The public
health problems that now exist in the consent ordered areas
would continue to degrade the environmental quality of the
water resources within Scarborough. Continued pollution
problems would affect recreation and economic benefits that
the Town now enjoys as a result of its natural and aesthetic
features.
Further development would be limited, if not prohibited,
in areas that are planned for future residential and com-
mercial development due to a high ground water table and
very poor soil conditions.
Further consideration of utilizing the clam and shell-
fish resources in the estuary would be adversely effected.
The severe environmental effects of this alternative require
that some action be taken in order to meet water quality
objectives and to improve the general environmental quality
of Scarborough.
3.10 Political and Administrative Feasibility of the
Alternatives
In Alternatives A, B and C all wastewater collection
and treatment facilities required to serve Scarborough would
be built within the Town boundaries. In Alternative G all
of the wastewater treatment and collection facilities would
be located in Scarborough but a portion of the outfall pipe
would be located along the railroad right-of-way through
South Portland to the Fore River. The Scarborough sanitary
district would have the sole jurisdiction over the construc-
tion, operation and maintenance of these treatment facilities
as well as over the determination of user rates and the plan-
ning of future needs of the facility.
Conversely, Alternatives D, E and F would involve
transfer of part or all of Scarborough's waste to Old Orchard
Beach or South Portland or both. Such transfer of wastes would
require the participating communities to reach an agreement
on certain key issues including:
Equitable cost sharing among jurisdictions
Assurance in having additional capacity to meet
future needs
Responsibility for maintenance of the facilities
III-33
-------
The communities would have to decide on how to share
the capital and 0 & M costs. In addition, the responsibility
for maintaining the treatment plant and the sewerage system
would have to be established. All participating communities
would have to maintain their sewers in good condition to keep
infiltration to a minimum. The receiving community would
have to be responsible for adequately maintaining the treat-
ment plant to keep malfunctions and the operating costs to
a minimum.
Reaching an agreement on these issues would require
the officials from the participating communities to nego-
tiate. Because these issues are highly complex, negotia-
tions could prove to be time-consuming, with changes in
elected representatives further protracting the achievement
of a final settlement.
The current attitude of Scarborough's officials toward
the transfer of wastes outside Scarborough is generally not
favorable. These officials would prefer to maintain control
over the treatment of Scarborough's wastes. The officials
in Old Orchard Beach and South Portland are in a different
situation. They have the treatment plants under their
jurisdiction and welcome any opportunity to reduce costs.
Thus, if the transfer of Scarborough's wastes to their treat-
ment plant would result in lowering costs, and is technically
feasible, these officials would be willing to consider such
a transfer.
However, in the case of South Portland, EPA and the
Maine DEP have agreed with South Portland officials that the
South Portland facility is not capable of adequately treating
wastewater from Scarborough. This is due primarily to infil-
tration problems and the desire of South Portland to reserve
extra capacity to accommodate future industrial development.
3.11 Overall Comparison of the Alternatives
This section presents an overall comparison of the
costs, environmental effects, and political and administra-
tive feasibility of the four alternatives A, C, F and G.
The combined amortized capital and 0 & M costs for
the four alternatives do not indicate a significant difference
among these alternatives. Therefore, the four alternatives
could be ranked equally from the viewpoint of costs.
The environmental effects may be divided into three
categories: primary and secondary effects on the natural
environment, and potential threat to public health. Alterna-
tive F, full transfer to South Portland would cause the least
adverse primary effects on the natural environment, thus it
III-34
-------
should be ranked higher in this category than Alternative A,
single plant at Prout's Neck and Alternative C, expanded and
upgraded Oak Hill Plant. Alternative A would involve con-
struction of an ocean outfall with temporary minor disruption
of human and aquatic life and minor degradation of water
quality during construction and operation. Alternative C,
on the other hand, calls for a continued treated wastewater
effluent discharge to the Nonesuch River with potential long
term threat to the valuable clam resources in the estuary.
Thus, Alternative A should be ranked higher than Alternative
C for the primary effects on the natural environment.
With Alternative G the impacts on the natural environ-
mental would be less than Alternative A or C.
In terms of secondary effect, Alternatives C & G
should be ranked higher than A or F because they would include
force mains rather than gravity sewer lines through the under-
developed areas in Scarborough? thus providing no greater
encouragement for higher density development. Alternative F
should be ranked next because it would include a force main
along Black Point Road, but a gravity line along Spurwink
Road. Alternative A should be ranked last because it would
include a gravity line along Black Point Road, which is
adjacent to a marsh.
Potential threat to public health could result from
the viruses remaining in a treated effluent and reaching pub-
lic bathing areas. Because of the lack of flow data, the
ultimate destination of viruses from a given effluent
discharge location is uncertain. However, among the four
alternatives, the discharge location in the Fore River in
Alternative F and G is the farthest from a public bathing
area, hence they should be ranked higher than the others in
this respect. Similarly, since a discharge location in
Nonesuch River in Alternative C would be farther from any
public bathing area than the ocean outfall location in
Alternative A, Alternative C could be ranked higher than
Alternative A in this category. But since the clams in
the Nonesuch River could accumulate bacteria and viruses
remaining in the effluent, the consumption of clams, without
proper treatment, poses a threat to public health. Therefore,
Alternatives A & C should be ranked equally in this category.
Political and administrative feasibility may be divided
into two categories: administative feasibility and political
opposition. Under the first category, since Alternatives A,
C and G are totally internal to Scarborough, they should be
ranked equally higher than Alternative F, which would require
a service contract with South Portland. Under the second
category, political opposition, Alternatives F and G would
probably attract the least political opposition primarily
because the effluent discharge is eliminated from Scarborough's
111-35
-------
waters. Alternative C would probably also not attract sig-
nificant political opposition, but Alternative A has already
been opposed because of the proposed ocean outfall off Prout's
Neck and may receive greater opposition than the other alter-
natives because of the relatively greater potential for
secondary effects.
The ranking of the four alternatives for each of the
six categories is illustrated in Table III. The alternatives
differ considerably in their relative merits as evaluated
against the six factors, but none of the alternatives is
either most or least acceptable for all six criteria.
It would appear from the ranking below, that Alterna-
tive G is the most acceptable and therefore is recommended by
EPA for funding.
111-36
-------
TABLE 3.11-1 1
Ranking of the Alternative Systems
in Terms of Acceptability (Most to Least)
Primary
Secondary
Public
Costs
Environmental
Environmental
Health
Administrative
Political
Effects
Effects
Risk
Feasibility
Opposition
A, C,
F, G
C, G
F, G
A, C
G
F, G
A
F
A, C
G
C, F
C
A
F
A
1
A: Single Plant at Prout's Neck
C: Expanded and Upgraded Oak Hill Plant
F: Full Transfer to South Portland
G: Expand Oak Hill and discharge to Fore River
-------
CHAPTER IV
PROPOSED ACTION
-------
IV. Description of Proposed Action
The proposed project recommended in this Final
Environmental Impact Statement results from detailed analyses
of numerous alternatives and public responses on both the Draft
EIS released by EPA last January and the supplement to the
Draft completed in October. EPA has carefully considered all
public comments and recommends that "Alternative G" be funded.
Although this proposed alternative in its entirety has not
been considered in either the Draft or supplement report, it
represents a new scenario composed of various components of
previously considered alternatives. The formulation of the
proposed action derives from extensive public input and coor-
dination with local agencies within Scarborough.
This chapter presents in detail a full description
of the proposed project. The following subjects will be pre-
sented individually.
Subsystems of the proposed project
Operation and maintenance of the proposed
facilities
Project schedule, costs and financing
Costs per dwelling unit
Description of dredging requirements
4.1 Project Subsystems
The proposed project consists of a new 1.8 million
gallon per day treatment plant at Oak Hill, sewers, ten pumps
stations and an outfall to the Fore River. Figure 4.1-1 displays
the key facilities in relation to the areas proposed to be
sewered. The various sub-systems of the proposed project are
described below.
(1) Treatment Plant
The proposed treatment plant will be a new 1.8 million
gallon per day facility at Oak Hill. The size and capacity of
the proposed facility corresponds with the desires of the Planning
Board and the Town Council to pursue a low to moderate growth
management scenario. The wastewater treatment plant will provide
secondary treatment and disinfection before discharge to the
Fore River. The proposed facility at Oak Hill will be essen-
tially the same treatment plant originally proposed at Prout's
Neck with approximately one-half the originally planned capa-
city. Briefly, the treatment process will be as follows:
IV-1
-------
'¦vy'Wtf.
.SOUTH
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
LEGEND
~ Wastewater Treatment Plant
Q Pump Station
Gravity Sewer
Pore* Main
Service Area Boundary
-------
FIG. 4.1-2
ii
i
SITE OF
PROPOSED
TREATMENT
FACILITY
5-7 ACRES
I
I
1
IV-3
-------
10,000'
Gravity
3,700
10"
Force Main
PS- I
1875 O
gpm
1.8 mgd WWTP
w/PS- 1875 gpm
5,000
Gravity
7,900
Force Main
-
' £11 Ma i r
Higgins Beach
PS- o
161 Y
gpm
6" ,
|5,800
Force Main
535 gpm
6" Force Main 8" Gravity 6" Force Main
8"
Black Point
Prout's Neck
gpn
Force Main
11,000
Blue Point
PS-174
PS-j510 gpm
» F5- jPXU
4 gpm I
" TPr*V/"w ffa *1 O H
West /
Scarborough
Force Mairr^ 8" Gravity b" Fo^ce Main
4,000 5,500
PS- 304 gpm PS- 164 gpm
-o.—
Pine Point
PS- 60 gpm
FLOW DIAGRAM OF KEY FACILITIES
FIG. 4.1-3
IV-4
-------
Incoming flows to the plant will be lifted by a pump at the
head of the plant and flow to the initial treatment processes.
Incoming flows will be screened and large solids removed. The
flow continues through a comminutor where smaller solids that
passed the screen are ground into fine particles. . The sewerage
then passes through a chamber where air is introduced to remove
grease and enhance the settling of grit. This unit process
is used to protect the pumps and equipment from damage by the
grit. After the aerated grit chamber the flow will be delivered
to the aeration tanks where air is forced through the sewage to
provide oxygen for a biological mass which utilizes the sewage
as food and further treats it into basic elements. The treat-
ment system proposed is a conventional activated sludge process.
The design of the facility will be reviewed by EPA and will
have to conform to Federal and State criteria. An outline of
the basic design parameters is included in Table 4.1-1.
The location of the proposed treatment facility will be
on approximately five to -seven acres of land adjacent to the
existing plant at Oak Hill. (See Figure 4.1-2). Presently,
sufficient land is available between Black Point Road and the
existing plant to accommodate this new facility. In addition
it will probably be possible to utilize portions of the exist-
ing facility for the new treatment plant. A general indication
of the proposed expansion of the existing site is shown on
Figure 4.1-2.
The land area recommended for the new facility is presently
farm and agricultural land. A portion of the area has also been
utilized by the Sanitary District for land spreading of sludge.
During the design of the proposed waste water treatment
facility, consideration should be given to maintaining an
adequate buffer zone between the site and Black Point Road.
Proper architectural and landscaping measures should be incor-
porated into the design of the facility to insure compatibility
with the surrounding area.
(2) Sewers and Pump Stations
Sewage delivered to the proposed treatment facility
would be delivered through two main interceptors, one serving
Dunston, Blue Point and Pine Point areas and the other serving
the Higgins Beach and Black Point areas. The first interceptor
would run from Dunston connecting with a force main serving
Pine Point. The flows would then be pumped along the old
railroad grade through an 8" force main to the treatment plant.
The second connection is a 6" force main along Spurwink Road
from Higgins Beach, connecting with a future gravity sewer from
Black Point and Prout's Neck. The flow would then be pumped
through force mains and gravity sewers to the treatment plant.
Force mains will be used to pump wastewater uphill and also to
reduce the possibility of encouraging growth in low-lying areas
IV-5
-------
TABLE 4.1-1
Proposed Treatment Facility Design
Data
Item
a.
Population Serves
14,558
b.
Per Capita Flow - gpcd
100
1. Domestic Flow - mgd
1.5
2. Commercial & Industrial Flow - mgd
.3
c.
BOD^ Loading - lbs/day
3,595
d.
Total Suspended Solids - lbs/day
3,475
e.
BOD5 (mg/1)
262
f.
TSS (mg/1)
253
g.
BOD5 (NPEDS (mg/1)
30
h.
TSS NPEDS (mg/1)
30
i.
Removal Eff. BOD^ (%)
88
j •
Removal Eff. TSS (%)
88
IV-6
-------
contiguous to the marsh. Figure 4.1-3 schematically shows the
locations of the pump stations, force mains and gravity sewers.
Practically all of the interceptors and force mains will be con-
structed within the right-of-way of existing roads.
There will be ten pump stations in the proposed project.
The approximate locations of these stations are listed below:
Pine Point Area (2)
West Scarborough (Dunston) [2]
Blue Point area at the old railroad grade
Higgins Beach area
Spurwink Road at Black Point Road
Black Point Road
The proposed treatment plant
Along the outfall route at Pleasant Hill
The size of these pump stations will be approximately
10 X 10 X 10 feet. Each station will have a backup generator
for emergency purposes. The design of each facility will be
compatible with the surrounding area.
(3) Outfall
The proposed project involves a 5 mile outfall from
the new treatment facility to the Fore River. The outfall
will consist of both gravity lines and force mains. The out-
fall is proposed to be located along the old railroad grade to
Pleasant Hill and then proceed along the Portland terminal
right-of-way. One pump station at the treatment plant and one
at Pleasant Hill will be needed to transport the treated eff-
luent to the Fore River. Prior to the design of the proposed
project the Sanitary District should seek to obtain the necess-
ary rights-of-way for the outfall.
The outfall, from the treatment plant to the Fore
River, could be feasibly located along the old railroad grade
which passes the plant and progresses north past the Rigby
yards to the River.
Easements would have to be obtained from the proper-
ties' owners prior to development of the roadbed for the
piping.
The properties' owners are:
1. State of Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
2. Hamlin Sand & Gravel
920 Riverside Street
Portland, Maine
IV-7
-------
3. Blane, Sanborn, et al
Sanborn Motor Express
Dwight Sanborn
8 Wildwood Boulevard
Cumberland-Foreside, Maine
4. Portland Terminal Company
222 St. John Street
Portland, Maine
Mr. McFarland
5. Central Maine Power
Box 1801
Portland, Maine
(owns land parallel to that of Sanborn)
We have spoken to the first four listed owners (since
Central Maine Power's land is parallel to Sanborn's they
were not approached). The individuals representing the
State of Maine, Hamlin Sand & Gravel, and Blane, Sanborn with
whom we spoke, indicated that they foresaw no serious impedi-
ments to achieving an equitable easement agreement with the
Town of Scarborough. Mr. McFarland, who represents the
realty interests of the Portland Terminal Company, indicated
that, initially at least, the Company would not be interested
in accommodating the town with easement through their
property for the outfall.
However-, discussions should probably be continued with
the Portland Terminal Company because, with the right of
way measuring 66' in width, which is primarily vacant, and
with the apparent location of other easements on the property,
it would seem that a feasible agreement could be reached
with the Portland Terminal Company. Two options which seem
viable would be to approach the Portland Terminal Company
for an easement (1) along the peripheral portions of the
property; or (2) along an extant easement, in which this
outfall could be placed either ventral or superior to the
existing line.
In the eventuality that this easement cannot be obtained
from the Portland Terminal Company through negotiations, two
alternatives remain: either to use the eminent domain provi-
sions existing in the DEP1s enabling statute, to obtain the
easement; or to send the outfall partially along existing
state, federal and county roads to the discharge location,
which would provide the Town with an outfall route bypassing
that portion of old railroad grade owned by the Portland
Terminal Company, and which may prove to be more cost
IV- 8
-------
effective than obtaining an easement from the Portland
Terminal Company.
4.2 Facilities Operation and Maintenance
The proposed treatment plant, if properly operated
and maintained, will have a useful life exceeding 25 years
and will produce an effluent of defined secondary quality.
The initial operation and maintenance cost is estimated at
$187,000 per year.
The only major supply required to be trucked into the
plant is chlorine for disinfection. The system is designed
to use one-ton cylinders and it is expected that a cylinder
will last for at least five days. These cylinders would be
delivered several at a time.
Sludge generated at the proposed treatment facility
(approximately 2000 pounds per day) will be aerobically
digested and then either dewatered or left in liquid form,
depending on the sludge disposal methods selected by the
Sanitary District. Three alternative sludge disposal methods
were described in Chapter 3. They are:
Land Filling - If land filling is selected,
the sludge could be dewatered and final
disposal of the dewatered sludge would be
at one of the alternative sites recommended
in Chapter III. The dewatered sludge would
be trucked to one of these sites. Assuming
20 percent solids content the sludge volume
would be about 5 1/2 cubic yards per day.
Land Spreading - If land spreading is
selected, the sludge could either be de-
watered or spread in a liquid form. Final
disposal of the liquid sludge would be by
field spreading on agricultural lands, or on
one of the sites discussed in Chapter III.
Assuming one percent solids, the sludge
volume would be about 25,000 gallons per day.
The number of loads per day depends upon the
mode of operation and size of truck used to
haul the dewatered sludge. Using a typical
tank truck size of 6,000 gallons, there
would be about 5 trips required per working
day.
The decision on sludge disposal has not been made. This
Final EIS provides recommendations on various methods of sludge
IV-9
-------
disposal along with suggestions as to possible disposal sites.
It is recommended that the Sanitary District proceed during the
design phase of this project to select a site and to obtain the
required State permits. The site specific environmental impacts
on the selected site will have to be addressed at the time the
District seeks State approval.
4.3 Project Costs, Financing and Scheduling
This section describes the proposed construction
schedule, capital requirements, and operation and maintenance of
the proposed project.
(1) This Final EIS recommends that the Sanitary District
institute a two phase construction program.
These areas represent the consent ordered areas identified
by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
Phase I would not change from what has been originally re-
ferred to as Phase I. This phase would involve the construction
of the treatment plant, force mains, interceptors, pump stations,
and outfall to serve the areas of Higgins Beach, Oak Hill, and
Pine Point, Willowdale, and portions of Blue Point and Dunstan.
Under Phase I of the project the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency will contribute 75 percent of the eligible portion of
the project costs and the State of Maine will contribute 15% of
the eligible costs. Table 4.3-2 below indicates local costs and
funding sources.
Phase II would involve extending sewerage facilities to
Pleasant Hill, Blue Point, West Scarborough, and Prout's Neck.
Essentially, Phase II should extend to those areas for which
capacity is planned at the treatment facility, on an as needed
basis.
The capital requirements for Phase II are estimated to be
$5,900,000 1976 dollars. None of these costs would be eligible
for Federal or State grants.
(2) Capital Requirements and Funding Sources for the
Proposed Project
The total capital requirements for the facilities pro-
posed under Phase I, including the portions eligible for Federal
and State grants, are shown in Table 4.3-1.
IV-10
-------
TABLE 4.3-1
Capital Requirements for Phase I Construction
Item Eligible Non-Eligible Total
1. 1.8 MGD Second-
ary Treatment
Facility at Oak
Hill $ 2,020,000 - 0 - $ 2,020,000
2. Outfall 1,293,000 - 0 - $ 1,693,000
3. Higglns Beach
- Prout's Neck
Area Sewer System $ 558,000 $ 3,094,000 $ 3,652,000
4. Oak Hill-Black
Point Road Area
Sewerage System $ 462,000 $ 2,107,000 $ 2,569,000
5. Willowdale Area
Sewer System - 0 - $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000
6. Pine Point Area $ 425,000 $ 1,653,000 $ 2,078,000
7. Total Construc-
tion Costs $ 5,158,000 $ 8,454,000 $13,612,000
8. Construction
Contingencies
(10%) $ 516,000 $ 845,000 $ 1,361,000
9. Technical Ser-
vices (15%) $ 774,000 $ 1,268,000 $ 2,042,000
10. Legal & Fiscal
(1%) $ 52,000 $ 85,000 $ 137,000
11. Administrative
(1%) $ 52,000 $ 85,000 $ 137,000
12.-.Project Contin-
gencies (5%) $ 258,000 $ 423,000 $ 681,000
13. Total Project
Costs $ 6,810,000 $11,160,000 $17,970,000
IV-11
-------
TABLE 4.3-2
Eligible
$6,810,000
$5,107,000
$1,021,500
Total Costs^
EPA Grant1
Maine DEP Grant^
FHA Grant^
Local Share
Sewer Assessments
Amount To Be Amortized
Amortizing Period^
Amortization Interest Rate^
Annual Amortized Cost
Annual 0 & M Cost
Total Annual Local Cost
Annual Industrial & Commercial User Fees^
Annual Cost to Dwellings
Dwellings Units7
Total Annual Cost Per Dwelling
Non-Eligible
$11,160,000
- 0 -
- 0 -
Total
$17,970,000
$ 5,108,000
$ 1,021,500
$ 2,014,000
$ 9,827,000
$ 2,900,000
$ 6,927,000
See Below
See Below
$ 420,000
$ 187,000
$ 607,100
$ 180,000
$ 427,100
$ 1,821
$ 158.00
The annual cost per dwelling could vary depending on the availability of
FHA loans and grants. In addition, the Table 4.3-3 reflects the total annual
cost per dwelling for the initial users of the system compared to the total
number of users for the design year of the treatment facility.
(3) Operation and Maintenance Costs
A summary of the estimated annual operational and maintenance costs
of the proposed project for the first year is given below in Table 4.3-4.
TABLE 4.3-4
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Labor $ 66,500
Chemicals $ 27,700
Power $ 36,900
Repairs and Maintenance $ 18,500
Operation of Vehicles $ 7,400
Sludge Disposal (Land Spreading) $ 30,000
Total $187,000
^15 percent of Eligible Costs.
„15 percent of Eligible Costs.
^Taker from Table 3.8-1.
,-20 years for treatment plant and pump stations, 40 years for sewers.
5 percent for 40 years on EPA ineligible items, 6 3/8 percent for remainder,
assumes Fermers Home Administration Loan for EPA ineligible items. See
g Table 3.8-5 for breakdown.
^Assumed at 1 percent of total project costs.
Assumes 6373 people at 3.5 people per house.
IV- 12
-------
TABLE 4.3-3
ANNUAL USER COSTS ANALYSIS
Annual Costs
For:
2000
3000
4000
5000
6373
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
11919
13000
14000
14558
STP, PS, FM $
Int. $56,100
98.25
65.46
49.08
39.29
30.81
28.05
24.64
21.82
19.64
17.85
16.48
15.11
14.03
13.49
50% of Col-
lectors, with-
out any FHA
participation
$197,272
345.49
230.19
172.59
138.15
108.33
98.64
86.30
76.73
69.05
50% of Col-
lectors, with
FHA Grant but
no FHA Loan
$127,454
223.21
148.76
111.51
89.25
69.99
63.73
55.75
49.57
44.61
50% of Col-
lectors, with
full FHA par-
ticipation
$92,000
161.12
107.31
80.49
64.43
50.52
46.00
40.24
35.78
32.20
100% of Col-
lectors with-
out any FHA
participation
$395,144
276.71
216.99
197.57
172.85
153.69
138.31
126.72
116.05
106.39
98.79
95.01
100% of Col-
lectors with
FHA Grant but
no FHA Loan
$254,909
178.51
139.98
127.45
111.51
99.15
89.22
81.10
74.86
68.63
63.73
61.29
100% of Col-
lectors with
Full FHA par-
ticipation
$184,000
128.85
101.04
92.00
80.49
71.57
64.40
58.54
54.04
49.54
46.00
44.24
Annual Costs
For:
2000
3000
4000
5000
6373
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
11919
13000
14000
14558
66% of 0 & M
$112,200
196.50
130.92
98.15
78.57
61.61
56.10
49.08
43.64
39.27
75% of 0 & M
$140,000
122.70
98.21
77.02
70.13
61.35
54.55
49.09
44.62
41.19
100% of 0 & M
$187,000
130.95
102.69
93.50
81.80
72.73
65.45
59.50
54.92
50.35
46.75
44.96
Most Prob-
able User
Charge
455.87
303.69
227.73
201.93
158.35
144.18
146.58
166.12
149.49
135.89
125.44
115.00 .
106.78
102.69
Assumes approximately 3.5 people per Household. All Industrial/Commercial Fees & Sewer Assessments Assumed tobe Applied to
Collection Costs for Ease of Calculations.
IV-13
-------
4.4 Cost Per Dwelling Unit
In order to accurately estimate the cost per dwelling
unit for the construction and operation of the wastewater system
in Scarborough, it is essential to complete the final design of
the system. Since the design of any system has been halted
until the EIS process is completed, only an approximate estimate
of the probable cost per dwelling unit can be obtained with the
available data. This section presents such an estimate in the
following sections:
Number of users likely to be served
Estimation of the unit cost of the system
4.4.1 Projected Number of Users
The number of users served by the system would include
the existing plus new residential, commercial, and industrial
units in the service area. The number of new units developed
depends upon the growth rate for the service area. Since there
is still an uncertainty about the growth rate for Scarborough,
only the existing units are considered so as to obtain a conserv-
ative estimate of the cost per unit.
The total number of existing residential units in the
service area is estimated to be 1821. Of 1821 units, those in
the Oak Hill Area are assumed to be currently sewered. There-
fore, about 1474 units are expected to require new collection
sewers.
The number of commercial units including apartments and
trailer parks is estimated to be 261. These units are expected
to contribute a flow equivalent to that of 679 dwelling units.
The industrial flow contribution from the three industries
is estimated to be 0.15 million gallons per day. The total
number of dwelling units is estimated to be 4159 in the design
year.
4.4.2 Estimated Cost Per Dwelling Unit
The total cost of the wastewater collection and treatment
system includes the capital cost for major facilities and collec-
tion sewers and the operation and maintenance (0 & M) costs. All
capital costs and all 0 & M costs are assumed to be shared equally
The service area includes Black Point/Prout's Neck, Blue Point,
Dunstan, Higgins Beach, Oak Hill, Oak Hill North, Pine Point
and Willowdale.
IV-14
-------
by all the users of the system, including those currently sewered
and those requiring new collection sewers. Each of these costs
and the total cost per dwelling unit are discussed below.
(1) Capital Cost of Major Facilities
The major facilities include the treatment plant, outfall,
pumping station and interceptor sewers. The capital costs of the
major facilities are assumed to be eligible for ninety percent
Federal and state grants. The industrial share of the local costs
can also be fully recovered by the sanitary district. The capital
cost of the major facilities per dwelling unit is summarized in
Table 4.3-2.
(2) Capital Cost of the Collection System
The collection system costs are generally not eligible for
EPA or state grant. However, depending upon the availability of
funds, the Farmers Home Administration (FHA) provides grants for
the collection system. The objective of the FHA is to minimize
an excessive financial burden placed by the collection system
costs on the residential users of the system. According to the
FHA, the average annual principal plus interest payment, per
residential dwelling unit served, towards the retirement of the
debt for the collection system should not exceed one percent of
the median family income of the served population. If such a pay-
ment exceeds one percent of the median family income, the FHA
generally provides a grant to the sanitary district, not exceeding
fifty percent of the total capital cost of the collection system,
to minimize the excess payment. The FHA also provides loans at
five percent interest to the sanitary district to finance the
remaining portion of the wastewater collection and treatment
system. However, the provision of the grant and the loan depends
upon the availability of sufficient funds, which varies from year
to year. Currently the FHA does have adequate funds for the grant
and loan money for the State of Maine.
The capital cost of the proposed collection system is
estimated to be $8,454,000. This amount could be financed
through a combination of sewer assessment, FHA grant, and a loan.
The sanitary district intends to assess property owners abutting
new sewers a fee not exceeding $10 per foot of abutment. The
For Black Point/Prout's Neck, Blue Point, Dunstan, Higgins Beach,
Oak Hill North, Pine Point and Willowdale. The Oak Hill area is
assumed to be currently sewered.
2
Assuming total length of new lateral sewers equal to 147,600
feet and an average cost per foot equal to $57.25.
IV-15
-------
FHA currently has funds available to provide a grant to the san-
itary district so that the annual cost per residential unit
required to finance the remaining amount would not exceed $113,
which is one percent of the estimated median family income in
Scarborough in 1975.3 The financing of the collection system is
summarized in Table 4.4-1.
TABLE 4.4-1
Cost of the Collection
System
Capital Cost of Collection System^
$11,160,000
Less Sewer Assessments
$ 2,900,000
Less FHA Grant^
$ 2,014,000
Loan
$ 6,246,000
Annual Amortized Value of the Loan
(40 years at 5%)
$ 364,000
Estimated Number of Residential Users
1821
Annual Cost Per Residential Unit
$ 113
(3) Operation and Maintenance Costs
The 0 & M costs are not eligible for Federal or state
grant. The 0 & M costs generally depend upon the volume of waste-
water treated. Although the treatment plant is assumed to have a
capacity of 1.8 mgd, the flow in the initial years of operation
would be considerably less than the capacity. The initial flow is
assumed to be 1.04 mgd comprising 0„9 mgd from residential and
commercial units and 0.15 mgd from industrial units. The annual
0 & M costs to handle this waste load is estimated to be $187,000.
Using the total number of dwelling units of 4159, the annual O & M
cost per dwelling unit is estimated to be $45.00.
3
Based on the 1970 median family income, and assuming an increase
of about 12 percent in 5 years.
4
Including all EPA grant ineligible costs (See Table 4.3-1)
5 .
Assuming that the capital cost of the collection system given
here is shared by the residential users only (estimated at $4159).
If other users are included, the total cost to the residential
users would be reduced, but the cost per dwelling unit would not
change because the FHA grant would be correspondingly reduced as
the FHA does not provide grants for non-residential users.
IV- 16
-------
(4) Total Cost Per Dwelling Unit (Initial Estimate)
The estimated total annual cost per dwelling unit for
Phase I is summarized in Table 4.4-2 below:
Annual amortized capital cost for
major facilities $ 31
Annual 0 & M cost $ 77
Annual amortized cost of new col-
lection sewers $113
Less amortized savings for assess-
ments on industrial and commercial
facilities $ 63
Total annual cost per dwelling unit $158
In addition to the annual cost, an average initial assess-
ment of $1,74 0* per dwelling unit served by new collection sewers
would also be required.
The breakdown of the unit costs above indicates that the
cost of the collection sewers forms the most significant portion
of the total cost. The collection sewers cost includes an initial
assessment fee of $1,740 per dwelling unit plus an annual amort-
ized cost of $113 per dwelling unit.
The collection sewer cost is based on the assumption of
receiving a $2,014,000 grant from FHA. If such a grant can not
be obtained, the annual amortized cost of the collection sewers
would increase from $113 per dwelling unit to $157 per dwelling
unit. The total cost per dwelling unit would therefore increase
to $176 with no FHA grant. These cost are based on 1976 construc-
tion costs, an amortization rate of 6 3/8 percent, and the estim-
ated number of users.
4.5 Description of the Dredging Requirements of the Proposed
Project
The construction of the proposed wastewater system would
require dredging and filling of certain waterways and wetlands in
Scarborough. Such activities would require a permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Since the final wastewater system design
has not been completed, detailed information required for the
Corps of Engineers permit is not available. This section provides
* Does not include cost of installing pipe from house to sewer.
Estimate $30 per foot from foundation to sewer for this cost.
IV-17
-------
information on the general location of the waterways and wetlands
to be dredged and filled. In addition, the expected volume of
the dredged or fill material is estimated, the methods of disposal
of the dredged material are discussed, and the potential environ-
mental effects of the dredging and filling operations are evaluated.
4.5.1 General Location of the Wetlands and Waterways Expected
to be Dredged and Filled
The general location of the proposed wastewater collection
and treatment facilities is illustrated in Figure 4.1-1.
Installation of the force mains along Pine Point Road, the
old railroad grade from the Dunstan River to Oak Hill, and Black
Point Road would require trenching in the Dunstan River, The Jones
Creek, the Nonesuch River, and the Iibbey River. Those sections
of the waterways, where the construction of the force mains would
occur are illustrated in greater detail in Figures 4.5-1 thru 4.5-4.
These figures also illustrate the general location of the pumping
stations near the marsh.
The exact location of the pumping stations is not known,
but the pumping stations should be located outside the marsh so as
to minimize the adverse environmental effects.
The proposed treatment plant site would be situated on
approximately 5-7 acres of land adjacent to the existing facility.
A map of the proposed site is shown in Figure 4.1-2.
4.5.2 Quantity of Dredged or Fill Material
The installation of the sewers would require digging a
trench approximately two to five feet wide and about twelve feet
deep along the length of the sewers. This would result in the re-
moval of approximately 40 to 80 cubic feet of material per foot
of the sewer length. Most of this material would be used for
backfilling the trench after the sewer is laid. The excess mat-
erial expected to be generated from the construction of the entire
length of the interceptors and force mains is estimated to be
approximately 50,000 cubic yards.
The pumping stations would be built underground, and would
occupy a space approximately 1,000 cubic feet each. Thus,
approximately 10,500 cubic feet of soil would be removed during
the construction of the pumping stations.
IV-18
-------
FIGURE 4.5-1
General Location of Major Wastewater
Facilities Near the Dunstan River*
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
GRAVITY SEWER
FORCE MAIN
Scale: 1" = 1,000'
rx.
4
The sewers would be constructed within the right-of-
way of the existing streets and the railroad grade.
The sewer size is estimated to be6-8inches in diameter,
but is shown exaggerated here for clarity.
IV-19
-------
FIGURE 4.5-2
General Location of Uajor Wastewater
Facilities Near the Jones Creek*
The sewers would be constructed within the right-of
way of the existing streets and the railroad grade.
The sewer size is estimated to be6— 8inches in diameter,
but is shown exaggerated here for clarity.
IV-20
-------
FIGURE 4.5-3
General Location of Major Wastewater
Facilities Near the Nonesuch River*
- »/
^ FORCE MAIN
11 PUMP STATTOM
Scale: 1" = 1,000'
.
*
The sewers would be constructed within the right-
of-way of the existing streets. The sewer size
is estimated to be 6-8 inches in diameter, but is
shown exaggerated here for clarity.
IV~21
-------
FIGURE 4.5-4
General Location of Major Wastewater
Facilities Near the Libbey River*
¦ vrnot. IVI/-\I 1^
PUMP STATION
Scale: 1"= 1,000'
The sewers would be constructed within the right-
of-way of the existing streets. The sewer size
is estimated to be 6-8 inches in diameter, but
is shown exaggerated here for clarity.
IV-22
-------
CHAPTER V
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
-------
V ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The construction and operation of the proposed wastewater
collection and treatment facilities would have direct effects on
the environment. These impacts are considered primary effects as
a result of the project. The population growth or impacts which
are induced by the proposed actions are secondary impacts. This
chapter describes both the primary and secondary impacts of the
project on natural and man-made environment.
5.1 Natural Environment
The various elements of the natural environment are
grouped together in this Chapter. Each element will include
a discussion of the primary and secondary impacts.
5.1.1 Physical Environment
(1) Topography
In order to provide protection against flooding, the
treatment plant should be located toward the direction of
Black Point Road. The topographic conditions in this area
are flat, providing for easier construction techniques.
The topography of the service area, on the other hand,
would have an effect on the design of the proposed inter-
ceptor sewers. Several areas allow installation of gravity
sewers, wheras, in other areas, the wastewater would have
to be pumped through force mains. The topography of several
interceptors and the outfall is fairly level especially
along the railroad grade.
The project should not have any long-term or secondary
impacts on the topography in the area of the proposed
facilities.
(2) Geology and Soils
The construction of the treatment plant at Oak Hill
would require excavation and removal of several feet of
topsoil. New soil will be placed on the site to provide
better support for buildings and structures.
The construction of the sewers and the outfall would
require digging a trench approximately 2 to 5 feet wide
and about 12 feet deep. After the sewer is laid most of
the excavated material would be used as back-fill. Small
quantities of excess material will be deposited elsewhere.
The pumping stations would be constructed underground
and would occupy a space approximately 10 feet x 10 feet.
No geological changes are expected to be caused by the
operation of the proposed facilities.
V-l
-------
The availability of sewerage would permit construc-
tion on land which otherwise may not be developed because
of poor soil conditions for septic tank effluent disposal.
Such land includes most of the land in the service area.
5.1.2 Atmosphere
(1) Climate
The proposed actions would not have any effect on the
climate of the region.
(2) Air Quality
There would be minor adverse impacts on the air quality
during the construction and operation- of the proposed
faciliites as discussed below.
Impacts during construction. The construction of the
treatment plant is expected to last for about 18 months,
with peak construction activity taking place for the first
six months. Part of the sewerage system could be con-
structed simultaneously with the treatment plant. The prin-
cipal sources of air pollution during the construction would
be emissions from the construction vehicles and the vehicles
used for commuting by the construction crew. About four
heavy-duty trucks, two front loaders, and a crane are
expected to be operating at the site of the treatment plant
during the peak construction activity. About half as many
would be working there during the remaining construction
period and the same number at the site of sewer construc-
tion. About 70 persons are expected to be working at the
treatment plant site during the peak activity. With
typical occupancy rate of two persons per vehicle at con-
struction projects, about 35 vehicles would be travelling
to and from the site during the peak construction period
and about 20 during the remaining period. At the site
of sewer construction about five vehicles would be involved.
Considering the annual average daily traffic varying from
1,405 vehicles on Black Point Road near Prout's Neck to about
16,000 vehicles on Route 1, the additional 40 to 50 vehicles
involved in this project would have only a minor impact on
the area's air quality.
Another source of air emissions would be the dust
generated during excavation and handling of sand and gravel.
However, most of the dust would settle down before reaching
nearby residences. Also, since the prevailing wind direc-
tion is from the south, the dust would be carried away from
the residential area at Prout's Neck during most of the time.
V-2
-------
Impacts During Operation. A small oil-fired heating
plant with a capacity of 200,000 Btu per hour would be used
at the treatment plant. The pumping stations would be
electrically heated which would require a very small amount
of energy. The impact of the emissions from burning the
oil at the treatment plant on the ambient air quality would
be insignificant.
The operation of the treatment plant and the pumping
stations is estimated to require about 3,000 kwhr of elec-
tricity per day. A small quantity of additional fuel would,
therefore, have to be burned at the generating station sup-
plying this energy. Its impact on local air quality would
be insignificant.
The emissions from the vehicles used by an estimated
personnel staff of four and from about six truck trips a
day for sludge disposal would be minimal, and hence would
not have significant impact on the ambient air quality.
There has been some concern over the release of bio-
logical aerosols from the sewage treatment plants and
their effects on human health. There is no epidemiological
data available to indicate any public health impacts what-
soever. The proposed treatment plant would be designed to
minimize the release of the aerosols. The wastewater
spray in the aeration tank, which is the principal source
of aerosols would be kept low, and a wall at least four
feet high would be built around the tank to prevent escape
of the aerosols. Should there develop new evidence con-
cerning adverse public health impacts from the aerosols
released from a sewage treatment plant, the EPA would re-
quire implementation of appropriate mitigative measures to
eliminate any public health hazard.
An increase in population with associated commercial
and industrial growth could result in an increase in the
activities causing air pollution. The federal and state
source emission control regulations, on the other hand,
would result in lower emissions from such activities.
EPA does not anticipate future violations of air
quality standards with a moderate growth population pro-
jection of 18,000 in the year 2000.
(3) Odor
The proposed site for the treatment facility is
located away from residential development. Land will be
available to serve as a buffer between the new facility
and Black Point Road. Winds from the east, south and
west would carry any odors inland; however, the distance
V-3
-------
to any residential area is approximately 2000 feet away.
Since the exact location of the plant has not been deter-
mined, the distances are only approximate.
A key factor in odor problems experienced at waste-
water treatment plants is the character of the wastewater
to be treated. Septic sewage is a common cause of odor.
Discharge of septic tank sludges to treatment plants can
also create nuisance conditions.
The proposed plant is intended to serve an area that
is primarily residential in nature so that industrial wastes
should not be a major problem. If in the future any indus-
tries wish to connect to the sewer system tributary to this
treatment installation, their discharges should be limited
to wastewater which can be treated readily and without
causing nuisance conditions.
Sewage can become septic through long residence time in
a sewer system before reaching a treatment plant. This is
the most likely to occur when new sewers serving remote
areas are placed in service with low initial flows. Care
should be taken in the design of the sewers to provide
ample slopes so that cleaning velocities can be maintained
in the sewers even at low flows. Since all the incoming
flow will be lifted at the treatment plant site, it should
not be difficult to provide the required slopes. During
the early stages of operation, the sewer lines should be
flushed frequently.
Those process areas where odors are most likely to
occur, namely, the raw sewage pumping station, sludge de-
watering area, and truck loading areas should be completely
enclosed and should have mechanical ventilation systems dis-
charging through odor control devices.
Dewatered sludge and skimmings should be trucked from
the site in covered containers. These provisions will
guard against odor and shield the inherently unsightly opera-
tions from the view of the general public.
Provisions should be made so that chlorine can be added
to the wastewater at the main pump station as well as to
the filtered effluent, as an additional odor control feature.
Standby power sufficient to operate a blower to keep the
tanks aerobic, and to operate sludge transfer pumps and the
ventilating systems, should be provided to permit the treat-
ment facility to operate without odors during periods of
power failure. Standby power should further reduce this
possible source of an odor nuisance.
V-4
-------
(4) Noise
Human reaction to changes in the ambient noise levels
is highly subjective. In general, changes in noise levels
of less than 5 dBA are not readily noticeable. It is dif-
ficult to assess the impact of increases over 5 dBA. In
highway noise impact analyses, for example, the increases of
5-15 dBA are arbitrarily judged to have "some impact", and
the increases of over 15 dBA are considered to have severe
impact.
The noise impacts during the construction and operation
of the proposed facilities are discussed below.
Construction Noise. Trucks and construction
machinery would be the major noise sources during
the construction. Blasting by dynamite may be
required for the construction of sewers in the
areas of shallow ledge. However, dynamite properly
loaded into boreholes on a blasting job would not
be a major source of noise. The Government Services
Administration (GSA) specifications for maximum
noise levels from the construction vehicles and machi-
nery used for federal projects are given in the
following table.
Using the GSA specifications and the number of con-
struction vehicles operating during the peak activity
as discussed earlier, the estimated maximum noise
levels at various distances from the group of construc-
tion equipment are presented below.
Estimated Maximum Noise Levels During the Construction of
the Treatment Plant
Noise
(dBA)
Distance From the For 1975 GSA For 1973 GSA
Site Boundary Specifications Specifications
50 82 97
100 76 91
200 70 85
400 64 79
800 58 73
1600 52 67
3200 46 61
V-5
-------
GSA Construction Noise Specifications
Equipment
Noise Levels in dBA at 50 feet
Earthmoving
Effective
1/1/73
Effective
1/1/75
Front Loader 79 75
Backhoes 85 75
Dozers 80 75
Tractors 80 75
Scrapers 88 80
Graders 85 75
Truck 91 75
Paver 89 80
Materials Handling
Concrete Mixer 85 75
Concrete Pump 82 75
Crane 83 75
Derrick 88 75
Stationary
Pumps 76 75
Generators 78 75
Compressors 81 75
Impact
Pile Drivers 101 95
Jack Hammers 88 75
Rock Drills 98 80
Pneumatic Tools 86 80
Other
Saws 78 75
Vibrator 7 6 75
Table 5.1-1
V-6
-------
Noise During Operation. Hydraulic pumps and electrical
motors would be the primary noise sources during the
operations of the proposed facilities. These would be
furnished with suitable baffles to minimize sound and
will be designed to meet the noise level standards es-
tablished under the Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSHA). The equipment will be housed in buildings de-
signed to further reduce the sound outside the buildings.
In addition, a buffer zone will be maintained between the
treatment plant site and the nearest residences to minim-
ize the noise levels reaching the residences. It is
estimated-that the maximum noise levels at the property
line would be about 45 dBA. The trucks hauling sludge
from the plant to disposal sites are expected to make
about 6 trips a day and would create some noise for
short periods of time. The estimated day-night sound
level (LDN) near the plant would be about 51 dB, which is
not likely to have significant impact on nearby residents.
With the growth in population, the vehicular traffic on
major roads in Scarborough is likely to increase. It is es-
timated that the noise levels along Route 1 are likely to
increase by about 3 dBA, which would not be generally noticeable.
The noise levels along Black Point Road may increase by about
5 to 10 dBA, which would have some impact on local residents.
There should be no significant increase in noise levels in areas
already fully developed.
V-7
-------
5.1.3
Sensitive Natural Areas
The extensive tidal marsh area comprising some 27 00
acres in the vicinity of Scarborough is the prime environmentally
sensitive area. Although it has been divided into a series of
five major tidal units, as an ecosystem it forms a single unit
held together by an intricate "web". The anadromous fish species
which migrate through this area form one "strand" within this
"web" and would be the most significant species which could be
affected by the proposed action.
Three species of fish known to spawn in the area
include: the alewife (alosa pseudoharenqus), the American shad
(a. sapidissima) and the blueback herring (a. aestivalis). These
fishes migrate from the ocean to the estuaries and rivers between
April (for the blueback herring), May (for the alewives) and
between May and June (for the American shad). Spawning usually
occurs shortly thereafter, and for the alewives occurs only once
a lifetime.
The potential environmental effects of the dredging and
filling activities on the waterways and the marsh include increased
silt loads and turbidity in the water bodies.
Increase in the turbidity creates an unsuitable
environment for young fishes and their food source. The three
species of fish known to spawn in the area, listed above, migrate
and spawn as stated above. Therefore, even only one time dis-
ruption could have an impact on future populations. The impact
on these migrating species can be minimized by scheduling the
construction in the fall or winter and with good sediment control,
which includes activities such as removing piles of excavated
material, covering excavated material, and quickly reestablishing
ground cover or pavement after the trench is closed.
The construction of the proposed facilities would result
in a minor and temporary disruption of the waterways and wetlands
in Scarborough. Most sewers would be constructed within the right
of way of the existing streets, with several crossings of the
waterways and wetlands as shown in Figures 5-1 through 5-5. Those
crossings would require construction of trenches less than 150
feet long, 3 feet wide, and 12 feet deep, which, with proper
scheduling and precautions, would have insignificant impact on
the environment. The pumping stations would each occupy a space
10 feet x 10 feet x 10 feet in size and are not expected to cause
significant environmental disruption.
The construction of the treatment plant may require minor
fill behind the existing facility. The environmental effects of
the construction on the marsh can be minimized by taking proper
precaution as mentioned above. The filling of the land would
result in raising the level of the site by about 10 feet above
V-8
-------
the existing level and a loss of the existing vegetation at the
site. By maintaining a proper slope of the filled land and im-
plementing erosion control measures the impact of potential in-
crease in the surface run-off on the marsh could be minimized.
The visual impact of the treatment plant structures could be
minimized by proper landscaping.
The secondary impacts on the sensitive natural areas
could be described as follows: future development, if not
properly planned would have a physical and aesthetic impact in
areas which encroach marshlands. The Town of Scarborough is now
in the process of updating its land use plan. Protection of
environmentally sensitive areas should be given high priority.
Although some 1,600 acres of tidal marsh are under direct control
of the state, further protection such as a buffer zone should be
incorporated into the land use plan in those areas adjacent to
the marsh. Suggestions for preservation of sensitive areas are
included in the Chapter on mitigation measures.
5.1.4 Water Quantity
The construction of the proposed facilities is not
expected to have an appreciable impact on public water supplies.
During operation of the treatment plant, a small amount of
drinking water supply would be required for the staff of four.
For all other operations, such as chlorination of the effluent
and equipment washing, the treated effluent will be used.
The increased population would exert greater demand on
water supply. Sebago Lake, which is the principal source of
water supply to the Greater Portland area, is estimated to have
adequate supply to meet the demand expected in the next 50 years.
5.1.5 Water Quality
The principal effects of the proposed actions on Scar-
borough's water quality would be as follows:
Construction of the proposed facilities would have
temporary minor adverse effects.
Operation of the proposed facilities would abate
pollution producing a long-term beneficial impact
on water quality.
The outfall to the Fore River would not have signifi-
cant impact on the quality of the receiving water.
The proposed project would reduce the hazard of dis-
charging untreated sewage in the water.
These effects are discussed below.
V- 9
-------
(1)
Construction
Unless properly controlled, runoff from construction
sites would cause erosion and carry soils, as well as chemi-
cals, spilled during construction, to the tidal waters.
During construction of the sewerage facilities, the contrac-
tor should at all times be required to control erosion and
siltation and will be required to keep materials from enter-
ing the tidal waters. At the treatment facility, the con-
tractor will be required to pond all soils that must be
pumped to maintain dry operating conditions during con-
struction to prevent siltation of the Scarborough estuary.
(2) Pollution Abatement
The extent to which the pollution in the town of Scar-
borough would be abated depends upon the policies of the
Scarborough Sanitary District. Based on these policies, it
is anticipated that upon completion of the proposed two-
phase construction program, practically all residential,
commercial, and industrial sources of wastewater in the
service area will be required to connect to the proposed
sewerage system.
Thus, the proposed actions would eliminate all dis-
charges of untreated sewage into the estuaries of Scar-
borough and in the Higgins Beach area. The water quality
in these waters would, therefore, be improved.
Although the proposed actions would not completely
abate the pollution in the Prout's Neck area, state regula-
tions require that the residences with "straight pipe"
discharges obtain discharge permits from the Maine DEP after
October 1, 1976. In order to obtain such permits, they would
have to provide at least secondary treatment for their waste-
waters. They may use private package treatment plants or
connect to the proposed sewerage system.(8) Among the
remaining residents, those with malfunctioning septic
systems would be required by the Maine Department of Health
and Welfare to correct their systems or provide alternate
means of wastewater treatment and disposal.
(3) Outfall to the Fore River
The environmental impacts of the discharge to the Fore
River will be minimal. Provided that the facility meets
the design criteria proposed, no degradation of water
quality is anticipated. Short-term operational problems
could possibly affect water quality of the Fore River but
long term degradation due to operational failures should
not change the River's classification.
V-10
-------
Future water quality in Scarborough will in part be a
function of population growth and the type and extent of develop-
ment. As the discussion of future growth implies, the character
of the Scarborough area over the next 20 years will continue to
shift from semi-rural to suburban caused by steady but moderate
residential development. Significant new commercial development
is not expected, and industrial development will probably remain
limited to manufacturing, food processing, and services related
to the seasonal tourist trade. Tax pressures in the future may
precipitate a more vigorous search for new industry.
The proposed sewerage system is designed to handle all
flows expected over the next 20 years. As population increases,
more collection sewers will be constructed resulting in temporary
and local sedimentation impacts from construction activity.
However, the proposed interceptor system is sufficient in size
and in service area so that no future sewer lines will cross the
environmentally sensitive marshlands. With residential and
commercial development proceeding at a moderate rate, problems
with run-off from general construction activity should be held
to a minimum if good construction practices are followed.
As development increases, the quantity of urban run-
off will increase, and as storm sewers are installed or as
storm drainage is otherwise collected and handled, the pattern
and characteristics of runoff will occur sooner with storm sewers
and drainage collection systems, and unless the systems are
properly designed, flooding could be a problem. As the land use
changes from rural to residential, pollutant concentrations in
the runoff water will change.
The bacterial runoff in Scarborough was analyzed by
using methods described in the EPA Report, "Loading Functions
for Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources." The
following assumptions were made:
Pollution loadings were based on curb miles for the
drainage basin and reflected runoff from sewered
areas.
Die-off of bacteria during transport from the source
to the stream was not considered.
Pollution loadings were based on the existing popula-
tion.
National and regional climate means were used for
estimating the total and fecal coliforms.
Based on the above analysis, the coliform concentration in
the immediate area of mouth of the estuary would range from 500
to 1,000 MPN/100 ML* for total coliforms and from 30 to 450 MPN/100
ML for fecal coliforms. Since this analysis did not consider the
Most probable number per 100 milliliter.
V-ll
-------
bacteria removal by the salt marsh, which is believed to remove
about 98 percent of the coliform bacteria, the above results can
be regarded as highly conservative.
A comparison of these results with the Maine water quality
standard for shellfish growing areas indicate that the estimated
bacterial levels from runoff exceed the fecal coliform standards
for direct shellfish harvesting but could meet the standards for
depuration harvesting. Currently, the bacterial levels in the
shellfish growing areas in Scarborough exceed both the direct and
the depuration harvesting standards. However, the bacterial
levels in Scarborough's waters have shown wide variation over the
years.
Assuming that bacterial runoff would increase directly in pro-
portion to the population and no nonpoint source pollution con-
trols are implemented, the coliform concentration in the shellfish
growing areas of Scarborough would be expected to approximately
double during the next 25 years, if the population of Scarborough
nearly doubles during the same period as projected under the high
growth scenario. If no bacteria removed by the salt marsh is
assumed, the above results indicate that even depuration harvest-
ing may not be possible under the high growth scenario. However,
the salt marsh is likely to remove some bacteria, hence depuration
harvesting would be possible under the high growth scenario.
In summary, the results of a very crude non-point source pol-
lution analysis indicate that direct shellfish harvesting in
Scarborough would not be possible unless the existing non-point
source pollution is abated. However, depuration harvesting could
be possible even under the high growth scenario.
5.1.6 Aquatic Life
While the construction of the proposed facilities would
cause temporary disruption of the aquatic life as discussed pre-
viously, their operation would abate pollution and thus improve
the habitat of aquatic biota. The soft shell clams would be the
most affected species. Because of pollution abatement, bacterial
levels in the clams would be reduced, which could permit harvest-
ing them with subsequent cleansing.
With no further discharge of untreated wastewaters into
natural waters and no further development in sensitive natural
areas, the secondary effects in aquatic life would be minimal.
If urban runoff is controlled, as mentioned earlier, the effects
of new development on the aquatic life would be insignificant.
5.1.7 Terrestrial Life
The impact of the proposed actions on terrestrial life
will be minimal. There are no large areas requiring clearing
which could result in a loss of terrestrial habitat.
V-12
-------
5.2
Man-Made Environment
Primary or direct effects upon the man-made environ-
ment concern changes or alterations to the site and adjacent
properties of the proposed action. They also include the effects
of pollution abatement caused by the proposed actions. Therefore,
this section will discuss any significant effects anticipated
regarding the treatment plant site, the pumping stations, and
the paths of the sewer lines and outfall that result directly
from the construction of the proposed action. The recreational
and economic impact of the pollution abatement will also be
discussed.
The analysis of secondary effects considers the socio-
economic consequences as a result of future population growth.
These impacts will be presented on the basis of the moderate
growth scenario.
5.2.1 Demographic and Economic Conditions
The construction of the proposed sewerage system should
have no significant effect on the demographic profile of the town,
nor should it require the dislocation of any families or residen-
tial households during the construction period. The proposed
plant and station sites are currently vacant, and the majority of
the sewerage lines will pass through public rights-of-way. The
outfall will require granting of easements from the Portland
Terminal Company; however, no dislocation of-families and house-
holds will be required.
Primary economic effects will include the construction
employment during the construction phase and an increase in opera-
tions staff personnel at the treatment plant site.
It is estimated that the proposed project will produce
294 new construction jobs.
The sewerage system would allow and help to attract
industrial and commercial development and would therefore con-
tribute to a balanced tax base and more stable tax rate. Indus-
tries such as Snow Foods would be more likely to keep or expand
operations in Scarborough. Snow Foods estimates their property
tax contribution to Scarborough will be $40,000 in the next tax
year. In the absence of centralized sewerage their preliminary
estimates for installing their own package treatment plant ran
from $750,000 to $1,000,000. Because the company does not use
local clams, the firm might have a financial incentive to leave
rather than stay and make a substantial capital investment.
Another secondary economic effect is the employment
generation within other industries due to the construction of the
system. This employment may be located anywhere depending on
where the raw materials and building products are extracted,
V-13
-------
processed, and traded. This secondary employment is an example
of the economic multiplier which results from any construction
project or expenditures within an economic system.
5.2.2 Land Use
The land use of the sites proposed for the treatment
plant and pump stations would be changed from essentially vacant
land with no structured recreational use to lands designated for
public service facility. The interceptor would be constructed
in the public-right-of-way along existing roadways. The outfall
line would be constructed along the railroad right-of-way.
With proper safety precautions portions of the interceptors and
outfall lines could also provide for recreational use in the form
of walkways or bicycle trails. This type of recreational planning
should be included within the Town's updated land use plan.
Coordination between the Sanitary District and the Planning Board
are necessary to implement various recreational alternatives.
The secondary impacts on land use due to the implementa-
tion of the proposed facilities will vary depending on the effec-
tiveness of local controls to regulate and withstand pressures
from development. The community has indicated its willingness
to develop land use measures to protect naturally sensitive areas
as well as to establish a yearly limitation on new dwelling con-
struction. Further recommendations regarding local planning
issues are listed in the following chapter on mitigation measures.
5.2.3 Historical/Archeological Sites
As far as can be determined, construction of the central
sewer system would not disrupt or disturb any known sites of
historical and archaeological interest. EPA has coordinated with
the Maine Historic Preservation Officer in identifying possible
historical or archeological resources at the expanded treatment
plant site at Oak Hill. The Maine SHPO has also forwarded a
letter to EPA stating that archeological explorations would not
be necessary at this proposed site, due to its extensive agri-
cultural use.
5.2.4 Community Facilities and Services
Because the construction labor force will not be re-
locating to the Scarborough area and because the operating staff
is so small, the proposed sewerage system will not directly
generate a need for expanded community facilities or services.
The secondary impacts on community facilities are
presented on the basis of the moderate growth scenario.
The manpower and facilities needs are shown in Table
5.2-1. Approximately 23.5 additional personnel would be needed
by 1980 at an estimated cost of $276,500; 38.5 additional personnel
V-14
-------
by 1990 at a cost of $456,500; and 38 additional personnel by
2000 at a cost of $456,500. New facilities and additional vehicles/
equipment needs would follow a similar profile to that of the low
growth scenario except that the needs would have to be met earlier.
New classrooms would be needed by 1990 and an estimated twelve new
buses. Two of the three wooden fire stations should be replaced
by 1980 and the third shortly thereafter. The concentration of
new development would provide savings in terms of more efficient
planning and development as well as delivery of community ser-
vices. Road reconstruction would probably have to be expedited
to better accommodate the increased traffic.
5.2.5 Impacts on Municipal Infrastructure
Since the town has traditionally operated on a very
conservative capital expenditure basis, the program of future
capital improvements does not vary tremendously except in the
area of schools and in the potential scheduling of improvements.
Many of the facilities are quite old and inadequate for present
operations. They would have to be replaced anyway within the
twenty-five year study period and the implications of the different
growth scenarios is more one of timing than of volume.
The Town's infrastructure, including water supply and
roads, would be variously affected by the town's growth. Water
supply for the Portland Region, including Scarborough, is con-
sidered adequate for the next fifty years. The different growth
scenarios do not affect the regional water supply as the pro-
jected growth has been accounted for on a regional basis.
The Town currently has about 12 0 miles of roads. Under
the urban compact program with the State, as stretches of roads
become urbanized (one house every 250 feet) the maintenance is
turned over to the Town. The State currently maintains about
50 miles of roads within Scarborough, predominantly west of the
turnpike. The Town has added about 1/2 mile per year since 197 0
under this compact. The Town maintains all roads in winter and
receives $100 per mile from the State for State roads.
Several of Scarborough's roads have been identified as
needing reconstruction and repairs in the Portland Area Comprehen-
sive Transportation Survey (PACTS). These include portions of:
Payne Road, Spurwink Road, Black Point Road, Gorham Road, Broad-
turn Road, and the Highland Avenue relocation. These repairs are
considered necessary regardless of population growth scenario.
The implications of moderate growth scenarios upon the road
system are as follows:
The reconstruction and repair program would
probably have to be completed at a faster
pace with some additional roadwork and new
equipment and manpower.
Vt-15
-------
Table 5.2-1
Implications of Moderate Growth Within Town of Scarborough
Community Facilities
and Services
1980
(12,040)
1990
(15,020)
2000
(18,000)
Fire1
. Additional Staff (1)
. Additional Truck (1)
. Replacement of Wooden
Fire Stations (2)
. Additional Staff (1)
. Additional Truck (1)
. Replacement of Wooden
Fire Station (1)
. Additional Staff (1)
. Additional Truck (1)
Police
, Additional Staff (5)
, Additional Vehicle (1)
. Additional Space
. Additional Staff (2)
. Replacement Equipment
. Additional Vehicle (1)
. Additional Staff (2)
. Additional Vehicle (2)
Public Works^
. Adequate
. Replacement Equipment
. Additional Staff (2)
. Replacement and
Additional Equipment
. Additional Staff (2)
. Replacement and
Additional Equipment
Community Health
and Welfare
. Adequate
. Adequate
. Additional Staff (1)
General Administration
. Additional Space
. Additional Staff (1.5)
. Additional Staff (1.5)
. Additional Staff (2)
School System
. Adequate Facilities
. Additional Staff (10)
. New Classrooms for
increased growth
. Additional Staff (30)
. Additional Buses (6)
. New Classrooms for
Increased growth
and Replacement
. Additional Staff (30)
. Additional Buses (6)
Sanitary District
. Additional Staff (6)
. New Facilities
. Additional Staff (2)
. Additional Staff (1)
3-The additional staff projections assume the Fire Department remains primarily a volunteer system. The staff
needs are assumed to be permanent drivers only.
^If the town assumed responsibility for refuse collection (instead of contracting with a commercial firm) ,DPW
would need 4 to 6 additional staff.
-------
Table 5.2-2
Manpower Needs at Current Estimated Costs
Growth
Rate
1980
1990
2000
Low
Persons
11
14.5
17
Cost
$129,500
$171,000
$192,500
Moderate
Persons
23.5
38.5
38
Cost
$276,500
$452,500
$456,500
High
Persons
25
25
64
Cost
$291,500
$805,000
$750,000
The cost assumptions are based on current estimates provided by Town Officials
for obtaining new personnel in the Portland area (salary + benefits):
Fire $ 9,500 per person
Police 12,000 per person
DPW 10,000 per person
Health 11,000 per person
General Administration 10,000 per person
School System 12,000 per person
Sanitary District 12,000 per person
-------
Circulation would become badly congested
at major intersection points along Route 1,
requiring traffic control improvements and
possible widening of Route 1 in critical
areas.
V- 18
-------
CHAPTER VI
MITIGATION MEASURES
-------
VI MITIGATION MEASURES
6.0 Introduction
This chapter contains mitigation measures and planning
recommendations to assist the town of Scarborough during the
construction and operation of the proposed facilities. The
planning suggestions are intended to provide assistance to the
town in its development of a new comprehensive plan. Since the
preparation of the draft EIS in January, 1976, several changes
have occured with respect to the proposed project. These
changes are:
1. The draft EIS recommended a 3 MGD facility to be located
on Prouts Neck with a discharge to the ocean. This facility
was planned to serve a projected population of 27,000 by the
year 2000. The proposed action recommended in this final
EIS is a 1.8 MGD facility at Oak Hill with a discharge to
the Fore River. It is anticipated that this project will
serve 14,558 people by the year 2000.
2. The Planning Board and Sanitary District have agreed to
design a facility and to develop a growth management plan in
accordance with the moderate growth scenario discussed in the
supplement to the draft EIS. The moderate growth scenario
projects a total population of 18,000 by the year 2000 with
a service population of 14,558.
Although these changes are significant and represent a
change in growth attitudes from those reflected in the draft
EIS, there still remain several primary and secondary impacts
which need to be addressed.
6.1 Primary Impacts
This section recommends different types of mitigating
measures to be implemented during the construction and operation
of the proposed facilities.
(1) Mitigating Measures During Construction
During the construction of the proposed project there
will be adverse impacts which can be mitigated to reduce their
severity. Short-term impacts such as sedimentation, disruption
of aquatic life, noise, and traffic disruption will occur.
The following measures to mitigate these impacts are
discussed below:
VI-1
-------
A. Water Quality and Aquatic Life
The Town of Scarborough should adopt an erosion and
sediment control plan in order to reduce construction impacts.
This plan could indicate necessary land treatment measures,
including a schedule of the timing of construction activities
which will effectively minimize soil erosion and sedimentation.
Such measures should be in accordance with standards and prac-
tices as adopted by the Soil Conservation Service.
The plan could establish general design measures to apply
to all aspects of the proposed land disturbance and shall be in
operation during all stages of the disturbance activity. The
following suggested principles could apply to the soil erosion
and sediment control plan.
(1) Stripping of vegetation, grading or other soil disturb-
ance shall be done in a manner which will minimize soil erosion.
(2) Whenever feasible, natural vegetation shall be retained
and protected.
(3) The extent of the disturbed area and the duration of its
exposure shall be kept within practical limits.
(4) Either temporary seeding, mulching, or other suitable
stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed critical
areas during construction or other land disturbance.
(5) Drainage provisions shall accommodate increased runoff
resulting from modified soil and surface conditions, during and
after development or disturbance. Such provisions shall be in
addition to all existing requirements.
(6) Water runoff shall be minimized and retained on site
whenever possible to facilitate ground water recharge.
(7) Sediment shall be retained on site.
(8) Diversions, sediment basins, and similar required struc-
tures shall be installed prior to any on-site grading or
disturbance.
B. Noise
Scheduling the major portion of the construction of the
treatment plant in winter would minimize the impact of noise on
nearby residents.
During the construction, staggered operation of noisy
equipment would minimize the cumulative noise. Also, use of
equipment meeting at least the GSA noise specifications would re-
sult in lower noise. Should there be a need for blasting, the
dynamite should be properly loaded into boreholes to minimize the
detonation noise.
VI-2
-------
C. Traffic Disruption
During construction of the interceptors which cross
major roads, boring under the roads where feasible, would mini-
mize the traffic disruption.
During the construction of several pumping stations and
the outfall to the Fore River, it will be necessary to coordin-
ate construction with the railroad in order not to disrupt normal
railroad operations.
D. Landscaping
Good Landscaping at the site of the proposed treatment
plant and pump stations would mitigate the visual impact of the
treatment structures.
(2) Mitigating Measures During Operation
While the operation of the treatment plant would have some
adverse environmental effects, the presence of the plant structure
itself could have adverse visual impacts. The measures to mit-
igate these impacts are described below.
Operation and Maintenance of the Treatment Plant
In addition to the generation of odor, noise, and
aerosols during the normal operation of the treatment
plant, there is a potential for malfunction of compo-
nents of the plant. Providing adequate and well-trained
staff for operating and maintaining the treatment plant
would prevent serious malfunctions, and the consequent
proper operation and maintenance of the treatment plant,
as discussed in Chapter IV, would control the problem
of odor.
Use of baffles and acoustic enclosures around noisy
equipment would minimize noise from the treatment plant.
VI-3
-------
6.2 Secondary Impacts
This section discusses what mitigation measures are
necessary in order to prepare for potential impacts which
may occur once the proposed facility is constructed.
The town of Scarborough has indicated to EPA that it
wishes to develop to a population of 18,000 by the year 2000.
This projection provides for a moderate rate of growth in the
next 25 years. Although the growth is not anticipated to have
major secondary impacts, appropriate local planning will pre-
pare the Town to plan for future municipal and community
facilities as they become needed. The following items are
presented as planning recommendations to the Town.
6.2.1 Community Development and Growth Management Plan
Because of Scarborough's desirable location and
natural resource amenities, Scarborough should institute
a growth management plan which coordinates the development
of public facilities with new construction in the private
sector in an orderly manner according to the moderate growth
strategy adopted by the Town. The management plan and growth
strategy must be jointly agreed upon and developed by the
Town government, Boards, Commissions, and Sanitary District.
The approach suggested could consist of the following at a
minimum:
A rationale for the selected growth strategy
A capital improvements plan
A public facilities ordinance for new develop-
ment keyed to the capital improvements plan
Joint agreement and adoption of ordinances
to support the implementation of the growth
management plan with emphasis on preserving
environmentally sensitive areas
Formulation of the plan could conceivably be done
primarily by the professional talent represented by the Town
government officials and staff personnel, commission and board
members, citizen volunteers, and selective consulting assistance,
particularly in the legal area. A series of Task Forces could
be formed to prepare desirable background inventories and ana-
lytical tools which would be critical in developing and substan-
tiating the basic rationale for the growth management program
and strategy. The more pertinent background studies which
should receive priority include:
Fiscal Impact Analysis - The development of
a fiscal impact analysis can provide an excell-
ent reference guide for growth management and
VI-4
-------
can indicate probable deficit or surplus points
due to unbalanced growth, changes in phasing,
or timing of growth. Determination of the
municipal costs and revenues for the basic
services and revenue categories according to
the most recent fiscal year budget and reason-
able projection factors will allow the testing
of a variety of growth scenarios for the fiscal
impact.
Capital Improvements Plan - A capital improve^
ments plan is key to implementing a growth
management plan. The scheduling and capacity
of facilities must be matched with development
and fiscal objectives in providing an adequate
revenue base. In developing this plan, an
inventory and evaluation of Town owned facile
ities, land and equipment should be prepared
and a plan for improvement, replacement, and
acquisition of new facilities, manpower, and
equipment outlined in accordance with the pace
of development tentatively desired. The plan
and inventory should include property of the
Sanitary District and other Town or community-
wide service agencies (i.e., library) which
the Town supports in cash or in kind. Once
the plan framework is developed, the impact of
alterations in development pace are clearly
demonstrated through the fiscal impact analysis
and the necessity for rescheduling or redesign-
ing the capacity of public improvements.
Evaluation of Existing Ordinances - Several
ordinances may have to be revised and updated
to be effective in the implementation of a
growth management program. One of the task
forces could study the ordinances and codes
and recommend language and standards appro-
priate for enactment in accord with the growth
management program.
The construction of a growth management plan
will take considerable effort on the part of
the community, with perhaps some selected
technical assistance in the legal and imple^
mentation areas. The cooperation and exper-
ience of all those in town government and
public service will be critical to the success-
ful development and implementation of the plan.
A timetable for tasks, taskforce reports and
public meetings would be helpful in guiding
the entire effort. Once the capital improve-
ments plan is finalized and adopted, along with
an adequate public facilities ordinance, then
VI- 5
-------
the development pace is established and the
implementation tools are exercised in accord-
ance with the scheduling of capital improve-
ments, and development or growth cannot exceed
the capacities expressed in the plan.
If the development of a growth management pro-
gram is conducted totally within the community
over an extended period (up to one or two years)
the Town should consider adopting an interim
development ordinance regarding new residential
growth to preserve maximum flexibility in keep-
ing growth management options open, and for the
protection of natural resource areas.
6.2.2 Preservation of Natural Resources
Scarborough has valuable assets in its natural environ-
ment which need greater protection under any growth strategy.
Despite efforts to pass more stringent ordinances, the minimum
standards recommended by the State for Shoreland Zoning and
resource protection districts were ultimately adopted by the
Planning Board and Town Council. Enforcement, however, of the
Shoreland Ordinance has continued to be a problem because of
staff limitations. The State of Maine presently owns 2,7 00
acres of marshland within Scarborough. These lands are pro-
tected from development. However, there are still several
areas of marshlands, as well as land adjacent to marshlands,
that are relatively unprotected from encroaching development.
The inventory of natural resources being prepared
by the Conservation Commission should provide an excellent
resource element for the Planning Board in the formulation
of growth management strategy and identifying sensitive acres
which may require additional protection from potential environ-
mental damage caused by development. One possibility is to
acquire, with the use of Bureau of Outdoor Recreation funds,
additional marshland or land areas adjacent to marshland.
Land areas contiguous to the marsh require strict controls
with respect to the types of development permissible. Estab-
lishing a buffer zone or green belt strip is a useful tool
whose essential purpose is to maintain compatible development
adjacent to wetlands. The areas adjoining wetlands tend to
exhibit continued sensitivity. Sensitive soils, water courses,
and recharge areas are often near wetland areas. Further, even
if the adjacent land is not sensitive in itself, the proximity
to the wetland calls for special attention, which the buffer
zone can provide.
A wetland buffer zone can follow two basic approaches.
First, the buffer can be a fixed area from the boundaries of
the wetland district. This might range from 50 feet to 250
feet from mean high water, as recommended in the Maine Shore-
land Zoning Ordinance.
VI-6
-------
Second, the buffer might take a minimum fixed area,
coupled with the flexibility to incorporate sensitive land
areas beyond the fixed area. With the fixed area, the objec-
tive is to establish stringent environmental controls over a
larger list of permitted or special uses.
Key among the controls would be protection against
the by-products of increased use, such as liquid wastes, run-
off, erosion, and sedimentation. The control could be exer-
cised through limitations on impervious surfaces, through
extensive performance requirements for control of erosion and
runoff, or in the case of liquid waste, through stringent
regulation of private sewer systems.
The floating buffer would be directed toward essen-
tially the same purposes. The use list might be expanded,
but more stringent controls would be placed on the by-products
of the various uses. With the floating buffer, Scarborough
might establish a minimum buffer coupled with the potential
to expand, depending upon the presence of related sensitive
land areas. The dimensions of the buffer could easily be
taken from maps indicating vegetative cover, soil type, slope,
drainage patterns, and so on. The buffer boundary would vary
with the presence or absence of adjacent sensitive land areas.
For any specific development within this area, the applicant
would be required to show the relation between the proposed
use and related sensitive land areas. In this way, the buffer
could float and account for the sensitivity of the land.
The principal disadvantage of the floating buffer
is simply the availability of the requisite information. In
those areas with a paucity of environmental information, the
fixed buffer would be more attractive. In those areas with
extensive topographical information, the floating buffer would
make more sense. In both cases, the objective of the buffer
is to allow for an expanded range of uses while placing strict
controls over the by-products of these uses. The use of the
buffer zone complements the basic wetlands control by minimiz-
ing negative developmental consequences in lands adjoining the
wetland area.
6.2.3 Environmental Performance Standards
Utilizing environmental performance standards as
general regulations for all development provides the most
important type of controls for resource management or protec-
tion. All of the environmentally sensitive areas within
Scarborough can benefit substantially from controlling devel-
opment effects that are essentially external to their boundaries.
Besides protecting sensitive areas, environmental performance
standards offer other advantages. Many of these are similar to
those performance standards found in building codes or indus-
trial zoning.
VI-7
-------
1. Environmental performance standards tend to
encourage innovation to improve the compatibility of develop-
ment with the natural functions of the land. This flexibil-
ity is particularly important in the area of resource protec-
tion, since there are a host of construction and site design
techniques which can be combined to make development more
sensitive to land functions. Allowing the landowner to find
the best techniques for his particular site gives the community
better protection of its resources and the landowner a greater
chance to maximize his own benefits.
2. Environmental performance standards eliminate the
need for the drafters of the code to know about and test all
available methods of development. The burden of proof is
shifted to the landowner, who may provide the necessary tech-
nical evaluation from licensed engineers or hydrologists to
determine if the development will maintain the natural func-
tions at the specified levels.
3. Environmental performance standards more accurately
separate uses that are compatible with the natural systems from
those that are not. If a particular site is unbuildable, it
will be determined by the particular character of that site and
does not need to be predetermined on a zoning map.
All of the above recommendations should be given
serious consideration by the Planning Board and other local
agencies in Scarborough who will be instrumental in governing
the future development of the Town. By implementing these
recommendations at the local level, Scarborough will assure
protection of its most valuable natural resources.
VI- 8
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS
-------
APPENDIX A
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Air quality is measured in terms of pollutant concen-
trations averaged over different time periods. The concen-
tration is usually reported in micrograms or milligrams of
the pollutant per cubic meter of air at 25°C and 760 mm of
Hg.
Federal ambient air quality standards include both pri-
mary and secondary standards, with the latter being more
stringent. The state of Maine ambient air quality standards
include only one set of standards which are either equal to
or more stringent than the federal standards. The Maine air
quality standards are given in Table A-l.
A-l
-------
Table A-l
Maine Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air Pollutant
Ambient Standard
Averaging Time
Concentration
(microgram/cubic
meter)
Suspended
Particulates
24-Hour
1-Year
(Geometric Mean)
100'
50
Sulfur Dioxide
24-Hour
1-Year
(Arithmetic Mean)
230
57
Carbon Monoxide*
1-Hour
8-Hour
40**
10**
Photochemical*
Oxidants
1-Hour
160
Hydrocarbon
(corrected for
methane)
3-Hour
160
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Year
(Arithmetic Mean)
100
Maximum concentration not to exceed more than once a year.
In milligram/cubic meter.
Source: Maine Department of Environmental Protection Implementation
Plan for Air Quality Control, November 1972.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
NONDEGREDATION CRITERIA
FOR AIR QUALITY
-------
APPENDIX B
NONDEGRADATION CRITERIA FOR AIR QUALITY*
The nondegradation criteria for air quality were estab-
lished in December 1974. These criteria apply to the in-
crease in ambient concentration of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Three classes with different allowable in-
crements in the above concentrations were established. For
Classes I and II, the following increments are allowed.
Class I
m g/m3
Class II
Mg/m3
Particulate matter
Annual geometric mean
24-hour maximum
5
10
10
30
Sulfur dioxide
Annual arithmatic mean
24-hour maximum
3-hour maximum
2
5
25
15
100
700
For Class III, the above concentrations could increase
until the air quality degrades upto the national ambient
standards.
Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterioration, Title 40,
Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 52 — Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans, Federal Register, Volume 39, No. 235,
Thursday, December 5, 1974.
B-l
-------
APPENDIX C
NOISE:
UNITS AND STANDARDS
-------
APPENDIX C
NOISE: UNITS AND STANDARDS
1. UNITS
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is usually
described in terras of sound pressure and frequency. A com-
mon unit for measuring noise is decibel (dB), which is de-
fined as follows:
dB = 20 log, n P/p.
'10
where
P = measured sound pressure
P.= reference sound pressure, generally taken to be
2x10~5 Newton/m .
Human response to noise varies with frequency. The
measured noise is, therefore, generally electronically
weighted according to several internationally approved
scales. In the case of community noise, the "A" scale is
used and the resulting noise is termed as dBA. There are
other more sophisticated indicators of community noise.*
2. STANDARDS
Various federal and state agencies have recommended
guidelines for allowable noise levels, as shown in Table
C-l. The EPA has also developed guidelines for maximum
noise exposure. These are shown in Table C-2.
Community Noise, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Noise Abatement and Control, 1971.
C-l
-------
Table C-l
Federal and State Noise Standards
Agency
Applicability
Noise Limit (dBA)
Dept. of Housing
and Urban Development
(criteria for FHA loans)
Residential
areas
Can exceed 65 dBA for
up to 8 hrs./24 hrs.
Dept. of Transportation
(criteria for highway
projects)
Parks
Residential and business
Other developed tracts
Residential & business (interior)
60
70
75
55
State of California
Classrooms
(interior)
<50
State of Colorado
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
(day/night)
II
II
55/50
60/55
80/75
State of Illinois
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
(day/night)
II
II
55-61/45-57
55-66/NA
61-70/NA
State of New Jersey
Residential
Commercial
(day/night)
65/55
65 max.
State of Oregon
All private
(day/night)
property
60/55
Sources:
Noise Source Regulation in State and Local Noise Ordinances, EPA 550/9-75 Washington, D.C.,
February 1975.
Noise Source Regulation in State and Local Noise Ordinance, EPA NTID 73.1.
-------
Table C-2
Summary of Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare With an
Adequate Margin of Safety
Effect
Level*
Area
Hearing Loss**
Leq(24)* 70
dB
All areas
Outdoor activity
interference and
annoyance
Ldn < 55 dB
Outdoors in residential
areas and farms and other
outdoor areas where people
spend widely varying
amounts of time and other
places in which quiet is a
basis for use.
Leq(24)~ 55
dB
Outdoor areas where people
spend limited amounts of
time, such as school yards
and playgrounds.
Indoor activity
interference and
annoyance
Ldn * 45 dB
Leq(24) - 45
dB
Indoor residential areas
Other indoor areas with
human activities, such as
schools.
L . . represents the sound energy averaged over a 24-hour period;
represents the L with a 10 dB nighttime weighting,
dn eg
The hearing loss level identified here represents annual averages of
the daily level over a 40-year period. (These are energy averages,
not to be confused with arithmetic averages.)
Source: Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report 550/9-74-004, March 1974.
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D
MAINE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
-------
APPENDIX D
MAINE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The Maine Water Pollution Control Law, Title 38,
Chapter 3, Protection and Improvement of Waters, established
different classifications for marine and fresh waters. The
classifications described in the following two sections are
extracted from State Water Laws, Environment Reporter, Bureau
of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 1975.
D-l
-------
1. MARINE WATER CLASSIFICATION
Class SA, shall be suitable for all clean water usages,
including water contact recreation, and fishing. Such
waters shall be suitable for the harvesting and propagation
of shellfish and for a fish and wildlife habitat. These
waters shall contain not less than 6.0 parts per million of
dissolved oxygen at all times. The median numbers of
coliform bacteria in any series of samples representative
of waters in the shellfish growing area or non-shellfish
growing area shall not be in excess of 70 per 100
milliliters, nor shall more than 10% of the samples exceed
230 coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters.
The median numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in any
series of samples representative of waters in the shellfish
growing area or non-shellfish growing area shall not be in
excess of 15 per 100 milliliters, nor shall more than 10%
of the samples exceed SO fecal coliform bacteria per 100
milliliters.
There shall be no floating solids, settleable solids, oil or
sludge deposjts attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or
other wastes and no deposit of garbage, cinders, ashes,
oils, sludge or other refuse. There shall be no discharge of
sewage or other wastes, except those which have received
treatment for the adequate removal of waste constituents
including, but not limited to, solids, color, turbidity,
taste, odor or toxic material, such that these treated
wastes will not lower the standards or alter the usages of
this classification, nor shall such disposal of sewage or
waste be injurious to aquatic life or render such danger-
ous for human consumption.
There shall be no toxic wastes, deleterious substances,
colored or other waste or heated liquids discharged to
waters of this classification either singly or in combina-
tions with other substances or wastes in such amounts or
at such temperatures as to be injurious to edible fish or
shellfish or to the culture or propagation thereof, or
which in any manner shall adversely affect the flavor,
color, odor or sanitary condition thereof; and otherwise
none in sufficient amounts to make the waters unsafe or
unsuitable for bathing or impair the waters for any other
best usage as determined for the specific waters assigned
to this class. There shall be no discharge which will cause
the hydrogen-ion concentration or "pH" of these waters
to fall outside of the 6.7 to 8.5 range.
D-2
-------
There shall be no disposal of any matter or substances
that contains chemical constituents which are harmful to
humans, animal or aquatic life or which adversely affect
any other water use in this class. No radioactive matter or
substance shall be permitted in these waters which would
be harmful to humans, animal or aquatic life and there
shall be no disposal of any matter or substance which
would result in radio-nuclide concentrations in edible fish
or other aquatic life thereby rendering them dangerous
for human consumption. These waters shall be free of any
matter or substance which alters the composition of
bottom fauna, which adversely affects the physical or
chemical nature of bottom material, or which interferes
with the propagation of fish or shellfish if indigenous to
the area.
Class SB-1 shall be suitable for all clean water usages
including water contact recreation, and fishing. Such
waters shall be suitable for the harvesting and propagation
of shellfish, and for a fish and wildlife habitat. These
waters shall contain not less than 6.0 parts per million of
dissolved oxygen at all times. The median numbers of
coliform bacteria in any series of samples representative
of waters in the shellfish growing area shall not be in
excess of 70 per 100 milliliters, nor shall more than 10%
of the samples exceed 230 coliform bacteria per 100
milliliters. The median numbers of fecal coliform bacteria
in any series of samples representative of waters in the
shellfish growing area shall not be in excess of 15 per 100
milliliters, nor shall more than 10% of the samples exceed
50 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters. In a non-
shellfish growing area the median numbers of coliform
bacteria in a series of samples representative of the waters
shall not exceed 240 per 100 milliliters, nor shall more
than 10% of the samples exceed 500 coliform bacteria per
100 milliliters.
In a non-shellfish growing area the median numbers of
fecal coliform bacteria in a series of samples representa-
tive of the waters shall not exceed 240 per 100 milliliters,
nor shall more than 10% of the samples exceed 500
coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters. In a non-shellfish
growing area the median numbers of fecal coliform bac-
teria in a series of samples representative of the waters
shall not exceed 50 per 100 milliliters, nor shall more
than 10% of the samples exceed 150 fecal coliform
bacteria per 100 milliliters.
There shall be no floating solids, settleable solids, oil or
sludge deposits attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or
other wastes and no deposit of garbage, cinders, ashes,
oils, sludge or other refuse. There shall be no discharge of
sewage or other wastes, except those which have received
D-3
-------
treatment for the adequate removal of waste constituents
including but not limited to, solids, color, turbidity, taste,
odor or toxic material, such that these treated wastes will
not lower the standards or alter the usages of this
classification, nor shall such disposal of sewage or waste
be injurious to aquatic life or render such dangerous for
human consumption.
There shall be no toxic wastes, deleterious substances,
colored or other wastes or heated liquids discharged to
waters of this classification, either singly or in combina-
tion with other substances or wastes in such amounts or
at such temperatures as to be injurious to edible fish or
shellfish or to the culture or propagation thereof, or
which in any manner shall adversely affect the flavor,
color, odor or sanitary condition thereof; and otherwise
none in sufficient amounts to make the waters unsafe or
unsuitable for bathing or impair the waters for any other
best usage as determined for the specific waters which are
assigned to this class. There shall be no waste discharge
which will cause the hydrogen-ion concentration or "pH"
of th'ese waters to fall outside the 6.7 to 8.5 range. There
shall be no disposal of matter or substance that contains
chemical constituents which are harmful to humans,
animal or aquatic life or which adversely affects any other
water use in this class. No radioactive matter or substance
shall be permitted in these waters which would be
harmful to humans, animal or aquatic life and -ihere shall
be no disposal of any matter or substance which would
result in radionuclide concentrations in edible fish or
other aquatic life thereby rendering them dangerous for
human consumption. These waters shall be free of any
matter of substance which alters the composition of
bottom fauna, which adversely affects the physical or
chemical nature of bottom material or which interferes
with the propagation of fish or shellfish if indigenous to
the area.
Gass SB-2 shall be suitable for recreational usages,
including water contact, and fishing. Such waters shall be
suitable for the harvesting and propagation of shellfish,
for a fish and wildlife habitat, and suitable for industrial
cooling and process uses. These waters shall contain not
less than 6.0 parts per million of dissolved oxygen at all
times. The median numbers of coliform bacteria in any
series of samples representative of waters in the shellfish
growing area shall not be in excess of 70 per 100
milliliters, nor shall more than 10% of the samples exceed
230 coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters. The median
numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in any series of
samples representative of waters in the shellfish growing
area shall not be in excess of IS per 100 milliliters, nor
shall more than 10% of the samples exceed 50 fecal
coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters. In a non-shellfish
D-4
-------
growing area the median numbers of coliform bacteria in
a series of samples representative of the waters shall not
exceed 500 per 100 milliliters, nor shall more than 10%
of the samples exceed 1,000 coliform bacteria per 100
milliliters. In a non-shellfish growing area the median
numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in a series of samples
representative of the waters shall not exceed 100 per 100
milliliters, nor shall more than 10% of the samples exceed
200 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters. There shall
be no floating solids, settleable solids, oil or sludge
deposits attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other
wastes and no deposit of garbage, cinders, ashes, oils,
sludge or other refuse. There shall be no discharge of
•sewage or other wastes, except those having received
•treatment, for the adequate removal of waste constituents
including but not limited to, solids, color, turbidity, taste,
odor or toxic material, such that these treated wastes will
not lower the standards or alter the usages of this
classification, nor shall such disposal of sewage or waste
be injurious to aquatic life or render such dangerous for
human consumption.
There shall be no toxic wastes, deleterious substances,
colored or other wastes or heated liquids discharged to
waters of this classification either singly or in combina-
tion with other substances or wastes in such amounts or at
such temperatures as to be injurious to edible fish or
shellfish or to the culture or propagation thereof, or
which in any manner shall adversely affect the flavor,
color, odor or sanitary condition thereof; and otherwise
none in sufficient amounts to make the waters unsafe or
unsuitable for bathing or impair the waters for any other
best usage as determined for the specific waters assigned
to this class. There shall be no waste discharge which will
cause the hydrogen-ion concentration, or "pH" of the
receiving waters to fall outside of the 6.7 to 8.5 range.
There shall be no disposal of any matter or substance that
contains chemical constituents which are harmful to
humans, animal or aquatic life or which adversely affects
any other water use in this class. No radioactive matter or
substance shall be permitted in these waters which would
be harmful to humans, animal or aquatic life and there
shall be no disposal of any matter or substance which
would result in radio-nuclide concentrations in edible fish
or other aquatic life thereby rendering them dangerous
for human consumption. These waters shall be free of any
matter or substance which alters the composition of
bottom fauna, which adversely affects the physical or
chemical nature of bottom material, or which interferes
with the propagation of fish or shellfish if indigenous to
this area.
D-5
-------
Class SC, the 4th highest classification, shall be of such
quality as to be satisfactory for recreational boating,
fishing and other similar uses except primary water con-
tact. Such waters may be used for the propagation of
indigenous shellfish to be harvested for depuration pur-
poses, for a fish and wildlife habitat, and for industrial
cooling and process uses. The dissolved oxygen content of
such waters shall not be less than 5 parts per million at
any time. The median numbers of coliform bacteria in
any series of samples representative of waters in the
shellfish growing area shall not be in excess of 700 per
100 milliliters, nor shall more than 10% of the samples
'exceed 2,300 coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters. The
median numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in any series of
samples representative of waters in the shellfish growing
area shall not be in excess of 150 per 100 milliliters, nor
shall more than 10% of the samples exceed 500 coliform
bacteria per 100 milliliters. In a non-shellfish growing
area, the median number of a series of samples representa-
tive of the waters shall not exceed 1,500 per 100
milliliters nor shall more than 10% of the samples exceed
5,000 per 100 milliliters.
In a non-shellfish growing area the median numbers of
fecal coliform bacteria in a series of samples representa-
tive of the waters shall not exceed 300 per 100 milliliters,
nor shall more than 10% of the samples exceed 1,000
fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters.
There shall be no floating solids, settleable solids, oil or
sludge deposits attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or
other wastes, and no deposit of garbage, cinders, ashes,
oils, sludge or other refuse. There shall be no discharge of
sewage or other wastes, except those which have received
treatment for the adequate removal of waste constituents
including, but not limited to, solids, color, turbidity,
taste, odor or toxic materials, such that these treated
wastes will not lower the standards or alter the usages of
this classification, nor shall such disposal of sewage or
waste be injurious to aquatic life or render such danger-
ous for human consumption.
There shall be no toxic wastes, deleterious substances,
colored or other wastes or heated liquids discharged to
waters of this classification either singly or in combina-
tions with other substances or wastes in such amounts or
at such temperatures as to be injurious to edible fish or
shellfish or to the culture or propagation thereof, or which
in any manner shall adversely affect the flavor, color, or
odor thereof or impair the waters for any other usage
ascribed to waters of this classification. There shall be no
waste discharge which will cause the hydrogen-ion concen-
tration or "pH" of the receiving waters to fall outside the
6.7 to 8.5 range. There shall be no disposal of any matter
D-6
-------
or substance that contains chemical constituents which
are harmful to humans, animal or aquatic life or which
adversely affects any other water use in this class. No
radioactive matter or substance shall be permitted in these
waters which would be harmful to humans, animals or
aquatic life and there shall be no disposal of any matter
or substance which would result in radio-nuclide concen-
trations in edible fish or other aquatic life thereby
rendering them dangerous for human consumption.
Class SD waters shall be assigned only where a higher
water classification cannot be attained after utilizing the
best practicable treatment or control of sewage or other
wastes. Waters of this class may be used for power
generation, navigation, industrial process waters or cooling
waters, and for migration of fish. Dissolved oxygen of
these waters shall not be less than 3.0 parts per million at
any time. The numbers of coliform bacteria allowed in
these waters shall be only those amounts which will not,
in the determination of the Board, indicate a condition
harmful to the public health or impair any usages ascribed
to this classification.
These waters shall be free from sludge deposits, solid
refuse and floating solids and such oils, grease or scum.
There shall be no disposal of any matter or substance in
these waters which imparts color, turbidity, taste or odor
which would impair the usages ascribed to this classifica-
tion, nor shall such matter or substance alter the tempera-
ture or hydrogen-ion concentration of the waters so as to
impair the usage of this classification. There shall be no
disposal of any matter or substance that contains chemi-
cal constituents which are harmful to humans or which
adversely affect any other water use in this class. No
radioactive matter or substance shall be permitted in these
waters which would be harmful to humans, animal or
aquatic life and there shall be no disposal of any matter
or substance which would result in radio-nuclide concen-
trations in edible fish or other aquatic life thereby
rendering them dangerous for human consumption.
There shall be no disposal of sewage, industrial wastes
or other wastes in such waters except those which have
received treatment for the adequate removal of waste
constituents including, but not limited to, solids, color,
turbidity, taste, odor or toxic material, such that these
treated wastes will not lower the standards or alter the
usages of this classification. Treated wastes discharging to
these wateis shall not create a public nuisance as defined
in Title 17, Section 2802, by the creation of odor-
producing sludge banks and deposits or other nuisance
conditions.
D-7
-------
2. FRESH WATER CLASSIFICATION
Class A shall be the highest classification and shall be
of such quality that it can be used for recreational
purposes, including bathing, and for public water supplies
after disinfection. The disolved oxygen content of such
waters shall not be less than 75% saturation or as
naturally occurs, and contain not more than 100 coliform
bacteria per 100 milliliters.
These waters shall be free from sludge deposits, solid
refuse and floating solids such as oils, grease or scum.
There shall be no disposal of any matter or substance in
these waters which would impart color, turbidity, taste or
odor other than that which naturally occurs in said
waters, nor shall such matter of substances alter the
temperature or hydrogen-ion concentration of these
waters or contain chemical constitutents which would be
harmful or offensive to humans or which would be
harmful to animal or aquatic life. No radioactive matter
or substance shall be permitted in these waters other than
that occurring from natural phenomena.
There shall be no discharge of sewage or other wastes
into water of this classification and no deposits of such
material on the banks of such waters in such a manner
that transfer of the material into the waters is likely.
Such waters may be used for log driving if such use will
not lower its classification. [Amended by Chapter 470,
Public Laws of 1971]
Class B, the 2nd highest classification, shall be divided
into 2 designated groups as B-l and B-2.
B-l Waters of this class shall be considered the higher
quality of the Class B group and shall be acceptable for
recreational purposes, including water contact recreation,
for use as potable water supply after adequate treatment
and for a fish and wildlife habitat. The dissolved oxygen
of such waters shall be not less than 75% of saturation,
and not less than 5 parts per million at any time. The
total coliform bacteria count is not to exceed 300 per
100 milliliters. The fecal coliform bacteria shall not
exceed 60 per 100 milliliters.
These waters shall be free from sludge deposits, solid
refuse and floating solids such as oils, grease or scum.
There shall be no disposal of any matter or substance in
these waters which imparts color, turbidity, taste or odor
which would impair the usages ascribed to this classifica-
tion nor shall such matter or substance alter the tempera-
ture or hydrogen-ion concentration of these waters so as
to render such waters harmful to fish or other aquatic
life. There shall be no discharge to these waters which
D-8
-------
will cause the hydrogen-ion concentration or "pH" of
these waters to fall outside of the 6.0 to 8.5 range. There
shall be no disposal of any matter or substance that
contains chemical constituents which are harmful to
humans, animals or aquatic life or which adversely affect
any other water use in this class. No radioactive matter or
substances shall be discharged to these waters which will
raise the radio-nuclide concentrations above the standards
as established by the United States Public Health Service
as being acceptable for drinking water. These waters shall
be free of any matter or substance which alters the
composition of bottom fauna, which adversely affects the
physical or chemical nature of bottom material, or which
interferes with the propagation of fish.
There shall be no disposal of sewage, industrial wastes
or other wastes in such waters, except those which have
received treatment for the adequate removal of waste
constituents including, but not limited to, solids, color,
turbidity, taste, odor or toxic material, such that these
treated wastes will not lower the standards or alter the
usages of this classification, nor shall such disposal of
sewage or waste be injurious to aquatic life or render such
dangerous for human consumption.
B-2 Waters of this class shall be acceptable for recrea-
tional purposes including water contact recreation, for
industrial and potable water supplies after adequate treat-
ment, and for a fish and wildlife habitat. The dissolved
oxygen of such waters shall not be less than 60% of
saturation, and not less than 5 parts per million at any
time. The total coliform bacteria is not to exceed 1,000
per 100 milliliters. The fecal coliform bacteria is not to
exceed 200 per 100 milliliters.
These waters shall be free from sludge deposits, solid
refuse and floating solids such as oils, grease and scum.
There shall be no disposal of any matter or substance in
these waters which imparts color, turbidity, taste or odor
which would impair the usages ascribed to this classifica-
tion nor shall such matter or substance alter the tempera-
ture of hydrogen-ion concentration of the waters so as to
render such waters harmful to fish or other aquatic life.
There shall be no disposal of any matter or substance that
contains chemical constituents which are harmful to
humans, animal or aquatic life, or which adversely affect
any other water use in this class. There shall be no
discharge to these waters which will cause the hydrogen-
ion concentration or "pH" of these waters to fall outside
of the 6.0 to 8.5 range. No radioactive matter or
substance shall be discharged to these waters which will
raise the radio-nuclide concentrations above the standards
as established by the United States Public Health Service
D-9
-------
as being acceptable for drinking water. These waters shall
be free of any matter or substance which alters the
composition of bottom fauna, which adversely affects the
physical or chemical nature of bottom material or which
interferes with the propagation of fish.
There shall be no disposal of sewage, industrial wastes
or other wastes in such waters except those which have
received treatment for the adequate removal of waste
constituents including, but not limited to, solids, color,
turbidity, taste, odor or toxic material, such that these
treated wastes will not lower the standards or alter the
usages of this classification, nor shall such disposal of
sewage or waste be injurious to aquatic life or render such
dangerous for human consumption.
Class C waters, the 3rd highest classification, shall be of
such quality as to be satisfactory for recreational boating
and fishing, for a fish and wildlife habitat and for other
uses except potable water supplies and water contact
recreation, unless such waters are adequately treated.
The dissolved oxygen content of such waters shall not
be less than 5 parts per million, except in those cases
where the board finds that the natural dissolved oxygen
of any such body of water falls below 5 parts per million,
-in which case the board may grant a variance to this
requirement. In no event shall the dissolved oxygen
content of such waters be less than 4 parts per million.
[Amended by Laws of 1973.]
These waters shall be free from sludge deposits, solid
refuse and floating solids such- as oils, grease or scum.
There shall be no disposal of any matter or substance in
these waters which imparts color, turbidity, taste, or odor
which would impair the usages ascribed to this classifica-
tion, nor shall such matter or substance alter the tempera-
ture or hydrogen-ion content of the waters so as to
render such waters harmful to fish or other aquatic life.
There shall be no discharge to these waters which will
cause the hydrogen-ion concentration or "pH" of these
waters to fall outside of the 6.0 to 8.5 range. There shall
be no disposal of any matter or substance that contains
chemical constituents which are harmful to humans,
animal or aquatic life or which adversely affect any other
water use in this class. No radioactive material or
substance shall be discharged to these waters which will
raise the radio-nuclide concentrations above the standards
as established by the United States Public Health Service
as being acceptable for drinking water.
There shall be no disposal of sewage, industrial wastes
or other wastes in such waters, except those which have
received treatment for the adequate removal of waste
constituents including, but not limited to, solids, color,
turbidity, taste, odor or toxic material, such that these
D-10
-------
treated wastes will not lower the standards or alter the
usages of this classification, nor shall such disposal of
sewage or waste be injurious to aquatic life or render such
dangerous for human consumption.
Class D waters shall be assigned only where a higher
water classification cannot be attained after utilizing the
ber.t practicable treatment or control of sewage or other
wastes. Waters of this class may be used for power
generation, navigation and industrial process waters after
adequate treatment.
Dissolved oxygen of these waters shall not be less than
2.0 parts per million. The numbers of coliform bacteria
allowed in these waters shall be only those amounts
which will not, in the determination of the Board, indicate
a condition harmful to the public health or impair any
usages ascribed to this classification.
TTiese waters shall be free from sludge deposits, solid
refuse and floating solids such as oils, grease or scum.
There shall be no disposal of any matter or substance in
these waters which imparts color, turbidity, taste or odor
which would impair the usages ascribed to this classifica-
tion, nor shall such matter or substance alter the tempera-
ture of hydrogen-ion concentration of the waters to
impair the usages of this classification. There shall be no
disposal of any matter or substance that contains chemi-
cal constituents which are harmful to humans or which
adversely affect any other water use in this class. No
radioactive matter or substance shall be permitted in these
waters which would be harmful to humans, animal or
aquatic life and there shall be no disposal of any matter
or substance which would result in radio-nuclide concen-
trations in edible fish or other aquatic life thereby
rendering them dangerous for human consumption.
There shall be no disposal of sewage, industrial wastes
or other wastes in such waters, except those which have
received treatment for the adequate removal of waste
constituents including, but not limited to, solids, color,
turbidity, taste, odor or toxic material, such that these
treated wastes will not lower the standards or alter the
usages of this classification. Treated wastes discharging to
these waters shall not create a public nuisance as defined
in Title 17, Section 2802, by the creation of odor
producing sludge banks and deposits or other nuisance
conditions.
With respect to all classifications hereinbefore set forth,
the Board may take such actions as may be appropriate
for the best interests of the public, when it finds that any
such classification is temporarily lowered due to abnormal
conditions of temperature or stream flow. [1967, c. 475,
§4.]
D-ll
-------
APPENDIX E
REGULATIONS ON ALTERING
COASTAL WETLANDS
-------
APPENDIX F
MAINE REGULATIONS ON ALTERING COASTAL WETLANDS
STATE OF MAINE
IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD NINETEEN HUNDRED
SEVENTY-FIVE
H. P. 590 — L. D. 730
AN ACT Relating to the Dredging, Filling-or otherwise Altering
Coastal Wetlands.
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine, as follows:
Sec. 1. 12 MRSA §§ 4701 - 4709, as enacted by PL 1967, c. 348 and as
amended, are repealed.
Sec. 2. 38 MRSA c. 3, sub-c. I, Art 4, as enacted by PL 1967, c. 475, § 12
and as amended, is repealed.
Sec. 3. 38 MRSA c. 3, sub-c. I, Art. 5 is enacted to read:
ARTICLE 5
ALTERATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS
§471. Prohibitions
No individual person, firm, corporation, municipality, state agency or other
legal entity shall dredge or cause to be dredged, drain or cause to be drained,
fill or cause to be filled or erect or cause to be erected a causeway, bridge,
marina, wharf, dock or other permanent structure in, on or over any coastal
wetland without first obtaining a permit therefor from the Board of Environ-
mental Protection or a municipality acting under the provisions of sections
473 and 474; nor shall any action be taken in violation of the conditions of
such permit, once obtained.
§ 472. Definition
For the purposes of this subchapter, coastal wetland is defined as all tidal
and subtidal lands including all areas below any identifiable debris line left
by tidal action, all areas with vegetation present that is tolerant of salt water
and occurs primarily in a salt water habitat, and any swamp, marsh, bog,
beach, flat or other contiguous lowland which is subject to tidal action or
normal storm flowage at any time excepting periods of maximum storm
activity.
E-l
-------
§ 473- Permit granting authority
All permits shall be issued by the Board of Environmental Protection, ex-
cept that a municipality may apply, on forms provided by the board, to the
Board of Environmental Protection for authority to issue such permits. The
board shall grant such authority if it finds that the municipality has:
1. Planning board. Established a planning board;
2. Adopted zoning ordinance. Adopted a zoning ordinance approved by
the board and the Land Use Regulation Commission, pursuant to Title 12,
chapter 424;
3. Notice. Made provision by ordinance or regulation for prompt notice
to the board and the public upon receipt of application and written notifica-
tion to the applicant and the board of the issuance of or denial of a permit
stating the reasons therefor; and
4. Application form. The application form shall be the same as that pro-
vided by the Board of Environmental Protection.
In the event that the board finds that a municipality has failed to satisfy
one or more of the above listed criteria, it shall notify the municipality ac-
cordingly and. make recommendations through which it may establish com-
pliance. The municipality may then submit a modified application for ap-
proval.
If at any time the board determines that a municipality may be failing to
exercise its permit granting authority in accordance with its approved pro-
cedures or the purposes of this Article as embodied in the standards set forth
in section 474, it shall notify the municipality of the specific alleged deficien-
cies and shall order a public hearing, of which adequate public notice shall be
given, to be held in the municipality to solicit public or official comment
thereon. Following such hearing, if it finds such deficiencies, it may revoke
the municipalities permit granting authority. The municipality may reapply
for authority at any time.
§ 474. Permits; standards
If the applicant for the permit demonstrates to the satisfaction of the board
or municipality as appropriate, that the proposed activity will not unreason-
ably interfere with existing recreational and navigational uses; nor cause un-
resonable soil erosion; nor unreasonably interfere with the natural flow of
any waters; nor unreasonably harm wildlife or freshwater, estuarine or marine
fisheries; nor lower the quality of any waters, the board or municipality shall
grant the permit upon such terms as are necessary to insure that the pro-
posed activity will comply with the foregoing standards.
Within 30 days after receipt of a completed application for a permit, the
board or municipality shall either issue the permit or deny the permit setting
forth the reasons therefor or order a hearing thereon within 30 days of the
order for which hearing adequate public notice shall be given. Within 30 days
after the adjournment of such hearing, the board or municipality shall either
issue the permit or deny the permit setting forth the reasons therefor. In the
event that a permit applied for is denied either by the municipality or the
board, the applicant may request a hearing before either of the above with
reasonable public notice given.
E-2
-------
The board shall issue no permit without notifying the municipality in which
the proposed alteration is to occur and considering any comments filed within
a reasonable period by said municipality.
No permit issued by a municipality shall become effective until 30 days
subsequent to its issuance, but if approved by the board in less than 30 days
then the effective date shall be the date of approval. A copy of the application
for the permit and the permit issued by the municipality shall be sent to the
board immediately upon its issuance by registered mail. The board shall
review such permit and either approve, deny or modify it as it deans neces-
sary. Failure of the board to act within 30 days of the receipt of the permit
by the municipality shall constitute its approval and the permit shall be
effective as issued.
When winter conditions prevent the board or municipality from evaluating
a permit application, the board or municipality, upon notifying the applicant
of such fact, may defer action on the application for a reasonable period. The
applicant shall not during the period of deferral fill or cause to be filled, dredge
or cause to be dredged, drain or cause to be drained or otherwise alter such
coastal wetland.
§ 475. Penalties
Any individual person, firm, corporation, municipality, state agency or other
legal entity who dredges or causes to be dredged, drains or causes to be
drained, fills or causes to be filled or erects dr causes to be erected, any cause-
way, bridge, marina, wharf, dock or other permanent structure in, on or over
any coastal wetland in violation of this subchapter shall be punished by a fine
of not more than $500 for each day of violation.
A violation is defined as any filling, dredging, draining, depositing, altering,
erecting or removal of materials which takes place in coastal wetlands con-
trary to the provisions of a valid permit or without a permit having been
issued, and without regard to whether these physical acts were witnessed as
they were being carried out or whether the action was willfully undertaken
to avoid the intent of this subchapter or without knowledge of this subchapter
undertaken. Any such filling, dredging, draining, depositing, altering or re-
moval of materials shall be prima facie evidence that it was done or caused to
be done by the owner of such coastal wetlands.
§ 476. Enforcement
Inland fish and game wardens, coastal wardens and all other law enforce-
ment officers enumerated in Title 12, section 2003 shall enforce this sub-
chapter.
§ 477. Injunction; restoration
In the event of the violation of this subchapter, the Attorney General may
institute proceedings to enjoin further violations and to compel restoration of
the affected area to its condition prior to the occurrence of the violation.
E-3
-------
§ 478- Exemptions
The Board of Environmental Protection may by rule or regulation exempt
from this subchapter certain activities including, but not limited to, repairs
and maintenance of existing structures or waive such procedural requirements
as it deems not inconsistent with the purposes of this subchapter. Nothing
in this subchapter shall prohibit the minor repair of existing permanent struc-
tures which would require less than a total of one cubic yard of material to
be filled, deposited, dredged, moved or removed in any coastal wetland or
normal maintenance or repair of presently existing ways, roads or railroad
beds nor maintenance and repair of installations and facilities of any utility as
defined in Title 23, section 255, abutting or crossing said coastal wetlands,
provided no watercourse is substantially altered.
E-4
-------
APPENDIX F
MAINE GUIDELINES FOR
MUNICIPAL SHORELAND
ZONING ORDINANCES
-------
INTRODUCTION
The guidelines contained in the following pages were adopted by the Board of Environmental
Protection (BEP) and the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC), pursuant to the mandatory
shoreland zoning and subdivision control act, Title 12 M.R.S.A. Sections 4811-4814, under
the administrative direction of the State Planning Office.
Implementation of shoreland zoning would best be fulfilled by intensive examination and
consideration of conditions at the local level by municipal officers and planning boards,
with a maximum of citizen input. Recognizing the burden this may place on towns which
have limited experience in planning or full-time personnel, BEP and LURC, under the
direction of the State Planning Office, have prepared these guidelines in model ordinance
form. A municipality could adopt this guideline ordinance to govern the 250-foot shoreland
area. The reasons for putting the guidelines in ordinance format are:
1) The ordinance format is comparatively simple, relative to other alternatives;
2) It gives communities a clear and decisive indication of what the State expects
in local ordinances, as well as the ordinance which would be imposed if a
municipality failed to act; and
3) Towns which have had relatively little experience with ordinances can
concentrate more heavily on the map portion of the ordinance, which includes
dividing the shoreland area into the various districts.
The guidelines ordinance is the minimum ordinance that will be acceptable to the State in
terms of fulfilling the purposes of the law. Communities may adopt more stringent ordinances,
or ordinances which are completely different from the guidelines provided that such ordinances
are equally or more effective in achieving the purposes of the law. Communities may want
to go beyond the minimum, and are encouraged to do so. Examples of desirable provisions
which could be added to the guidelines ordinance include:
1) A section on fees, to cover the costs of any hearings that may become necessary;
2) A list of conditions that could be attached to permits (see Section 12 B. 7, page 12);
3) A section on conflicts between the guidelines ordinance and any other ordinance,
law, or regulation, stating that, where conflicts exist, the more stringent
provisions would apply (such a provision would cover any future differences
between the sanitary standards, Section 11 (J), page 7, and the State Plumbing
Code, which is currently being revised); and
F-l
-------
4) A requirement that a report be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer,
relating to such soil properties as bearing strength, subsidence, and slope
stability, for proposed commercial, industrial, or other intensive land uses
(see Section II (L), page 9).
The State Planning Office-Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission Model Zoning
Ordinance, and the Extension Service Model Zoning Ordinance, are good examples of
models that contain some of the above provisions, as well as additional provisions which
are not directly related to the purposes of the law, but which would improve the overall
effectiveness of the local ordinance.
While the guidelines ordinance is a minimum ordinance, allowances will be made for
changes aimed at fitting local conditions. For example, many communities may choose to
establish several districts in place of or in addition to the 3 contained in this ordinance.
The following are examples of additional changes that would be permissible, if justifiable
reasons for such changes were submitted in writing to the State Planning Office. These
changes would be subject to review by the BEP and LURC.
1) Permits could be issued by a board of appeals, rather than the planning board,
particularly in those instances where a community did not have a planning
board prior to September 23, 1971, and had not established one by ordinance
or under charter provisions since that time.
2) Cities with substantial development in the flood plain may choose to establish
flood proofing provisions, rather than to prohibit any additional construction
or reconstruction in a flood plain area already committed to development.
Communities with no flood plain area (i.e., no rivers which require shoreland
zoning) may choose not to include flood plain standards in their ordinances.
3) Coastal communities may choose to maintain the existing character of harbor
villages by not requiring a set-back, or permitting structures to be built
upon wharves (this could be accomplished by putting such areas in a general
development district, where the set-back provision does not apply, or by
establishing a harbor district or similar district specifically designed for such
areas).
4) Waterfront communities along the coast and on major rivers may choose to reduce
the minimum lot requirement for areas served by public sewers, to allow planned
unit developments or an apartment complex in limited areas where density
already exceeds the lot standards for these sewered areas.
5) The wording of various sections of the ordinance may be changed If the modified
version is.equally effective in fulfilling the purposes of the law.
Additional questions concerning these guidelines may be directed to your regional planning
commission, your municipal lawyers, the State Planning Office, or the Maine Municipal
Association.
F-2
-------
Minimum Shoreland Zoning Ordinance
Shoreland Zoning Ordinance for the Town of
Section 1 . Purposes
The purposes of this Ordinance are to further the maintenance of safe and healthful
conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish,
aquatic life, bird and other wildlife habitat; control building sites, placement of
structures and land uses; and conserve shore cover, visual as well as actual points
of access to inland and coastal wcters and natural beauty.
Section 2. Applicability
The Ordinance applies to all land areas within 250 feet, horizontal distance, of
the normal high water mark of any pond, river or salt water body as defined.
Section 3. Effective Date
The effective date of this Ordinance is . A certified copy of
this Ordinance shall be filed with the County Register of Deeds, according to the
requirements of State law.
Section 4. Validity and Severability
Should any section or provision of this Ordinance be declared by the courts to be
invalid, such decision shall not invalidate any other section or provision of this
Ordinance.
Section 5. Amendments
This Ordinance may be amended by a majority vote of the governing body. The
State Planning Office shall be notified by Certified Mail, of amendments to this
Ordinance, prior to the effective date of such amendments. A file of return receipts
from such mailings shall be maintained as a permanent record.
Section 6. Districts and the Zoning Map
The areas to which this Ordinance is applicable are hereby divided into the following
districts as shown on the Official Shoreland Zoning Map:
1. Resource Protection District
2. General Development District
3. Limited Residential-Recreational District
The Official Shoreland Zoning Map, and all future amendments rhereto, is hereby
made part of and incorporated into this Ordinance.
F-3
-------
Section 7. Interpretation of District Boundaries
Unless otherwise set forth in the Official Shoreland Zoning Map, District boundary
lines are property lines, the centerlines of streets, roads and rights of way, and the
boundaries of the shoreland area as defined herein. Where uncertainty exists as to
exact location of District boundary lines, the Board of Appeals shall be the final
authority as to location.
Section 8. Non-Conforming Uses
A. Any lawful use of building, structures, premises, land or parts thereof existing
at the effective date of this Ordinance or amendments thereto and not in con-
formance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be considered to be a non--
conforming use.
B. Any non-conforming use may continue and may be maintained, repaired and
improved. No such non-conforming use may be expanded, changed to another
non-conforming use, or renewed after it has been discontinued for a period of
12 calendar months or more, without a permit from the Planning Board in accor-
dance with the provisions of Section 12—B subsection 6, paragraphs a-i of this
Ordinance.
C. Any non-conforming lot of record existing before the effective date of this
Ordinance and not adjoined by other land of the same ownership may be used
in accordance with State law and section 10 of this Ordinance.
Section 9. Criteria for Establishing Districts
A. Resource Protection District
The Resource Protection District includes areas in which development would
adversely affect water quality, productive habitat, biotic systems, or scenic
and natural values. This district shaH include:
1. Inland or coastal wetlands as defined in Section 13, and specifically areas
rated as moderate to high-value waterfowl areas by the Department of Inland
Fisheries and Game, as of January 1 , 1973.
2. Flood plains as defined by the 100 year flood or the flood of record or, in
the absence of these, by soil types identifiable as recent flood plain soils.
3. Areas having sustained slopes greater than 25%, or unstable soil subject to
slumping, mass movement, or severe erosion, when these areas are two acres
or more in size.
This District may also include:
4. Other significant wildlife habitat;
5. Natural sites of significant scenic or esthetic value.
6. Areas designated by Federal, State or municipal governments as natural areas
of significance to be protected from development; and
F-4
-------
7. Other significant areas which should be included in this district to fulfill
the purposes of this Ordinance.
B. General Development District
The general development district includes the following types of areas:
1 . Areas of two acres or more devoted to intensive residential, recreational,
commercial or industrial activities or combinations of such activities,
including, but not limited to:
a. Transportation rights of way;
b. Communication and utility rights of way;
c. Areas used for the extraction or processing of mineral resources;
d. Areas devoted to: manufacturing, fabricating, wholesaling, warehousing
or other commercial activities;
e. Areas devoted to retail trade and service activities;
f. Areas devoted to intensive recreational development and activities;
g. Areas devoted to residential dwelling units at a density of 3 or more per
two acres.
h. Areas devoted to mixed or combined patterns of a through g above.
2. Areas otherwise discernable as having patterns of intensive residential,
recreational, commercial, or industrial uses.
C. Limited ResidenJ-ial-Recreational District
The Limited Residential-Recreational District includes areas other than those
included in the Resource Protection District, and which are used less intensively
than those included in the General Development District.
Section 10. Uses
Land Uses permitted in each District, in conformance with the land use standards of
this Ordinance, are shown below:
KEY: Yes - Allowed (no permit required)
No - Prohibited
BP Permit - Requires permit issued by the Planning Board
CEO Permit - Requires permit from Code Enforcement Officer
* - Subject to specific Land Use Standards, Section II
DISTRICT
Resource Limited General
Land Uses Protections Residential- Development
Recreational
1. Non-intensive recreational uses
not requiring structures, such as
hunting, fishing and hiking yes yes yes
2. Motorized vehicular traffic on
roads and trails, and snowmobiling yes yes yes
F-5
-------
DISTRICT - cont'd
Resource Limited General
Land Uses Protection Residential- Development
Recreational
3. Forest management activities
except for timber harvesting
yes
yes
yes
4. Timber harvesting *
CEO permit
yes
yes
5. Fire prevention activities
yes
yes
yes
6. Wildlife management practices
yes
yes
yes
7. Soil & water conservation practices
yes
yes
yes
8. Mineral exploration *
yes
yes
yes
9. Surveying and Resource analysis
yes
yes
yes
10. Emergency operations as defined
yes
yes
yes
11. Harvesting of wild crops
yes
yes
yes
12. Agriculture *
PB permit
yes
yes
13. Principal structures *
Residential dwelling units
no
PB permit
PB permit
Commercial structures
no
no
PB permit
Industrial structures
no
no
PB permit
14. Structures accessory to permitted
uses
CEO permit
CEO peirmit
yes
15. Road construction *
PB permit
yes
yes
16. Small non-residential facilities
for educational, scientific or nature
interpretation purposes
PB permit
yes
yes
17. Public and private parks and
recreation areas involving minimal
structural development
PB permit
yes
yes
18. Campgrounds
no
PB permit
PB permit
19. Piers, docks, wharves, breakwaters,
causeways, marinas, bridges over 20 ft.
in length, and uses projecting into water
bodies.
Temporary
CEO permit
CEO permit
CEO permit
Permanent
PB permit
PB permit
PB permit
20. Clearing for approved construction
CEO permit
yes
yes
21. Essential services accessory to
permitted uses
yes
yes
yes
22. Private sewage disposal systems
no
CEO permit
CEO permit
23. Public utilities, including sewage
collection & treatment facilities
PB permit
PB permit
PB permit
24. Signs *
yes
yes
yes
25. Filling or other earth-moving
activity of less than 10 cubic yds
CEO permit
yes
yes
26. Filling or other earth-moving
activity of more than 10 cubic yds
PB permit
CEO permit
CEO permit
27. Uses similar to permitted uses
CEO permit
CEO permit
CEO permit
28. Uses similar to uses requiring
a CEO permit
CEO permit
CEO permit
CEO permit
29. Uses similar to uses requiring a
PB permit
PB permit
PB permit
PB permit
F-6
-------
Section 11 . Land Use Standards
All land use activities shall conform to the following applicable land use standards:
A. Agriculture
1 . All spreading or disposal of manure shall be accomplished in conformance
with the "Maine Guidelines for Manure and Manure Sludge Disposal on
Land" published by the University of Maine and the Maine Soil and Water
Conservation Commission, in July 1972 or subsequent revisions thereof.
2. There shall be no tilling of soil within 50 feet of the normal high water
mark of any lake or pond whose shorelands are covered by this Ordinance.
3. Where soil is tilled in a Resource Protection District, or where soil in
excess of 20,000 sq. ft. lying either wholly or partially within the area
covered by this Ordinance is tilled in a General Development District or
a Limited Residential-Recreational District, such tillage shall be carried
out in conformance with the provisions of a Conservation Plan which meets
the standards of the Stare Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and is
approved by the appropriate Soil and Water Conservation District. The
number of the plan shall be filed with the Planning Board. Nonconformance
with the provisions of such Conservation Plan shall be considered to be a
violation of this Ordinance.
B. Beach Construction
Beach construction on any great pond or coastal wetland shall require a permit
from the Department of Environmental Protection. Beach construction on any
river, stream, or brook capable of floating watercraft shall require approval from
the Commissioner of the Department of Inland Fish & Game, as required by law.
C. Campgrounds
Campgrounds shall conform to the minimum requirements imposed under State
licensing procedures and the following:
1 . Camping areas shall contain a minimum of 5,000 square feet of suitable land,
not including roads and driveways, for each site.
2. The area intended for placement of the recreational vehicle, tent, or shelter
and utility and service buildings, shall be set back a minimum of 75 feet from
the normal high water mark of any pond, river, or salt water body as defined.
D. Clearing
Clearing of trees and conversion to other vegetation is permitted for approved
construction and landscaping. Where such clearing extends to the shoreline, a
cleared opening or openings not greater than 30 feet in width for every 100 feet
of shoreline ( measured along the normal high water mark) may be created in the
F-7
-------
strip extending 50 feet inland from the normal high water mark and paralleling
the shoreline. Where natural vegetation is removed, it shall be replaced with
other vegetation.that is equally effective in retarding erosion and preserving
natural beauty.
E. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Filling, grading, lagooning, dredging, earth-moving activities, and other land
use activities shall be conducted in such manner to prevent to the maximum extent
possible, erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. To this end, all construction
shall be accomplished in conformance with the erosion prevention provisions of
"Environmental Quality Handbook Erosion and Sediment Control", published by
the Maine Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
F. Mineral Exploration
Mineral exploration to determine the nature or extent of mineral resources shall
be accomplished by hand sampling, test boring, or other methods which create
minimal disturbance. A permit from the Planning Board shall be required for
mineral exploration which exceeds the above limitations.
G. Piers, Docks, Wharves, Breakwaters, Causeways, Marinas, Bridges over 20 feet
in length, and Uses Projecting into Water Bodies.
In addition to federal or state permits which may be required for such structures
and uses, they shall conform to the following:
1. Access from shore shall be developed on soils appropriate for such use and
constructed so as to control erosion.
2. The location shall not interfere with developed beach areas.
3. The facility shall be located so as to minimize adverse effects on fisheries.
4. The facility shall be no larger in dimension than necessary to carry on the
activity and be consistent with existing conditions, use, and character of
the area.
H. Residential Lot Standards
1 . Lots shall meet or exceed the following minimum requirements:
Without Sanitary Sewers With Sanitary Sewers
20,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
2. If more than one residential dwelling unit is constructed on a single parcel,
the minimum lot size requirement shall be met for each additional dwelling
unit.
F-8
-------
3. A lot abutting a lake, pond, river, stream or tidal water shall have a
minimum shore frontage of 100 feet, measured in a straight line between
the points of intersection of the side lot lines with the shoreline at
normal high wafer elevation.
4. Structures shall not cover more than 20% of any lot.
I. Road Construction
1 . Roads shall be located, constructed, and maintained in such a manner that
minimal erosion hazard results. Adequate provision shall be made to prevent
soil erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. All roads shall be located,
constructed and maintained in conformance with the erosion prevention pro-
visions of "Permanent Logging Roads for Better Wood lot Management" published
by the Division of State and Private Forestry, Forest Service Northeastern Area,
U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1973 or subsequent revisions thereof.
2. Additionally, all roads constructed shall conform with the following standards:
a. Road crossings of watercourses shall be kept to the minimum number
necessary;
b. Bottoms of culverts shall be installed at streambed elevation;
c. All cut or fill banks and areas of exposed mineral soil shall be revegetated
or otherwise stabilized as soon as possible; and
d. Bridges or culverts of adequate size and design shall be provided for all
road crossings of watercourses which are to be used when surface waters
are unfrozen. The requirement for a bridge or culvert may be Waived by
obtaining a permit from the Planning Board.
J. Sanitary Standards
1. Subsurface Sewage Disposal
A. Soil Conditions
1. All subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be located in areas of
suitable soil of at least 1,000 square feet in size.
2. All subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be located in soils
having characteristics allowing them to be rated as having "slight"
or "moderate" limitations for the proposed use in the current
"Statewide Set of Maine Soil Descriptions and Interpretations"
published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service.
3. The determination of soil suitability shall be based on a soils report
prepared by a State-certified soil scientist or geologist, based on an
on-site investigation and soil observation to a minimum depth of five
feet. Suitability considerations shall be based,primarily on criteria
employed in the National Cooperative Soil Survey as modified by
on-site factors such as depth to water table and depth to refusal.
F-9
-------
B. Setbacks
The minimum setback for underground sewage disposal facilities from
the normal high water mark of a waterbody shall be no less than 100
horizontal feet. Where daily sewage flow exceeds 2,000 gallons, the
minimum setback shall be 300 feet from any shoreline. All other set-
back requirements of the State Plumbing Code shall be met in full.
Setbacks from shorelines for all subsurface sewage disposal facilities
shall not be reduced by variance.
2. Privies
Privies may be permitted in areas not served by community sewer facilities
under the following conditions:
A. No plumbing of any kind shall be connected to or discharged into the
privy pit.
B. The privy shall be located at a minimum horizontal distance of 100 feet
from the normal high water mark of a waterbody.
C. The bottom of the privy pit shall be at least two feet above bedrock and
the ground water table at its highest point during the year or have a water-
tight vault.
D. Privies shall not be permitted on recent flood plain soils.
3. Other Systems
Other systems of sanitary waste disposal may be permitted after approval by
the Maine Department of Health and Welfare, and after a permit has been
issued by the Planning Board.
K. Signs
The following provisions shall govern the use of signs in the Resource Protection
and Limited Residential-Recreational Districts:
1 . Signs and billboards relating to goods and services sold on the premises shall
be permitted, provided such signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area,
and shall not exceed two (2) signs per premises. Billboards and signs relating
to goods and services not rendered on the premises shall be prohibited.
2. Name signs shall be permitted, provided such signs shall not exceed two (2)
signs per premises.
3.' Residential users may display a single sign not over three (3) square feet in
area relating to the sale, rental, or lease of the premises.
F-10
-------
4. Signs relating to trespassing and hunting shall be permitted without restriction
as to number provided that no such sign shall exceed two (2) square feet in area.
5. No sign shall extend higher than twenty (20) feet above the ground.
6. Signs may be illuminated only by shielded, non-flashing lights.
L. Soils
1. All land uses shall be located on soils in or upon which the proposed uses or
structures can be established or maintained without causing adverse environ-
mental impacts, including severe erosion, mass soil movement, and water
pollution, whether during or after construction. Proposed uses requiring
subsurface waste disposal, and commercial or industrial development and
other similar intensive land uses, shall require a soils report, prepared by a
State-certified soil scientist or geologist based on an on-site investigation.
Suitability considerations shall be based primarily on criteria employed in
the National Cooperative Soil Survey as modified by on-site factors such as
depth to water table and depth to refusal.
M. Structures
1. All principal structures in the Resource Protection and Limited Residential-
Recreational Districts shall be set back at least 75 feet from the normal high
water mark of any pond, river, or salt water body as defined.
2. The first floor elevation or openings of all buildings and structures shall be
elevated at least two feet above the elevation of the 100 year flood, the flood
of record or, in the absence of these, the flood as defined by soil types
identifiable as recent flood plain soils.
N. Timber Harvesting
1. No substantial accumulation of slash shall be left within fifty (50) feet of the
normal high water mark of any pond, river, or salt water body as defined. At
distances greater than fifty (50) feet from the normal high water mark of such
waters and extending to the limits of the area covered by this Ordinance, all
slash shall be disposed of in such a manner that it lies on the ground and no
part thereof extends more than four feet above the ground.
2. Skid trails, log yards, and other sites where the operation of logging machinery
results in the exposure of substantial areas of mineral soil shall be located such
that an unscarified filter strip is retained between the exposed mineral soil and
the normal high water mark of any pond, river, or salt water body as defined.
The width of this strip shall vary according to the average slope of the land as
follows:
F -11
-------
Average Slope of Land Width of Strip Between
Between Exposed Mineral Exposed Mineral Soil and
Soil and Normal High Normal High Water Mark
Water Mark (percent) (Feet along Surface of the Ground)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
3. Harvesting operations shall be conducted in such a manner and at such a
time that minimal soil disturbance results. Adequate provision shall be
made to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation of surface waters.
4. Harvesting operations shall be conducted in such a manner that a well-
distributed stand of trees is retained.
5. Harvesting activities shall not create single openings greater than seven
thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet in the forest canopy.
6. In any stand, harvesting shall remove not more than forty (40) percent of
the volume of trees in any ten (10) year period. For the purpose of these
standards, a stand means a contiguous group of trees, sufficiently uniform
in species, arrangement of age classes, and conditions, to be identifiable
as a homogeneous and distinguishable unit.
7. Timber harvesting operations not in conformance with 2, 4, 5, and 6 above
may be allowed by the Planning Board upon approval of a permit granted in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12—B subsection 6, paragraphs a-i
upon a clear showing by the applicant that such an exception is necessary
for proper timber management.
O. Water Quality Protection
No activity shall locate, store, discharge, or permit the discharge of any
treated, untreated, or inadequately treated liquid, gaseous, or solid materials
of such nature, quantity, obnoxiousness, toxicity, or temperature that run off,
seep, percolate, or wash into surface or ground waters so as to contaminate,
pollute, or harm such waters or cause nuisances, such as objectionable shore
deposits, floating or submerged debris, oil or scum, color, odor, taste, or
unsightliness or be harmful to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life.
Section 12. Administration
A. Creation of Administering Bodies and Agents.
F-12
-------
1. Code Enforcement Officer
A Code Enforcement Officer shall be appointed by the Municipal Officers.
2. Board of Appeals
There is hereby created the Board of Appeals of the Town of
pursuant to the provisions of State law.
B. Permits
1. Permits Required
After the effective date of this Ordinance no person shall engage in any use of
land requiring a permit in the district in which it would occur, or expand or
change an existing non-conforming use, or renew a discontinued nonconforming
use without first obtaining a permit.
2. Permit Application
Applications for permits shall be submitted in writing. The Code Enforcement
Officer or Planning Board may require the submission of whatever information
is necessary to determine conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
3. Plumbing Permit Required Prior to Buildinq Permit
No building permit shall be issued for any structure or use involving the
construction, installation or alteration of plumbing facilities unless a permit
for such facilities has been secured by the applicant or his authorized agent,
according to the requirements of this Ordinance.
4. Approval of Permits
Permits shall not be denied if the proposed use is found to be in conformance
with the provisions of this Ordinance. All permits shall either be approved
or denied within 60 days of receipt of a completed application, including all
information requested.
5. Permits Issued by Code Enforcement Officer
The Code Enforcement Officer shall approve or deny those applications on
which he is empowered to act as shown in Section 10. Approval shall be
granted only if the proposed use is in conformance with the provisions of
this Ordinance.
6. Permits Issued by Planning Board
The Planning Board shall approve or deny those applications on which it is
empowered to act as stated in this Ordinance. The PlanningUoard may,
after the submission of a complete application including all information
requested, grant a permit if it makes a positive finding based on the
F-13
-------
information presented to it that, except as specifically exempted in this
Ordinance, the proposed use:
a. Will not result in unsafe or unhealthful conditions;
b. Will not result in erosion or sedimentation;
c. Will not result in water pollution;
d. Will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life,
bird and other wildlife habitat;
e. Will conserve shoreland vegetation;
f. Will conserve visual points of access to waters as viewed from public
facilities;
g. Will conserve actual points of public access to waters;
h. Will conserve natural beauty;
i. Will avoid problems associated with flood plain development and use;
and
j. Is in conformance with the provisions of Section 11, Land Use Standards.
7. Conditions
Permits granted under this Section may be made subject to reasonable conditions
to ensure conformity with the purposes and provisions of this Ordinance.
C. Appeals and Variances
1. Variances
A copy of all variances granted by the Board of Appeals shall be submitted to
the State Planning Office. The Board of Appeals may, upon written application
of the affected landowner, grant a variance from the strict application of the
Ordinance under the following conditions:
a. The strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in
undue hardship to the applicant;
b. The hardship is not the result of action taken by the applicant or a
prior owner; and
c. The Board of Appeals, based on clear and convincing evidence
presented to it, makes a finding that the proposed use would meet
the provisions of Section 12—B, subsection 6, paragraphs a-i.
A variance is authorized only for lot area, lot coverage by structures, and
setbacks. A variance shall not be granted to permit a use or structure
otherwise prohibited.
2. Appeals to Board of Appeals
The Board of Appeals may, upon written application of an aggrieved party and
after public notice, hear appeals from determinations of the Planning Board or
Code Enforcement Officer in the administration of this Ordinance. Such hearings
shall be held in accordance with State laws. Following such hearing, the Board
of Appeals may reverse the decision of the Planning Board or Code Enforcement
Officer only upon a finding that the decision is clearly contrary to specific
provisions of this Ordinance.
F-14
-------
3. Appeal to Superior Court
An appeal may be taken within thirty days after any decision is rendered by
the Board of Appeals, by any party to Superior Court in accordance with
State law.
D. Enforcement
1. Nuisances
Any violation of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be a nuisance.
2. Code Enforcement Officer
It shall be the duty of the Code Enforcement Officer to enforce the provisions
of this Ordinance. If the Code Enforcement Officer shall find that any pro-
vision of this Ordinance is being violated, he shall notify in writing the
person responsible for such violation, indicating the nature of the violation
and ordering the action necessary to correct it, including discontinuance of
illegal use of land, buildings, structures, or work being done, removal of
illegal buildings or structures, and abatement of nuisance conditions. A
copy of such notices shall be maintained as a permanent record.
3. Legal Actions
When the above action does not result in the correction or abatement of the
violation or nuisance condition, the Municipal Officers, upon notice from
the Code Enforcement Officer, are hereby authorized and directed to institute
any and all actions and proceedings, either legal or equitable, including
seeking injunctions of violations and the imposition of fines, that may be
appropriate or necessary to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance in the
name of the municipality.
4. Fines
Any person who continues to violate any provision of this Ordinance after
receiving notice of such violation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor subject
to a fine of up to $100.00 for each violation. Each day such a violation
is continued is a separate offense.
Section 13. Definitions
Terms not defined herein shall have the customary dictionary meaning. As used in this
Ordinance, the following definitions shall apply:
Water Related Terms
A. Pond
Any inland body of water which has a surface area in excess of 10 acres,
except where such body of water is man-made and in addition is completely
F-15
-------
surrounded by land held by a single owner, and except those privately owned
ponds which are held primarily as waterfowl and fish breeding areas or for
hunting and fishing.
B. River
Any free flowing body of water from that point at which it provides drainage
for a watershed of 25 square miles to its mouth.
C. Normal High Water Mark of Coastal Waters
That line on the shore of tidal waters reached by the shoreward limit of the
rise of the medium tides between the spring and the neap.
D. Normal High Wafer Mark of Inland Waters
That line on the shores and banks of non-tidal waters which is apparent
because of the contiguous different character of the soil or the vegetation
due to the prolonged action of the water. Relative to vegetation, it is that
line where the vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly
terrestrial (by way of illustration, aquatic vegetation includes but is not
limited to the following plants and plant groups - water lily, pond lily,
pickerelweed, cattail, wild rice, sedges, rushes, and marsh grasses; and
terrestrial vegetation includes but is not limited to the following plants and
plant groups - upland grasses, aster, lady slipper, wintergreen, partridge
berry, sasparilla, pines, cedars, oaks, ashes, alders, elms, and maples). In
places where the shore or bank is of such character that the high water mark
cannot be easily determined (rockslides, ledges, rapidly eroding or slumping
banks) the normal high water mark shall be estimated from places where it
can be determined by the above method.
Forest Management Terms
E. Forest Management Activities
Timber cruising and other forest resources evaluation activities, manage-
ment planning activities, insect and disease control, timber stand improve-
ment, pruning, timber harvesting and other forest harvesting, regeneration
of forest stands, and other similar associated activities, but not the con-
struction or creation of roads.
F. Timber Harvesting
The cutting and removal of trees from their growing site, and the attendant
operation of cutting and skidding machinery but not the construction or
creation of roads. Timber harvesting does not include the clearing of land
for approved construction.
F-16
-------
Road Terms
G. Road
A route or track consisting of a bed of exposed mineral soil, gravel, asphalt,
or other surfacing material constructed for or created by the repeated passage
of motorized vehicles.
Wetland Terms
H Coastal Wetland
Any swamp, marsh, bog, beach, flat or other land above extreme low water
which is subject to tidal action.
I. Inland Wetland
Areas enclosed by the normal high water mark of inland waters and areas
otherwise identified on the basis of soils, vegetation, or other criteria as
inland wetlands including but not limited to swamps, marshes or bogs.
Structure Terms
J. Structure
Anything built for the support, shelter, or enclosure of persons, animals,
goods, or property of any kind.
K. Principal Structure
The structure in which the primary use of the lot is conducted.
L. Accessory Structure
A structure of a nature customarily incidental or subordinate to that of the
principal structure or the primary use to which the premises are devoted.
M. Residential Dwelling Unit
A room or group of rooms designed and equipped exclusively for use as
permanent, seasonal, or temporary living quarters for only one family.
The term shall include mobile homes.
N. Piers, Docks, Wharves,Breakwaters, Causeways,Marinas, Bridges Over
20 Feet in Length, and Uses Projecting Into Water Bodies.
Temporary: Structures which remain in the water for less than seven
months in any period of twelve consecutive months.
Permanent: Structures which remain in the water for sevep months or
more in any period of twelve consecutive months.
F-17
-------
O. Aggrieved Party
A person whose land is directly or indirectly affected by the grant or denial
of a permit or variance under this Ordinance, a person whose land abuts
land for which a permit or variance has been granted, or a group of five
or more citizens of the municipality who represent an interest adverse to
the grant or denial of such permit or variance.
P. Emergency Operations
Emergency operations shall include operations conducted for the public health,
safety or general welfare, such as protection of resources from immediate
destruction or loss, law enforcement, and operations to rescue human beings
and livestock from the threat of destruction or injury.
Q. Recent Flood Plain Soils
Recent flood plain soils include the following soils as described and identified
by the National Cooperative Soil Survey:
Alluvial land
Hadley silt loam
Limerick silt loam
Ondawa fine sandy loam
Podunk fine sandy loam
Rurnney fine sandy loam
Saco silt loam
Suncook loamy sand
Winooski silt loam
R. Privy
A pit in the ground into which human excrement is placed.
S. Essential Services
Gas, electrical, communication facilities, steam, fuel or water supply,
transmission, or distribution systems.
F-18
------- |