United States Region 1 EPA
Environmental Protection J.F Kennedy Building March, 1980
Agency Boston, MA 02203
sszEPA Supplemental Final
Environmental
Impact Statement
Scarborough, Maine
~
-------
/07o
SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
SCARBOROUGH, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, MAINE
This Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement
evaluates the environmental and financial impacts associated
with the use of four alternative treatment and/or disposal
sites for wastewater facilities in Scarborough.
Further information on this statement can be provided by:
Mr. Robert Mendoza
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental and Economic Impact Office
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
(617) 233-4635
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Technical Consultant
ANDERSON-NICHOLS & CO., INC.
Boston, Massachusetts
LEAD AGENCY
William R. Adam!
Approved by:
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
Final date by which
comments on the Supple-
mental Final EIS must
be received
iAY 0 5
-------
V.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION t
J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
To: All Interested Federal, State and Local Boards, Citizens and Groups
Enclosed you will find a copy of EPA's Supplemental Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on alternative sites for a wastewater treatment and disposal
facility for Scarborough, Maine.
This Supplemental EIS was prepared as a result of the Scarborough Sanitary
District's recommendation to select a new wastewater treatment and disposal
site not previously considered and evaluated by EPA. Previous environmental
reports prepared by EPA recommended a 1.8 million gallon per day wastewater
treatment facility at Site A located near Ferry Road with a discharge to the
ocean off Prout's Neck.
The EIS presents EPA's environmental review and cost analysis of four sites
for the wastewater treatment facility. Should you have any comments regarding
the Supplemental Final EIS, please submit them to the address below within
the comment period specified on the cover sheet of the EIS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental & Economic Impact Office
Room 2203
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
William R. Adams, Jr
William R. Adams, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 0 - SUMMARY
PAGE
0.1 Overview 1
0.2 Supplemental Final EIS 1
0.3 Findings of Evaluation 2
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 3
1.1 Prior Environmental Studies 3
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVE SITES/IMPACTS 6
2.1 Description of Sites and Proposed Wastewater 6
Facilities
2.2 Description of Evaluation Methodology
2.3 Impact Profile
2.4 Preferred Alternative
2.5 Environmental Evaluation of Alternatives
CHAPTER 3 - THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Information Sources
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
20
23
24
24
36
36
37
4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Statements 37
CHAPTER 5 - MONITORING/GRANT REQUIREMENTS 39
5.1 Basis for Requirements 39
5.2 Requirements Applicable to Preferred Alternative 39
CHAPTER 6 ~ LIST OF PREPARERS 40
6.1 Responsible Agency and Technical Consultants 40
6.2 Region I - EPA Staff 40
6.3 Anderson-Nichols 41
APPENDIX A - COST COMPARISON - SCARBOROUGH SITE
ALTERNATIVES A-l
A.l Introduction A-l
A.2 Basis of Cost Estimates A-1
A-3 Cost Estimates A~3
APPENDIX B - LETTERS FROM MAINE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION B_1
APPENDIX C - LETTER FROM THE SPRAGUE CORPORATION C_1
-------
PAGE
APPENDIX D ~ EPA DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LAND DISPOSAL "
SITE B (SITE B-L) D-l
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER
A-l COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES A-5
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1 SITE A - LOCATION MAP 6a.
2-2 SITE A - DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS 7a.
2-3 SITE B - LOCATION MAP 10a.
2-4 SITE B - DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS 11a.
2-5 SITE B-L - LOCATION MAP 13a.
2-6 SITE B-L - DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS 14a.
2-7 SITE C - LOCATION MAP 17a.
2-8 SITE C - DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS 18a.
2-9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PROFILE -
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SITES 23a.
-------
CHAPTER 0 - SUMMARY
0.1 OVERVIEW
EPA, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
and the Scarborough Sanitary District have been involved
in an extended process of developing an environmentally
acceptable plan for wastewater collection, treatment and
disposal. A series of draft, final and supplemental
environmental impact statements were issued between 1975
and 1978.
The recommended alternative of the Supplemental Final
EIS in May 1978 proposed a 1.8 MGD wastewater treatment
facility located near Ferry Road (Site A) and a discharge
to the ocean off Prout's Neck.
Further investigations, however, revealed very high costs
to make Site A suitable for the treatment facility. With
EPA's concurrence, the Scarborough Sanitary District
investigated a second site, Site B.
In December 1979 the District held a public hearing to
review the environmental and cost impacts associated with
Sites A and B. At the hearing, the Sprague Corporation,
the owners of Site B, suggested a third site, Site C, on
land owned by the Corporation near Clay Pits Road.
Following the hearing, the District's engineers, Whitman
& Howard, prepared a report in which the three sites were
compared. The report concluded that Site B was the pre-
ferred site of the District.
0.2 SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
EPA determined that an independent evaluation of the
District's report was required and ordered the prepara-
tion of this Supplemental Final EIS.
The Supplemental Final EIS includes:
an evaluation of the environmental and financial
impacts associated with the use of Sites A, B and C.
an investigation of the feasibility of enlarging
Site B to a new site, Site B-L, to allow both
treatment and on-site disposal by means of land
application.
1.
-------
The Supplemental Final EIS is confined to issues relat-
ing to the location of a wastewater treatment facility.
It does not cover questions of need, size of facility,
and ocean outfall desirability or sites other than A,
B, B-L and C.
0.3 FINDINGS OF EVALUATION
The environmental and cost evaluation was confined to
Sites A, B and C. During the study it was determined
that land disposal would not be feasible at Site B-L
due to inadequate acreage to satisfy Maine DEP criteria.
Consequently, further environmental and cost investiga-
tions were not carried out for Site B-L.
The review covered both short-term/construction impacts
and long-term impacts for a number of environmental
categories. The environmental profile to compare Sites
A, B and C revealed significant adverse short- and
long-term impacts associated with the use of Sites A
and C. There were no significant adverse environmental
impacts attributable to the use of Site B for a waste-
water treatment facility.
There is a potential for archaeological or historical
resource impacts at all of the sites. The nature of
the resources cannot be determined at this time.
Subsequent investigations pursuant to Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation procedures will be required
in the spring.
The evaluation of site-related development and treatment
facility costs was as follows:
Site B is recommended as the alternative which is most
acceptable from both a financial and environmental
viewpoint.
Site A
Site B
Site C
$3,825,440
$2,287,500
$2,765,250
2.
-------
CHAPTER 0 - SUMMARY
0.1 OVERVIEW
EPA, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
and the Scarborough Sanitary District have been involved
in an extended process of developing an environmentally
acceptable plan for wastewater collection, treatment and
disposal. A series of draft, final and supplemental
environmental impact statements were issued between 1975
and 1978.
The recommended alternative of the Supplemental Final
EIS in May 1978 proposed a 1.8 MGD wastewater treatment
facility located near Ferry Road (Site A) and a discharge
to the ocean off Prout's Neck.
Further investigations, however, revealed very high costs
to make Site A suitable for the treatment facility. With
EPA's concurrence, the Scarborough Sanitary District
investigated a second site, Site B.
In December 1979 the District held a public hearing to
review the environmental and cost impacts associated with
Sites A and B. At the hearing, the Sprague Corporation,
the owners of Site B, suggested a third site, Site C, on
land owned by the Corporation near Clay Pits Road.
Following the hearing, the District's engineers, Whitman
& Howard, prepared a report in which the three sites were
compared. The report concluded that Site B was the pre-
ferred site of the District.
0.2 SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
EPA determined that an independent evaluation of the
District's report was required and ordered the prepara-
tion of this Supplemental Final EIS.
The Supplemental Final EIS includes:
an evaluation of the environmental and financial
impacts associated with the use of Sites A, B and C.
-- an investigation of the feasibility of enlarging
Site B to a new site, Site B-L, to allow both
treatment and on-site disposal by means of land
application.
1.
-------
The Supplemental Final EIS is confined to issues relat-
ing to the location of a wastewater treatment facility.
It does not cover questions of need, size of facility,
and ocean outfall desirability or sites other than A,
B, B-L and C.
0.3 FINDINGS OF EVALUATION
The environmental and cost evaluation was confined to
Sites A, B and C. During the study it was determined
that land disposal would not be feasible at Site B-L
due to inadequate acreage to satisfy Maine DEP criteria.
Consequently, further environmental and cost investiga-
tions were not carried out for Site B-L.
The review covered both short-term/construction impacts
and long-term impacts for a number of environmental
categories. The environmental profile to compare Sites
A, B and C revealed significant adverse short- and
long-term impacts associated with the use of Sites A
and C. There were no significant adverse environmental
impacts attributable to the use of Site B for a waste-
water treatment facility.
There is a potential for archaeological or historical
resource impacts at all of the sites. The nature of
the resources cannot be determined at this time.
Subsequent investigations pursuant to Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation procedures will be required
in the spring *
The evaluation of site-related development and treatment
facility costs was as follows:
Site B is recommended as the alternative which is most
acceptable from both a financial and environmental
viewpoint.
Site A
Site B
Site C
$3,825,440
$2,287,500
$2,765,250
2.
-------
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
In 1972 the Scarborough Sanitary District initiated
planning and engineering studies for an improved waste-
water collection, treatment and disposal system. The
work was carried out pursuant to an October 15, 1972
consent order with the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection.
In April 1975 the Federal Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) determined that the proposed wastewater facilities,
as covered by the District's engineering reports to that
date, presented possibilities for significant environ-
mental impacts. Accordingly, EPA issued a "Notice of
Intent" to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
During the past five years EPA and its consultants have
prepared a series of environmental reports, including a
Draft EIS (November 1975), a Final EIS (April 1977) and
a Supplemental Final EIS CMay 1978).
The Final EIS recommended a 1.8 million gallon per day
wastewater treatment facility located adjacent to the
present treatment plant at Oak Hill. Effluent from the
plant was to be pumped to an outfall at the Fore River
in South Portland. Subsequent investigations revealed
that both institutional and political constraints would
preclude the acquisition of easement rights through
South Portland.
In the face of this evidence EPA reevaluated alternatives
in a Supplemental Final EIS. The recommended alternative
called for a 1.8 MGD wastewater treatment facility located
near Ferry Road (Site A) and a discharge to the ocean off
Prout's Neck.
Subsequent engineering studies by the District, however,
indicated that site problems on Site A would increase
costs above those originally estimated. The District
requested, and EPA granted permission to study and com-
pare the environmental impacts and costs associated with
Site A and a new site, Site B, located off of Black
Point Road.
3.
-------
During the evaluation of Sites A and B a third site
(Site C) was suggested by the owners of Site B, the
Sprague Corporation. Engineering and environmental
consultants were retained by the Sprague Corporation
to compare Sites B and C. The Corporation is also
the owner of Site C.
In November 1979 the District conducted a public hear-
ing to address the merits of Sites A and B and receive
public testimony. The Sprague Corporation's studies
of Sites B and C were submitted at the hearing.
Following the hearing, the District's engineers,
Whitman & Howard, prepared a report to the District
in December 1979 entitled "A Cost Analysis and
Environmental Comparison of Wastewater Treatment
Sites". This report recommended that the District
proceed with the acquisition of Site B.
1.2 Scope of Supplemental Final EIS
EPA has ordered this second Supplemental Final EIS
to provide an independent evaluation of the environ-
mental and financial impacts associated with the use
of Sites A, B or C for a wastewater treatment facility.
In addition, the Supplemental Final EIS investigates
the feasibility of enlarging Site B to allow both
treatment and disposal by means of land application.
The evaluation covers both short- and long-term
impacts associated with the use of each site.
1.3 Items Not Covered in Supplemental Final EIS
Previous environmental studies, as described in
Section 1.1, have provided an exhaustive evaluation
of the various impacts associated with the proposed
wastewater collection system, the areas to be served,
the type of treatment and the method for disposing
of treated effluent. The prior studies have con-
sidered both direct impacts and indirect impacts
such as induced growth.
Consequently, it is important for the reader to
recognize that this Supplemental Final EIS does not
evaluate:
4.
-------
The need for and desirability of a
centralized wastewater collection and
treatment facility.
The size and capacity of the treatment
facility.
The type of treatment and disposal
proposed, except as it relates to land
application on an enlarged Site B.
The use of an ocean outfall off of
Prouts Neck
Sites other than A, B, and C, and
enlarged Site B (Site B-L) under the
land application alternative.
-------
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVE SITES/IMPACTS
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF SITES AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER FACILITIES
This Supplemental Final EIS is confined to an evaluation
of four sites to be used for wastewater treatment or,
as in one case, wastewater treatment and disposal.
The following givens apply to the use of each site:
The wastewater treatment facility will have
a design capacity of 1.8 million gallons
per day.
Wastewater will be conveyed to a treatment
facility site through a system of interceptor
sewers as previously designed by Whitman &
Howard for the Scarborough Sewer District.
The treatment facility will utilize a com-
bined physical/biological process (activated
sludge) as previously designed by Whitman &
Howard.
All sludge will be stabilized by composting.
2.11 Site A
2.111 Site Description
Location Site A is located off of Ferry Road
in the vicinity of Ferry Beach. See Figure 2-1.
Acreage - Site A consists of eight acres of
property owned by the Scarborough Sanitary
District.
Topography/Vegetation - The elevation of Site A
is approximately 7 feet above mean sea level.
Its relief is crenerally flat. Site A lies within
a wooded area, dominated by red spruce, white
pine, and hemlock. Wetlands are found on the
north arid east boundaries of Site A. These are
salt marshes, where the typical vegetation
consists of:
cordgrass
marsh hay
blackgrass
6.
-------
OCLC Connexion
Page 1 of 1
OCLC 1142816582 Held by EHA - no other holdings
Rec stat n
Entered 20200303
Replaced 20200303
Type a
ELvl K
Srce d
Audn
Ctrl
Lang eng
BLvl m
Form
Conf 0
Biog
MRec
Ctry mau
Cont
GPubf
LitF 0
Indx 0
Desc i
Ills a
Fest 0
DtSt s
Dates 1980 ,
040 EHA *b eng *e rda *c EHA
088 EPA 901-R-80-011
099 EPA 901-R-80-011
049 EHAD
245 0 0 Wastewater collection and treatment facilities, Scarborough, Cumberland County, Maine : *b
supplemental environmental impact statement / *c lead agency, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region I; technical consultant, Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc.
246 1 4 Supplemental environmental impact statement, Scarborough, Maine, final
260 Boston, MA : *b United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, tc 1980.
300 41, A5, B4, C3, D5 pages : +b figures (most colored), tables ; *c 28 cm
336 text *b txt +2 rdacontent
337 unmediated *b n +2 rdamedia
338 volume *b nc #2 rdacarrier
500 "March, 1980"-Cover.
650 0 Sewage +X Environmental aspects #z Maine *z Scarborough (Town)
650 0 Water gualitv management #z Maine *z Scarborough (Town)
650 7 Sewage *x Environmental aspects. *2 fast +0 (OCoLC)fst01113742
650 7 Water quality management. +2 fast #0 (OCoLC)fstO1171900
651 7 Maine *z Scarborough (Town) #2 fast +0 (OCoLC)fstOI 331407
710 1 United States. *b Environmental Protection Agency. #b Region I. +e issuing body.
710 2 Anderson-Nichols & Company. #e consultant.
Delete Holdings- Export- Label- Submit- Replace- Report Error- Update Holdings-C Validate-C
Workflow-In Process
about:blank
3/3/2020
-------
Fig. 2-1
Site A
Location Map
Wetlands
PROUT'S NECK
GOLF COURSE
cV*DS dr
Site A
Vegetation: Wooded
Elevation: +7'
Acreage: 8 acres
Wetlands
Well Water Supply
Access Route
Key
1000
feet N
Seasonal Residence
Permanent Single-Family Residence
Commercial
Scarborough Wastewater Facilities
Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency Region I
Anderson-Nichols & Co, Inc.-Consultant
March 1980
-------
Access - Site A may be reached via Ferry Road.
The road becomes unpaved before it reaches
Site A and is bordered by sand dunes.
Subsurface Soil Conditions - The top 10-12 feet
of soil underlying Site A consist of fibrous
peat and organic silt. These layers are under-
lain by 3-4 feet of clayey fine sand. Estimated
groundwater levels at Site A are 0.3 to 0.5 feet
below ground surface. Three surficial soil condi-
tions occur at Site A:
- Coastal Beaches
- Dune Land
- Sebago Mucky Peat
Surrounding Land Use - West of Site A, along the
extension of Ferry Road, are seasonal homes and
single-family dwellings. Commercial land lies
northwest of Site A, and the Prouts Neck Golf
Course lies to the east. The balance of the
surrounding land is vacant or wetlands.
2.112 Development Constraints
Zoning - Site A is zoned "R-F", Rural Residence
and Farming.
Resource Protection and Shoreland Protection Zones -
Pursuant to State mandate, the Town of Scarborough
has adopted special Shoreland Zone regulations in
its zoning ordinance governing the protection of
sensitive coastal natural resources. The Shoreland
Zone has two sub-districts.
All of Site A is located within the Resource Protec-
tion District. Under the provisions of the ordinance
a public utility use such as a wastewater facility
would require a special use permit by the Planning
Board subject to strict performance standards.
The southern portion of the site and the access
road along the dunes are located in a Shoreland
Protection District. Development of any use in a
frontal, ridge or back dune area is subject to the
special use permit requirements noted above as well
as special performance standards governing beach
construction.
7.
-------
Fig. 2-2
Site A
Development Constraints
Site A
Zoned: Rural Residential
& Farming
Potential Archaeologic/
Historic Resources
10-12' of Fibrous Peat
Dunes
Unimproved Dune Road
End of Public Street
Town Beach
Prevailing Wind Direction:
South
0
D|?
Key
1000
1 *
feet N
Shoreland Protection Zone
Resource Protection Zone
Wetlands
100-year Floodline
Zoning Boundary
Scarborough Wastewater Facilities
Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency Region I
Anderson-Nichols & Co, Inc.-Consultant
March 1980
-------
100-Year Flood Line - All of Site A and its
access road fall within the 100-year special
flood hazard area as designated under the
National Flood Insurance Act. The Flood
Hazard amendment of the Zoning Ordinance
prescribes an application and permit procedure
for any construction in a Special Flood Hazard
Area.
EPA also has adopted regulations pursuant to
Executive Order 11988 which encourages the
avoidance of floodplain areas wherever possible.
Road Access - Site A may be reached over an
unimproved private dune road, the extension of
Ferry Road.
The paved portion of Ferry Road ends at the
nearby Town beach.
Wetlands - Wetlands occur to the north and
east of Site A. Wetlands, like the floodplain,
are protected by an Executive Order (11990)
which dictates the avoidance of adverse impacts
to wetlands "wherever possible". According to
Figure 2-2, Site A does not directly impact the
wetlands; the boundaries of the site and those
of the wetlands do not overlap; however, due
to its proximity to the wetlands, construction
at Site A could impact the wetlands.
Soils/Erosion - The soils at site A are unsuit-
able for construction of a wastewater treatment
plant. There are 10 to 12 feet of fibrous peat
below the ground surface at the Site. Ground-
water occurs within 0.3 feet of the surface,
indicating a high water table. The greatest
threat of erosion would be in the southernmost
portion of the Site, where coastal dunes are
found.
Archaeologic/Historic Resources - There is a
possibility that early 17th century historical
sites exist at Site A, as reported by
the Maine Historic Preservation Commission
letter of March 3, 1980 (see Appendix B). A
ground survey will be required to determine
whether possible archaeological sites of
National Register significance exist there.
-------
Prevailing Wind Direction - This constraint
relates to the question of possible odors
being carried by the wind from the Site to an
adjacent area. The prevailing wind direction
for Scarborough is from the south. This may
vary with the season and from day to night.
With respect to possible odors produced at
Stie A, the wind would blow them across the
wetlands in the direction of the Libby River.
2.113 Proposed Wastewater Facilities
The proposed wastewater facilities will in-
clude the construction of a 1.8 mgd secondary
treatment facility, utilizing the activated
sludge process with sludge composting on-site.
The construction project will include the
construction of a control building with offices
for the Scarborough Sanitary District Trustees;
a garage for the district's vehicles; headworks
and septage holding/receiving facilities; pri-
mary clarifiers; aeration tanks; secondary
clarifiers; aerobic digestors and sludge
thickeners.
From the point of view of odor control, covers
will be installed over the primary clarifiers,
secondary clarifiers and sludge thickeners;
the headworks and septage receiving facility
will be enclosed in a building under a constant
net negative pressure (to prevent the escape of
potentially malodorous gases); the building
will have an odor control system; and the com-
posting facility should make use of the static
pile forced draft process.
In general, the development of any wastewater
treatment facility requires a drainage system.
This facility will have a special drainage
system for the composting area so that runoff
is recirculated to the treatment plant.
Site A will require extra work in the prepara-
tion of the site prior to construction of the
treatment facility. This work will include
the addition of fill to bring the site to a
level above 100-year flood levels and piles
to support portions of the facility. Develop-
ment of the site will also require some special
work in improving the access road that currently
follows a sand dune.
9.
-------
2.1X4 Cost of Facilities
The cost of developing the wastewater treatment
facility at Site A (not including the cost of
building the facility) is presented in the
following table:
ITEM COST *
Land Acquisition
Access Taking/Improvement
Foundation Work
Pipe Galleries
Land Clearing 9 acres @ $3,000/acre
Removal of Excavated Material
Site Variable Costs tsee Appendix A)
SUB-TOTAL
Engineering and Contingency - 25%
TOTAL COST **
*ENR^CCI-3350
~~Project cost
2.12 -site b
2.121 Site Description
Location - Site B is located on Black Point Road
(Spurwink Road), opposite Massacre Pond (see
Figure 2-3).
Acreage - Site B consists of 17.3 acres of property
owned by the Sprague Corporation.
Topography/Vegetation - The elevation of Site B
is approximately 9-18 feet above mean sea level.
The site has a gradual slope, site B lies within
a heavily-wooded area, with bordering wetlands to
the west.
Access - Site B may be reached via Black Point Road.
- 0 -
$250,000
577,150
140,000
27,000
56,000
2,010,200
$3,060,350
765,090
$3,825,440
10.
-------
Fig. 2-3
Site B
Location Map
Nursing Home
(9 units)
Potato Field
Wetlands
Dredge Spoils
Access Route
Key
a
0
Site B
Vegetation: Wooded
Elevation: +9'-+18'
Acreage: 17.3 acres
PROUT'S NECK
GOLF COURSE
1000
feet
*
N
Seasonal Residence
Permanent Single-Family Residence
Scarborough Wastewater Facilities
Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency Region I
Anderson-Nichols & Co, Inc.-Consultant
March 1980
-------
Subsurface Soil Conditions - Six borings, were
made on Site B which determined clean granular
soils to a depth of 50 feet. Estimated ground-
water levels at Site E are 9-10 feet below
ground surface. Two surficial soil conditions
occur at Site B:
Hinckley Gravelly Sandy Loam
Windsor Loamy Sand
Surrounding Land Use - The lot adjacent to and
south of Site B is a dredge disposal mound known
as Googins1 Pit. There are seasonal and single-
family homes on Black Point Road in both direc-
tions from Site B. A potato field lies in the
parcel adjacent to and north of Site B. Wetlands
and the Libby River lie west of the site.
2.122 Development Constraints
Zoning - The land which Site B occupies is zoned
"R-F", which indicates a rural residence and
farming zone.
Resource Protection and Shoreland Protection Zones -
A small portion of Site B lies within the Resource
Protection District (see Figure 2-4).
100-Year Flood Line - See Section 2.112 for details
of the flood line. Site B lies partially within
the 100-year flood line, with the majority of the
Site above the flood hazard zone (see Figure 2-4).
Road Access - Site B may be reached by direct
access from Black Point Road.
Wetlands - Wetlands occur to the west of Site B:
Only the westernmost portions of the site would
have a direct impact to the wetlands.
Proximity to Dunes - There are no coastal sand
dunes located in the vicinity of Site B.
Soils/Erosion - The surface soils were described
in Section 2.121. The potential for erosion at
Site B would be greatest during the actual phases
of construction at the site.
Archaeologic/Historic Resources - There is a possi-
bility that significant resources exist at Site B,
as reported by the Maine Historic Preservation
Commission (see Appendix B). A ground survey will
be required.
11.
-------
Fig. 2-4
Site B
Development Constraints
a
A
Site B
Zoned: Rural Residential
& Farming
Potential Archaeologic/
Historic Resources
6-9' Fine to Medium
Sand
Prevailing Wind Direction:
South
Key
1000
feet
*
N
Shoreland Protection Zone
R Resource Protection Zone
Wetlands
100-year Floodline
Zoning Boundary
Scarborough Wastewater Facilities
Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency Region I
Anderson-Nichols & Co, Inc.-Consultant
March 1980
-------
2.13 Site B-L
2.131 Site Description
Location - Site B-L is located on Black Point Road
opposite Massacre Pond and includes the acreage
contained within Site B.
Acreage - Site B-L consists of 62.1 acres of
property owned by the Sprague Corporation, plus
one house lot of 1.8 acres,
Topography/Vegetation - The elevation of Site B-L
is estimated to be "8-18 feet above mean sea level.
Its relief is generally flat. Most of Site B-L
is wooded. A portion of Site B-L is under cultiva-
tion as a potato field. This field has not been
identified as prime farmland in the Scarborough .
Master Plan. Wetlands lie to the west of Site B-L,
and beyond them is the Libby River.
Access - Site B-L may be reached via Black Point
Road.
Subsurface Soil Conditions - To date, there have
been no tests of the subsurface soil at Site B-L.
The assumption can be made that the conditions
are similar to those found at Site B. The same
two surficial soil conditions which occur at Site
B occur at Site B-L:
Hinckley Gravelly Sandy Loam
Windsor Loamy Sand
Surrounding Land Use - There are seasonal and
single-family homes on Black Point Road in both
directions from Site B-L. A Nursing Home of nine
units is located opposite the north end of Site
B-L on Black Point Road. The westerly portions
of the site abut the Libby River.
2.132 Development Constraints
Zoning - The land which Site B-L occupies is zoned
"R-F", which indicates rural residence and farming
zone.
13.
-------
Fig. 2-5
Site B-L
Location Map
Nursing Home
(9 units)
Wetlands
Site B-L
Vegetation: Wooded
Elevation: +8'-+18'(est)
Acreage: 63.9 acres
Access Route
PROUT'S NECK
GOLF COURSE
0
1000
feet
Key
Seasonal Residence
Permanent Single-Family Residence
Scarborough Wastewater Facilities
Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency Region I
Anderson-Nichols & Co, Inc.-Consultant
March 1980
-------
Resource Protection and Shoreland Protection
Zones - The westernmost strip of Site B-L lies
within the Resource Protection District (see
Figure 2-6).
100-Year Flood Line - See Section 2.112 for
details of the flood line. Site B-L lies
partially within the flood line, with the
majority of the site above the flood hazard
zone (see Figure 2-6).
Road Access - Site B-L may be reached by direct
access from Black Point Road.
Wetlands - Wetlands occur to the west of Site
B-L. The site includes 17,6 acres of wetlands,
which may not be considered for development.
Only the westernmost portions of the site
would have a direct impact to the wetlands.
Proximity to Dunes - There are no coastal sand
dunes located in the vicinity of Site B-L.
S o ils/Erosi on t The surface soils were described
in Section 2.131. The potential for erosion
at Site B-L would be greatest during construc-
tion phases.
Archaeologic/Historic Resources - See Section
2.122 under this same heading. The archaeologic/
historic possibilities which exist at Site B
apply to Site B-L as well.
Prevailing Wind Direction - See Section 2.112
under this same heading. With respect to
possible odors produced at Site B-L, the wind
would blow them across the wetlands in the
direction of the Libby River.
2.133 Proposed Wastewater Facilities
Site B-L has been evaluated for both a treatment
facility and disposal by applicaton of treated
wastewater effluent to the land.
Maine DEP and EPA have agreed on the criteria
that would apply to land application at Site B-L
(see Appendix D),. The major elements of the
Maine DEP criteria are as follows:
14.
-------
Fig. 2-6
Site B-L
Development Constraints
Site B-L
Zoned: Rural Residential
& Farming
Potential Archaeologic/
Historic Resources
0
0
A
Prevailing Wind Direction:
South
Key
1000
I I ~
feet N
Shoreland Protection Zone
RJ Resource Protection Zone
Wetlands
100-year Floodline
Zoning Boundary
Scarborough Wastewater Facilities
Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency Region I
Anderson-Nichols & Co, Inc.-Consultant
March 1980
-------
- Loading rate of 1 foot/week (1.07gpd/sf)
Minimum unsaturated thickness beneath
the application facility equal to 10 ft.
Secondary treatment prior to application.
Monitoring wells required.
Adequate buffer zone.
The evaluation of land application on Site B-L
(defined as the parcel, west of Black Point Road,
owned by the Sprague Corporation plus the parcel
owned by Mrs. Benson on the same side of the road)
followed a sequential process. The first step in
the evaluation process was a definition of the
portion of the site that lies above the 100-year
flood line and the Resource Protection District.
This does not include the Site B portion of Site
B-L which will be utilized as a treatment facility
as proposed in 2.123. The second step was the
calculation of frontage along Black Point Road
and the proposed access road to Site B, where
secondary treatment would be achieved. The
third step was calculation of minimum land area
required to meet the Maine criteria. The final
step was comparison of the numbers.
The Sprague Corporation property, located west
of Black Point Road near Site B, comprises
approximately 79.7 acres, of which approxi-
mately 17.6 acres are wetland and, thus, by
definition, are unsuitable for land application.
Of the remaining portion, including the Benson
property, only 26 acres lie above the 100-year
flood line and Resource Protection District.
The calculated street frontage along Black Point
Road is 1860 feet, while the calculated frontage .
along the access road is 600 feet. With a buffer
of 100 feet along the street, 5.4 additonal acres
would be required; with a 200-foot street buffer
zone, 10.4 acres would be required.
-------
Given the State of Maine criteria for land
application and the design wastewater flow
of 1.8 mgd, a total of 39 acres will be
required for infiltration surface. Allowing
room for berms to separate the infiltration
surface into seven (7) lagoons (as suggested
by Whitman & Howard) will require an addi-
tional 5.2 acres. If the infiltration
surface is to be divided into 28 more reason-
ably-sized lagoons (the Whitman & Howard
suggestion results in lagoons of over 5 acres
each), then 8.9 acres will be required for
berms.
This step-by-step evaluation is summarized
as follows:
-- The proposed facility requires 39
acres for infiltration surface only.
The proposed facility requires between
44.2 acres and 47.9 acres when the
infiltration surface is divided into
lagoons.
-- The proposed facility requires between
49.6 acres and 58.3 acres when a buffer
strip is included.
Consequently, the 26-acre portion of Site B-L,
which is available for land application, falls
short of meeting the Maine DEP/EPA criteria.
2.134 Cost of Facilities
No estimates have been made.
16.
-------
2.14 Site C
2.141 Site Description
Location - Site C is located off of Black Point
Road, between Old Neck Road and Clay Pits Road
(see Figure 2-7).
Acreage - Site C consists of 10.2 acres of
property owned by the Sprague Corporation.
Topography/Vegetation - The elevation of Site C
ranges from 8-15 feet above mean sea level.
Its relief is that of gently-sloped land. Site
C's vegetation is that of woods, bordered by
wetlands on the west.
Access - There is presently no direct access to
Site C.
Subsurface Soil Conditions - The top two feet of
soil, sampled at Site C, represent organic topsoil.
This is underlain by silty sand to a depth of 14
feet below ground surface, and fine to medium sand
to a depth of 26 feet. Estimated groundwater
levels at Site C are 5.0 feet below the ground
surface. There are three surficial soil condi-
tions at Site C:
Saugaluck Loamy Sand
Walpo-le Fine Sandy Loam
Windsor Loamy Sand
Surrounding Land Use - There are single-family
and seasonal homes on Clay Pits Road, Nonesuch
Cove Road and on Black Point Road in both direc-
tions from Site C. The property adjacent to,
and southeast of Site C, is used for construction
storage. Both seasonal and single-family homes
(served by individual wells) are located south-
west of Site C, along the Nonesuch (or Scarborough)
River at Nonesuch Cove.
2.142 Development Constraints
Zoning - The land which Site C occupies is zoned
"R-2" Residential allowing one-half acre lots.
17.
-------
Fig. 2-7
Site C
Location Map
Preferred Access
Site C-
Vegetation: Wooded
Elevation: +8'-+15'
Acreage: 10.2 acres
End of Public Road
Narrow Private Road
Well Water Supply
Alternate Access
Construction Storage
0
Key
1000
3 *
feet N
Seasonal Residence
Permanent Single-Family Residence
Commercial
Scarborough Wastewater Facilities
Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency Region I
Anderson-Nichols & Co, Inc.-Consultant
March 1980
-------
Resource Protection and Shoreland Protection Zones -
There are no portions of Site C within either of
these zones,
100-Year Flood Line - See Section 2.112 for details
of the flood line. Site C lies partially within
the 100-year flood line, with the eastern portion
of the Site above the flood hazard zone (see Figure
2-8) .
Road Access - There are two potential means of
access to the Site. One would be along an old
right-of-way, which would have to be acquired,
from Black Point Road to an adjacent abandoned
gravel pit. The other would be from the unimproved
and private roadway extending from Clay Pits Road
along the Nonesuch River (see Figure 2-8).
The Owners of Site C, the Sprague Corporation, own
an adjacent parcel to the south which abuts Clay
Pits Road. They have offered to donate access
over the parcel between Site C and the road.
Wetlands - Wetlands occur to the west of Site C,
although their boundaries do not actually overlap
with those of Site G. If access to the Site were
by Clay Pits Road, impacts to the wetlands would
be potentially greater than if access were by
Black Point Road.
Proximity to Dunes - There are no coastal sand
dunes located in the vicinity of Site C.
Soils/Erosion - Two borings were made at Site C,
one of which included a thin layer of organic
topsoil, underlain by 14 feet of silty sand.
Below the silty sand, silty marine clay was
deposited to a depth of 21.5 feet. The second
boring at the Site found a layer of fine sand
which extended to 26 feet below the surface.
Surficial soils were listed in Section 2.141,
description of Site C. The potential for erosion
at Site C would be greatest during the actual
phases of construction at the site.
Archaeologic/Historic Resources There is a
possibility that historic house sites of the
late 1600's exist at Site C, as reported by the
Maine Historic Preservation Commission's letter
of February 26, 1980 (see Appendix B). A ground
survey will be conducted at Site C to determine
whether possible historic sites of National
Register significance exist there..
-------
Fig. 2-8
Site C
Development Constraints
Site C
Zoned: Residential
Potential Archaeologic/
Historic Resources
2' Organic Top Soil over
Silty Sand to 14'
Private Road
Prevailing Wind Direction:
South
Key
%
1000
1 *
feet N
Shoreland Protection Zone
R Resource Protection Zone
Wetlands
100-year Floodline
Zoning Boundary
Scarborough Wastewater Facilities
Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency Region I
Anderson-Nichols & Co, Inc.-Consultant
March 1980
-------
Prevailing Wind Direction - See Section 2.112
under this same heading. With respect to possi-
ble odors produced at Site C, the wind would
blow them in the direction of Clav Pits Road
and Black Point Road.
2.143 Proposed Wastewater Facilities
The proposed wastewater facilities to be con-
structed on Site C are identical to those
described in Section 2.113. Based on sub-
surface exploration work done on Site C,
development of the site will not require extra-
ordinary foundation work. The site, although
assumed to be readily available to the District,
does not currently have reasonable access.
This evaluation assumes an access road will be
constructed along an old 30-foot right-of-way
from Black Point Road. Acquisition of this
strip of land will be required.
2.144 Cost of Facilities
The cost of developing the wastewater treatment
facility at Site C (not including the cost of
building the facility) is presented in the
'following Table:
ITEM COST **
Land Acquisition - 0 - ***
Access Taking/Improvement $25,000****
Foundation Work - 0 -
Pipe Galleries - 0 -
Land Clearing 9 acres @ $l,000/acre 9,000
Removal of Excavated Material - 0 -
Site Variable Costs (see Appendix A) 2,178,200
SUB-TOTAL $2,212,200
Engineering and Contingency - 25% 553,050
TOTAL COST * $2,765,250
*Project cost
**ENR-CCI-3350
***Assumes donation of Site C to Scarborough
Sanitary District
****Assumes acquisition of 30' access strip
from Black Point Road. Estimate of
Andersons-Nichols
19.
-------
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The use and development of any site of land, whether it
be for a wastewater treatment facility or a housing
development, will have an impact on the site and its
immediate environs. Some impacts may be beneficial.
Others will be adverse.
Two general categories of impact apply. These are:
Direct or construction effects which occur
at the same time and place.
Indirect effects which are caused by the
action and are later in time and further
removed in distance but are still reason-
ably foreseeable. Indirect effects might
include development on nearby land which
is induced or retarded because of the type
of site use.
The key consideration, pursuant to Council on Environ-
mental Quality and EPA regulations, is a determination
of the significance of the impact whether it be of a
short (6-24 months) or long-term nature. Signifi-
cance requires consideration of both context and
intensity.
The context for this Supplemental Final EIS is the site
itself and the immediate environs of the site.
Intensity refers to the serverity of impact: For this
EIS, four categories of impact have been used. These
are none,insignificant, minor, and significant. These
are more fully-described below:
No Impact
This is self-explanatory, meaning there are
no impacts on the particular segment of the
environment under consideration due to the
actions proposed.
Insignificant Impact
The action proposed in site development will
have a negligible impact on the environment.
-------
Minor Impact
The impact of site development will be of
importance but not severe enough to be
considered under the definition of signifi-
cant, below.
Significant Impact
The critical determination in any impact
evaluation is that of significance. There
are no hard or fast rules to rate signifi-
cance. In some cases, it may relate to the
value or importance of the environmental
function or category which is impacted.
In other situations, significance may be
triggered by an action which results in a
contravention of laws, regulations, or
plans. Public controversy may.be a catalyst
for designating an action proposed by an
alternative as a significant issue.
The criteria listed below have helped to
define significance in the Supplemental
Final EIS:
Public health or safety is threatened.
Unique characteristics, such as locally
important wetlands or historic resources,
may be adversely affected.
The effects on the quality of the human
environment, including economic concerns,
are likely to be highly controversial.
The effects on the environmental category
are highly uncertain or contain unique or
unknown risks.
The action, in concert with other actions
which individually are insignificant or
minor, could result in a cumulative impact
of a significant nature.
Whether the action may have a significant
adverse effect on an area or site listed
in, or eligible for listing in, the
National Register of Historic Places or
may cause loss or destruction of signifi-
cant scientific, cultural, or historical
resources.
-------
Whether the action may have a significant
adverse effect on the habitat of a species
by the Endangered Species Act of 1973
determined to be critical.
Whether the action threatens a violation
of Federal, State, or local law or require-
ments imposed for the protection of the
environment.
2.21 Category of Impact
Site development, as proposed for Sites A, B, B-L
and C, have a capacity to impact both the natural
and man-made environment. The category of impact
largely relates to a number of considerations
including:
The types of laws or regulations at the
Federal, State, or local level which may
be affected.
The issues raised by local or regional
officials, community involvement partici-
pants and State or Federal agencies as
part of the preceding environmental
process in Scarborough.
In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality
regulations, this Supplemental Final EIS does not
attempt to cover every conceivable impact; rather,
it focuses on those categories which have been
identified using the criteria cited above.
For Scarborough, the following environmental cate-
gories warrant impact evaluations:
Phort-term/construction
o Coastal Dunes/Wetlands
o Air/Noise Pollution
o Water Pollution
o Traffic/Access
22.
-------
Long-term
o Coastal Dunes/Wetlands
o Air/Noise Pollution
o Water Pollution
o Traffic/Access
o Land Development
o Aesthetics/Scenic Value
o Historic/Archaeological Resources
o Financial
o Flood Hazard
2.22 Mitigating Measures
The intensity of an impact on any category of the
environment often can be diminished by the use of
appropriate mitigation measures. These can range
from special provisions, written into the contracts,
to major modifications in the way in which the site,
is developed.
Where appropriate, mitigating measures are proposed.
2.3 IMPACT PROFILE
Figure 2-9 provides a summary profile of the impacts
associated with each site. The category and intensity
of impact is based upon the detailed evaluations
reported in subsequent sections of this chapter.
A review of the profile reveals the following:
Site A could have significant impacts in the
categories of coastal dunes/wetlands, air/
noise, water pollution, traffic/access,
financial and flood hazard.
Site B has no known impacts of a significant
nature.
Site C could have significant impacts in the
categories of water pollution, financial,
and flood hazard.
The impacts on historic/archaeological
resources are not known at this time.
23.
-------
Fig. 2-9
Environmental Impact Profile - Wastewater Treatment Sites
Category of Impact
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
Coastal Dunes/Wetlands
Air/Noise Pollution
Water Pollution
Traffic Access
Type & Intensity of impact
SITE A SITE B
1-
ฆy
a
(0
4J
ซ
P
ฐ
c
u
c
!
rd
H
(d
I M-l
U
iw
o
, -H
ฆ *H
H
ฆH
! ซ
c
! O*
n
H
n
H
ฃ
O j c
"4
o
c
H
H
Z [ M
{
X
S3
H
CO
1 ; !
i
i
i
i
c i
01
. 1
iฎ
SITE B-L
ฆp
c
ns
o
H
j ง>! n
Si "SI a
ฃ! 8\ a
NOT
ฆp
c
- adverse impact
[~$3, 825,440 "] | $2,287,50cTJ | J [~$2 .765,25pJ
~ - beneficial impact Q- no impact ? - unknown
-------
2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Site B is recommended as the alternative which is most
acceptable from both a financial and environmental
viewpoint.
2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following sections provide a summary of the many
considerations used in measuring the nature and inten-
sity of impacts. These evaluations are backed by the
considerable documentation contained in prior environ-
mental studies conducted by EPA and additional research
carried out in the preparation of this Supplemental
Final EIS.
The evaluation reflects the technical judgements of an
experienced team of environmental impact specialists.
The major impacts associated with the development of
Sites A, B, B-L, and C are as follows:
2.51 Site A
2.511 Coastal Dunes/Wetlands
Short Term/Gonstruction
Significant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Construction of the wastewater facility would
require the improvement of the Ferry Road
extension to withstand the activity of heavy
construction vehicles. This improvement would
necessitate considerable alteration to a sensi-
tive coastal sand dune environment.
Both State and local regulations would be
contravened if such construction were to be
accomplished.
Dewatering activities could have an adverse
impact on the salinity of adjacent coastal
wetlands.
Long Term
Significant/Adverse
24.
-------
Impact Evaluation
The long-term impacts associated with improving
Ferry Road could be more severe than short-term
impacts as the forces of nature act upon a dune
environment which might become vulnerable to
erosion and the natural movement of sand within
the sand dune system.
2.512 Air/Noise Pollution
Short Term/Construction
Significant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Removal of peat and over 6,700 truck trips to
bring in 135,000 cubic yards of fill offer
opportunities for dust and noise generation.
Appropriate mitigating measures would be capable
of keeping some impacts to a modest level..
Long Term
Insignificant/Adverse
impact Evaluation
The proposed wastewater facility has been designed
to reduce odor emissions. The prevailing winds
would tend to blow any emissions to the wetland
areas north of the site.
2.513 Water Pollution
Short Term/Construction
-*?ฆ Significant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
The several homes located along the beach exten-
sion of Ferry Road use private wells for water
supply. Dewatering actions during construction
could influence some of the wells by causing a
change in the nearby groundwater/saltwater
interface.
25.
-------
Long Term
Significant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Following construction, there would be a gradual
return to the normal groundwater/saltwater inter-
face in the adjacent area,
2.514 Tra f fic/Acce s s
Short Term/Construction
Significant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
The movement of construction vehicles to and from
the site would have a temporary impact on Ferry
Road residences, (see Section 2.512 and 2.524),.
Long Term
Insignificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
The long-term impacts would be those associated
with the traffic generated by employees and
visitors to the wastewater facilities. The
District's offices will be located at the site.
Septic pumpers will also movei to and from the
septage disposal facility incorporated into the
plant. About two trips per day can be anticipated.
2.515 Land Development
Long Term
-- None
Impact Evaluation
Natural and man-made constraints preclude the
use of Site A for land development of any
consequence.
26.
-------
2.516 Aesthetics/Scenic Value
Long Term
Minor/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
After the removal of vegetation and the elevation
of the site above the 100-year flood level, the
wastewater facility will have a fairly high visi-
bility to adjoining residences and a residential
subdivision to the north and across the Libby
River.
2.517 Historic/Archaeological
Long Term
Impact unknown
Impact Evaluation
The Maine Historic Preservation Commission believes
there is a potential for early 17th century sites.
A ground survey will be required after the ground
thaws out this spring.
2.518 Financial
Long Term
Significant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
This is the most expensive of the three sites.
Costs exceed the least expensive site_by over.
$1,500,000.
2.519 Flood Hazard
Long Term
Sifnificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
The entire site is located within the 100-year
floodplain. Although site modifications can
27.
-------
raise the plant above the 100-year flood elevation,
such modifications would be at variance with EPA's
procedures for Floodplain Management and Wietlands
Protection particularly where there may be
alternative sites not requiring construction within
the floodplain.
2.52 Site B
2.521 Coastal Dunes/Wetlands
Short Term/Construction
Insignificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
The wetlands along the Libby River would be
subject to the usual impacts associated with
nearby development* Adequate buffer areas
between the facilities and the site boundaries
and between the site boundaries and the wet-
lands would mitigate the impact.
A small section of coastal wetland which crosses
the southern corner of Site B would not be
disturbed.
Long Term
Insignificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Development of the site would be designed to
leave the portion of the site which lies within
the Resource Protection District as a natural
buffer area.
2.522 Air/Noise Pollution
Short Term/Construction
Insignificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Construction activity and the removal of exist-
ing trees could increase noise levels and pro-
duce dust in the immediate environs of the site.
28.
-------
Long Term
Insignificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
As noted in 2.512, the proposed plant will be
designed to eliminate odor problems. A properly
maintained treatment plant does not generate
odors that can be noticed in the surrounding
environment.
The prevailing winds would tend to blow any
odor to the north of the site. At the present
time, the adjoining land to the north is vacant.
2.523 Water Pollution
Short Term/Construction
Insignificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
The utilization of environmentally sensitive
construction techniques will preclude water
pollution impacts on adjacent wetlands.
Long Term
Insignificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
All drainage from the site will be designed to
preclude any sedimentation of nearby wetlands.
2.524 Traffic/Access
Short Term/Construction
Minor/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
During the two-year construction period there
will be temporary increases in traffic. The
worst situation will occur during a two-month
period when concrete is being poured about
20~8cy trucks per day.
29.
-------
Long Term
-- Minor/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Some conflicts will occur during the summer-
months when traffic peaks along Black Point Road.
The major conflicts would occur near the entrance
to Scarborough Beach State Park.
These conflicts can be mitigated by proper sched-
uling of the time when septage pumpers can utilize
the plant during summer months.
2.525 Land Development
Long Term
Minor/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Construction of the wastewater facility will
eliminate 17 acres of land suitable for residen-
tial development.
Adjoining land to the north also is desirable
development land. The psychological problems
associated with having a wastewater facility as
a neighbor could be mitigated by cluster-type
development which would allow ample open space
between Site B and any contemplated housing.
2.526 Aesthetics/Scenic Values
Long Term
Insignificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Development of the site will eliminate some, of
the vegetation on the site. Screening of the
access road from adjoining Black Point Road
residences can mitigate impacts to existing
development.
A 100-200' buffer area of existing trees and
vegetation will be retained to buffer the
treatment facilities from potential development
land to the north and east.
30,
-------
2.527 Historic/Archaeological
Long Term
Unknown
Impact Evaluation
The Maine Historic Preservation Commission has
identified potentials for the following on Site B:
o early 17th century site(_s)
o prehistoric shell middens
A ground survey, after the spring thaw, will be
required to determine the significance of the
stated potentials,
2.528 Financial
Long Term
ฆ Insignificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
This is the least expensive of the three sites
in terms of site-related development costs.
This, site, however, requires an acquisition cost
to be borne by the District. There are no
acquisition costs for Sites A and C.
2.529 Flood Hazard
Long Term
No impact
Impact Evaluation
All lands within the designated 100-year flood-
plain will be retained in a natural state as a
buffer area.
2.53 Site B-L
As land disposal is not feasible on Site B-L, no
impact evaluation has been carried out.
31.
-------
2.54 Site C
2.541 Coastal Dunes/Wetlands
Short Term/Construction
Insignificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Dewatering oฃ Site C could impact wetlands
along the Nonesuch River. This impact could
be mitigated by pumping onto the adjacent
parcel owned by the Sprague Corporation
Long Term
Insignificant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
See comment above for short term.
2.542 Air/Noise Pollution
Short Term/Cons true tion
Minor/Adverse
Impact Evaluations
The discussions above under 2,522 would
also apply to Site C.
Long Term
Minor/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
This site is located in close proximity to a
number of homes on Black Point Road and Clay
Pits Road. Although, as previously discussed,
odors are not anticipated as a problem, due to
design and management options, any malfunction
would be evident. The prevailing winds would
blow any odors in the direction of Black Point
Road and Clay Pits Road homes.
32.
-------
2.543 Water Pollution
Short Term/Construction
Significant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Homes, located along the Nonesuch River, use
private wells. Dewatering actions during
construction might have the potential to
influence some of the wells by causing a change
in the nearby groundwater/salt water interface.
Some of this impact might be mitigated by
recharging through the use of two ponding areas
on adjacent land owned by the Sprague Corporation.
Long Term
Significant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Following construction, there would be a gradual
return to the normal groundwater/salt water inter-
face of the adjoining area.
2.544 Traffic/Access
Short Term/Construction
Minor/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
The movement of construction and construction
worker vehicles to and from the site would have
a temporary impact on residences near the access
road to Black Point Road Csee Section 2.524).
Long Term
Minor/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Traffic generated by the wastewater plant will
include employees, visitors to the District's
Offices and septic pumpers.
It will introduce stopping and turning movements
in an intensely developed strip of residences
along Black Point Road.
-------
2.545 Land Development
Long Term
Minor/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
Utilization of the site for a wastewater treatment
facility could deter development of adjoining sites.
Most of the adjacent land is not of a size or dimen-
sion to allow cluster type buffering as suggested
for Site B in Section 2.525.
2.546 Aesthetics/Scenic Value
Long Term
Minor/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
The limited size of the site will mean that there
will be few opportunities to retain existing trees
which could act to screen the plant from the view
of existing or future residences on adjoining
properties.
Sensitive design of the plant, however, could
mitigate some of the adverse views of the facility.
2.547 Historic/Archaeological
Long Term
Unknown
Impact Evaluation
The Maine Historic Preservation Commission has
identified a potential for historic house sites
at or near Site C. A ground survey, after the
spring thaw, will be required to determine their
existenace and significance.
2.548 Financial
Long Term
Significant/Adverse
34,
-------
Impact Evaluation
Site-related development costs for Site C are
about $480,000 higher than comparable costs for
Site B. The major financial plus is the offer
of land donation by the Sprague Corporation.
This benefit, however, is not sufficient to
overcome the unavoidably higher costs to place
the facility on Site C.
2.549 Flood Hazard
Long Term
Significant/Adverse
Impact Evaluation
About one-half of the site is located within
the 100-year floodplain. Certain site modifi-
cations would be required to satisfy the Flood
Hazard provisions of the Scarborough Zoning
Ordinance. Such modifications would be at
variance with EPA's procedures for Floodplain
Management and Wetlands Protection particu-
larly where there is an alternative site (Site B).
not requiring construction within the flood-
plain.
35.
-------
CHAPTER 3 - THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 INFORMATION SOURCES
During the past five years EPA, the Scarborough Sanitary
District, and interested citizens have prepared extensive
studies covering the Town's environmental resources. The
information contained in these studies has been utilized
in the evaluations conducted in Chapter 2.
The following documents provide a full description of the
town-wide and site-specific natural and man-made resources
of the Town of Scarborough, Maine:
- EPA, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Wastewater Collec-
tion and Treatment Facilities; Scarborough, Maine -
November, 1975
- EPA, Final Environmental Impact Statement Wastewater Collec-
tion and Treatment Facilities; Scarborough, Maine -
April, 1977, Volumes I and II
- EPA, Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement
Recommended Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities;
Scarborough, Maine, March, 1978
- Geotechnical Engineers, Inc., letter to Whitman & Howard
regarding geotechnical investigations of Site B -
January 28, 1980
- Scarborough Planning Board, Scarborough Master Plan - 1979
- Scarborough Planning Board, Zoning Ordinance; Scarborough,
Maine - June, 1970 and sebsequent amendments
- Whitman & Howard, Inc., A Cost Analysis and Environmental
Comparison Wastewater Treatment Facility Sites; Scarborough,
Maine - December, 1979
Copies of the above documents are available for inspection
at the offices of the Scarborough Sanitary District in
Scarborough, Maine and the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Region I; JFK Federal Building; Boston, Massachusetts.
36.
-------
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT STATEMENTS
The following statements are made in response to
specific requirements in the National Environmental
Policy Act:
4.11 Adverse Environmental Effects which Cartriot be
Avoided
In the development of Site A, significant adverse
environmental impacts include disruption of a
coastal dune environment, construction in a flood-
hazard area, high costs in comparison to other
alternatives, changes in private wells and short-
term air, noise and traffic impacts..
In the development of Site C, significant adverse
environmental impacts include changes in nearby
private wells, high costs in comparison with Site
B, and partial construction within a flood hazard
zone,
There are no known significant adverse environ-
mental impacts associated with the development of
Site B.
Sites A, B, B-L, and C all are the locations for
potential archaeological resources. Confirmation
of the significance of these resources must await
favorable ground conditions for further investiga-
tion by the Maine Historic Preservation Commission
4.12 Relationship Between Short-Term Use of Man's
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement
of Long-Term Productivity '
Long-term productivity of the environment would be
enhanced by the use of Site B which has no signifi
cant adverse impacts associated with its use as a
site for a wastewater treatment facility.
4.13 Any Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources
Permanent resource commitments associated with
the use of the sites include:
- Changes in land use
-------
Use of physical and energy resources involved in
plant construction.
Elimination of portions of the natural floodplain
at Sites A and C.
Potential disruption of a natural dune system at
Site A.
Expenditures of capital and financing costs for
construction.
Potential destruction of archaeological resources
at any site.
-------
CHAPTER 5 - MONITORING/GRANT REQUIREMENTS
5.1 BASIS FOR REQUIREMENTS
EPA's recently adopted regulations covering the
preparation of environmental impact statements for
wastewater projects establish the Agency's continu-
ing concern with environmental protection* These
concerns go beyond the completion of impact evalua-
tions and include grant conditions and monitoring
provisions extending through the useful life of a
facility.
5.2 REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The following grant requirements shall apply to the
use of Site B, the preferred alternative:
- No construction activities shall take place within
those portions of the site lying within the 100-year
floodplain or the Resource Protection Zone. If
necessary, additional land should be acquired to
accomplish this requirement.
- Provisions in plant design and natural or created
landscaping shall be made for screening the access ,
road from adjoining homes on Black Point Road and
the wastewater facility from land subject to further
subdivision to the north of the site.
- Construction contract specifications shall call for
detailed measures to control soil erosion and sedi-
mentation with particular attention to the protection
of adjoining coastal wetland areas.
- Use of the plants septage disposal facilities shall
be scheduled so as not to interfere with periods of
peak summer traffic to Scarborough Beach State Park.
- The District shall comply with the procedures of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in imple-
menting the provisions of the Archaeological and
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended.
The following monitoring requirements shall apply
to Site B:
- EPA shall monitor the implementation of all grant
conditions through grant requirements for periodic
submissions of "Statements of Compliance" by the
District.
-------
CHAPTER 6 - LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY AND TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Region I of EPA was responsible for preparing this
Draft EIS.
Technical assistance to EPA was provided under a
contract with Anderson-Nichols of Boston. Anderson-
Nichols is a multi-disciplined firm of planners,
environmental specialists, engineers, and architects.
6.2 REGION I ~ EPA STAFF
6.21 Project Manager
Mr. Robert Mendoza had overall responsibility
for the preparation of this DEIS. He is a
professional planner with an MRP degree from
Pratt Institute. Mr. Mendoza supervises the
preparation of all wastewater EIS's in Region I.
6.22 Municipal Facilities Branch Staff
Mr. David Austin is a professional engineer,
responsible for coordinating the various waste-
water projects in Maine being funded by EPA.
He holds a degree in Civil Engineering from
the University of New Hampshire and is complet-
ing a Masters Degree at Northeastern University.
6.23 Environmental Coordinator
Mr. Paul Pinault is the Environmental Coordinator
for EPA's Municipal Facilities Branch. He holds
an undergraduate degree from Southeastern Massa-
chusetts University and a Master's Degree in
Environmental Engineering from Northeastern
University.
40.
-------
6.3 ANDERSON-NICHOLS
6.31 Project Manager
Burk Ketcham, Director of the firm's Planning
Division, had overall responsibility for prepar-
ing this Supplemental Final EIS and coordinating
with EPA. Mr. Ketcham is a professional planner
with a Masters Degree from Columbia University.
6.32 Project Engineer
Joe Zeneski is a professional engineer, special-
izing in wastewater projects. He was responsi-
ble for major, items of an engineering nature.
He holds a Masters Degree in Environmental
Engineering from the University of Rhode Island.
6.33 Environmental Specialist/Writer
Anne Pierce carried out research assignments and
assisted in the writing of the EIS. She holds
undergraduate and graduate degrees in Anthro-
pology from Stanford University.
6.34 Wetlands Specialist
William Richardson is a professional planner/
landscape architect with wide experience in
wetlands analysis. He was the author of an
environmental assessment manual on wetland
impacts prepared for Region I. He holds degrees
in Environmental Planning and Landscape Archi-
tecture from the Rhode Island School of Design.
41.
-------
APPENDIX A
COST COMPARISON - SCARBOROUGH SITE ALTERNATIVES
A.l INTRODUCTION
In December, 197 9, Whiteman & Howard, Inc. of Wellesley,
Massachusetts, issued a report entitled "A Cost Analysis
and Environmental Comparison, Wastewater Treatment
Facility Sites, Scarborough, Maine". Three separate
cost comparisons were included as follows: a cost
comparison of Site A and Site B as prepared by Whitman
& Howard; a cost comparison of Site A, Site B, and
Site C as prepared by Hunter-Ballew Associates; and an
additional cost comparison of Site B and two Site C
alternatives also prepared by Whitman & Howard.
The three cost comparisons were all based on ENR-CCI of
3350 and generally agreed in estimates of quantity of
materials required. There does exist, however, some
differences in the cost comparisons that would result
in different conclusions.
The purpose of this report is to present the findings
of a study to review the cost estimates and produce a
summary that could be used to compare the development
of the proposed wastewater treatment facility on either
Site A, Site B, or Site C.
A.2 BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES
In evaluating the cost estimates produced by Whitman
& Howard and Hunter-Ballew, it was found that there
were some inconsistencies in the Hunter-Ballew estimates
in addition to the discrepancies between the Whitman &
Howard and Hunter-Ballew estimates. It was found that
while the Whitman & Howard cost-estimates were well-
documented and reproducible, the Hunter-Ballew estimates
were not. For example, the following table presents
the calculated unit costs used by Hunder-Ballew in their
comparison of site variable facilities for Site A, Site
B, and Site C:
A-l
-------
ESTIMATED UNIT COSTS
ITEM
Gravity Sewer from
Oak Hill-Black Point Road
- separate trench
- common trench
F.M.-P.S. #6 to Plant
- separate trench
- common trench
F.M.-P.S. #8 to Plant
- common trench
Outfall F.M.
- separate trench
- common trench
SITE A
SITE B
SITE C
24"@$78/ft. 24"@$78/ft.
8"@$18,33/ft.
24"@$84/ft. 24"@$84/ft.
24"@$84/ft, 24"@$84/ft* 6"@$15/ft.
6"@$15/ft. 6"@$15/ft. 6"@$15/ft.
24"@$100/ft.24"@$100/ft. 24"@$100/ft,
24"@$91/ft. 24"@$91/ft. 24"@$80/ft.
As can be seen from the preceding table, there is an
inconsistency in the unit costs used by Hunter-Ballew,
specifically in the unit costs used for 24" force main.
A less obvious discrepance is the difference between
the cost of 24" gravity sewer Ccalculated to be $78/ft.)
and the cost of 24" force main (calculated to range
between $91/ft. and $100/ft.). Intuitively, the cost
of a gravity sewer, given the requirements for manholes,
house connections and strict adherence to grade, would
be higher than the cost of a force main of equal size.
Given the above-described discrepancies and inconsis-
tencies in the Hunter-Ballew unit costs and the fact
that the development of the Whitman & Howard unit
costs was presented in the text, the Whitman & Howard
unit costs were used in this analysis. The following
table summarizes the unit costs used in the analysis
contained herein:
A-2
-------
Force Mains
Separate Common
Cost per ft.
Gravity Sewers
Size trench trench
Size Cost/ft
8"
12"
18"
24"
30 "
36"
$69
75
86
97
114
126
8"
12"
18"
24"
$50
62
72
84
$31
43
53
66
The costs for pump stations are from EPA publications
as used by Whitman & Howard in their analysis.
A.3 COST ESTIMATES
Four alternatives that represent the differences in
getting the wastewater to, and the treated effluent
from, the three wastewater treatment facility sites
were analyzed. In all four alternatives, the follow-
ing conditions were assumed:
o The locations of the two pump stations (P.S.)
within the site variable facilities would be
held constant, that is, P.S. #8 would be located
at the entrance to Site B in all four alternatives,
and P.S. #6 would be located approximately 2600 ft.
from the entrance to Site C on Black Point Road.
o An additional 500 ft. of pipe would be required
to leave a site over the amount required to enter
the site.
Given these conditions, the four alternatives analyzed,
can be described as follows:
o Development of the collection interceptor system
to deliver wastewater to Site A.
o Development of the collection/interceptor system
to deliver wastewater to Site B.
A-3
-------
A.4 Development of the collection/interceptor system
to deliver wastewater to Site C using P.S, #6 as
a local pump station and building an influent
pump station at the wastewater treatment plant.
A-5 Development of the collection/interceptor system
to deliver wastewater to Site C using P.S. #6 as
the influent pump station.
The estimated construction costs Cat ENR-CCI 3350) are
presented in TABLE A-l.
A-4
-------
ITEM
AIT. A
Size Quantity
ALT. B
AUT C-l
AU. C-2
F.M. frcni P.S. #8 480018" 800'8"
- separate trench 2000'
- oatircn trench 2800 ' 800'
Pumping Station #6 3900 gpn 3900 gpti
F.M. frcni P.S. #6 9500'24" 7800'24"
- separate trench 7500' 5000'
- jjim trench 2000' 2800'
QJFUJENT PUMPING STATION
Gravity Sever from Site C
Entrance
- to Putping Station #6
- to Influent P.S.
2600'36" 2600'26"
5000'8"
5000'
5000'8"
5000'
600 gpn 3900 gpm
2600'8" 3300'24"
2600*
4200 gpn
3300'
(c) (c)
2600'10" 2600'36"
700-36"
Effluent F.M. 24 3300'24" 3800'24" 12800' 12800'
- separate trench 500' 500' 7000' 7000'
- oomncn trtmdi 2800 ' 2800 ' 5800 ' 5800'
>
I
(_n
TABLE A-l
COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
AIT. A
Unit Cost
AIX. B
ALT C-l
AIT. C-2
."JIT. A
TOTAL COST
ALT. B
AIT. C-l
S 50
31
507,000
$
31
507,000
$
31
. 362,000
$
31
507,000
100,000
86,800
507,000
$
24,800
507,000
$
155,000
362,000
84
66
84
66
31
$380,000
66
630,000
132,000
420,000
184,800
80,600
380,000
126
126
72
126
126
327,600
327,600
187,200
88,200
84
66
84
66
84
66
84
66
42,000
2,010,200
42,000
1,691,000
588,000
382.800
2,223,800
-------
APPENDIX B
LETTERS FROM MAINE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Recent letters from the Maine Historic Preservation
Commission relating to Sites A, B, B-L and C are
reproduced on the pages which follow.
-------
Jo6 3
-------
I - IS
e~t
MAINE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
242 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333
ANDERSON-NICHOLS & CO., INC.
RECEIVED
MAR 5 ;\SQ
e C. Shcttlevvorth, Jr.
Director
Telephone:
207-289-2133
March 3, 1980
Anne M. Pierce, Environmental Specialist
Anderson-Nichols
150 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
re: Scarborough Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Miss Pierce:
In response to your inquiry based upon information from Mr. Lakari,
it is probable that there is a prehistoric archaeological site on or near
Alternative Treatment Plant site B.
Moreover, there is a strong possibility that early 17th century
archaeological sites may exist on both site A and site B.
My staff archaeologists will field-check the areas in question as
soon as weather permits (probably late April), and make a determination of
National Register significance.
Sincerely
cc: Dr. Robert L. Bradley
Dr. Arthur E. Spiess
EGS/slm
B-3
-------
s"
J06 #3441-15
6 -1
MAINE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
242 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333
RECEIVED
MAR 7 IVffl
Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr.
Director
ANDERSON-NICHOLS & CO., INC.
Telephone:
207-289-2133
March 6, 1980
Ms. Anne Pierce
Anderson-Nichols
150 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
Dear Ms. Pierce:
From a description provided by Mr. Tafari of Sprague Corporation, 1
am certain that there is a prehistoric archaeological site on or near
site B: Parcel A or Parcel B. If it is on site B, it may in fact be on
both. From your recent detailed map showing the exact location of the
river, it seems more likely that the site is on Parcel B of Site B.
Moreover, from Mr. Tahari's description, the site is almost certain-
ly of National Register significance. The larger area of Parcel B makes
it more likely that historic archaeological sites of 17th century age are
also included in Site B.
We will do a field check as soon as the ground thaws, and advise you
immediately. It would certainly be wise to include wording in the E.I.S.
that archaeological survey is a concern.
Sincerely
Arthur G. Spiess
Archaeologist
AES/slm
B-4
-------
APPENDIX c
LETTER FROM THE SPRAGUE CORPORATION
Letter from the Sprague Corporation
relating to the donation of Site C.
-------
3
b-i
DONALD W. PHILBRICK
EDWARD F. DANA
COUNSEL
DONALD L.PHILBRICK
ROGER A.PUTNAM
ROBERT B.WILLIAMSON, JR.
JOHN A. MITCHELL
LOUIS A.WOOD
JOHN W. PHILBRICK
JOHN L.SULLIVAN
PETER 8. WEBSTER
HOWARD H. DANA, JR.
CHARLES R. OESTREICHER
MICHAEL T. HEALY
CHRISTOPHER J. W. COGGESHALL
CHARLES L. CRAGIN
THOMAS J.VAN MEER
ROBERT B. PATTERSON, JR.
BRUCE W. BERGEN
ROBERT A. MOORE
P.BENJAMIN ZUCKERMAN
CHARLES A. HARVEY, JR.
JOHN R. McKERNAN, JR.
JUDITH M. COBURN
VERRILL & DANA
TWO CANAL PLAZA
p. o. box see
PORTLAND, MAINE 04112
207/ 774- 40 0 0
March 6, 1980
YORK COUNTY OFFICE
Z07/3ZA-7700
DEPOT ROAD
ALFRED, MAINE 04002
TELECOPIER
207/774-4*00
LEWIS D. EPSTEIN
CHRISTOPHER S. NEAGLE
DAVID C. HILLMAN
JOHN O.DUNCAN
ANDREW M. NORTON
WILLIAM S. HARWOOD
THOMAS A.PURtNGTON
JAMES G. GOGGIN
Mr. Burk Ketcham RECEIVED
Vice President
Anderson-Nichols u*a rป /ran
150 Causeway Street MAR .0 1.80
Boston, MA 02114
, . , ANDERSON'NlCHOLS & CO.) INC.
Re: Preparation of Supplemental Final
Environmental Impact Statement on
Alternate Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Sites for Scarborough,
Maine - Scarborough Sanitary District
Dear Burk:
I write to you at Mr. Lakari's suggestion because of the
problems which have arisen and some confusion which has arisen
with regard to this project.
My understanding with regard to the problem is that in your
interview with Phineas Sprague he indicated to you that it was
his view that Sprague Corporation could not donate the so-called
Clay Pits Site (Site C) to the Scarborough Sanitary District
without the unanimous consent of all of the shareholders of
Sprague Corporation. Mr. Sprague indicated to you that he would
not consent, and therefore the matter was closed.
As an alternative, of course, Sprague Corporation could
determine the "fair market value" of the Clay Pits Site and that
might be the figure that you would use in your analysis.
We have reviewed the situation which has been developed to
me, and we are now satisfied that under Maine Law, a majority of
the Board of Directors present and voting at a meeting called
consistent with the By-Laws of the Corporation, at which adequate
r-2
-------
Mr. Burk Ketchum
March 6, 1980
Page 2
notice of the proposed action is given, can donate the Clay Pits
Site to the Scarborough Sanitary District.
A word of caution: I must say to you that the Board of
Directors of Sprague Corporation have not addressed this specific
problem. I have, however, been authorized to state, and I have
stated previously, authorized by the President, Robert A. G.
Monks, Esq., that such a proposal would be made to the Board of
Directors when and if it were clear that the gift would be
accepted by the Scarborough Sanitary District and that Mr. Monks,
who is both President and a Director, would urge his fellow
Directors to vote with him to donate the Clay Pits Site to the
District.
While I have no crystal ball, and neither do you, I think
for the purposes of your evaluation you may consider that the
cost of the Clay Pits Site is zero.
utnam
RAP/fib
cc: Robert A. G. Monks, Esq.
Phineas Sprague
David Lakari
-------
APPENDIX D
EPA DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LAND DISPOSAL -
SITE B (SITE B-L)
EPA memorandum and Maine DEP letter outlining
design critieria and cost-effective analysis
for land disposal relative to Site B-L.
-------
STATE OF MAINE
mง
1 Department of Environmental Protection
MAIN OFFICE: RAY BUltOING. HOSPITAL STRUT, AUGUSTA
HAH. AONISS: SIAll HOUSE. AUGUSTA 01333
Henry E. Warren
COMMISSIONER
2892811
ADMINISTRATOR SEWKE1
?89 269)
BUREAUS:
AIR QUALITY CONTROL
289 2437
LAND QUALITY CONTROL
7892111
WATIR QUALITY CONTKM.
289 2691
OH POLLUTION CONTROL
289 2591
REGIONAL OFFICII*
31 CENTRAL STREET
BANGOR 04401
9476746
634 MAIN STREET
PRISQUEISLE 04769
764 3737
OIL POLLUTION CONTROL
I/COMMERCIAL STREET
PORTLAND
773-6491
OIL SPILL REPORTS ONLY
(1011 TRIO I 8004870777
CITIZENS' ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSISTANCE SCIVICK
/K9 269)
iflHl I RID I 800 4521942
AIR QUALITY CONTROL
17 COMMERCIAL STREET
PORTLAND
773 0196
LAND QUALITY CONTROL
17 COMMERCIAL STREET
PORTLAND
7730196
February 25, 1980
Mr. David Austin
Municipal Facilities Branch
Region I-ME,VT,NH
United States EPA
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Subject: C230115 01 Scarborough Sanitary District
Dear Dave:
Presented herewith is the effluent disposal criteria given to Mr. Jubinville
of Whitman & Howard, Inc. by phone on February 11, 1980, for use in estimating
the cost of the effluent disposal alternative at Site B.
The criteria to be used for effluent disposal is recommended by the DEP to be
equal to that for rapid infiltration.
1. Application rate ป 1 foot/week.
2. Depth to groundwater ฆ 10 feet minimum.
3. Groundwater monitoring on site.
4. Use 7 basins; thereby allowing for 1 day of use and 6 days
of rest for each one.
The criteria to be used for lagoon construction is recommended by the DEP
to be based on "Ten States Standards".
1. The minimum dike width shall be 8 feet to permit access
of maintenance vehicles.
2. Inner and outer dike slopes shall not be steeper than 1 vertical
to 3 horizontal.
3. Entire site shall be fenced.
A. Ponds should be located so that local prevailing winds will be
in the direction of uninhabited areas.
D-2
-------
Mr. David Austin
Municipal Facilities Branch
February 25, 1980
Page 2
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
Very truly yours,
David P. Achorn
Division of Municipal Services
Bureau of Water Quality Control
DPA/lwc
cc: Richard Jubinville, Whitman & Howard, Inc.
Alvin Keene, Superintendent, Scarborough S.D.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE:
subject: Evaluation of the design criteria and cost effective analysis for land
disposal on Site B in Scarborough, ME
from: Lawrence P. Sheehan, Jr., Chief _
Engineering Section, ME, NH,
TO: Wallace E. Stickney, Director ^
Environmental & Economic Impact Office
THRU: Charles W. Murray, Jr., Directo:
Water Division
Currently a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is being
conducted to evaluate which of three sites the proposed Scarborough
Sanitary District wastewater treatment facility should be constructed upon.
As part of this SEIS the feasibility of utilizing Site WBM for rapid infil- '
tration land disposal versus the proposed ocean outfall is to be evaluated,
if the land disposal alternate is shown to be cost effective. . The Maine De-
partment of Environmental Protection (DEP) supplied their criteria by letter
of February 25, 1980 for this land disposal alternate and the District's
consulting engineer, Whitman and Howard,prepared the cost effective analysis
(CEA). An evaluation of the Maine DEP criteria and the CEA follows.
The major components of the Maine DEP criteria (copy attached) are:
1. . Loading rate of one foot/week
2. Minimum of 10 feet to groundwater
3. Secondary treatment required prior to land disposal (This
is not included in the February 25, 1980 Maine DEP letter
but was stated by Mr. Charles King, Director, Municipal
Service Division of the Maine DEP in a meeting held in
Boston on February 1, 1980. This.letter is based on "this.)
4. Monitoring wells
5. Adequate buffer zone
The loading rate and depth to groundwater are consistent with Program Re-
quirements Memoranda No. 79-3. Although the loading rate is on the con-
servative end of the recommended range, it is not restrictive. Secondary
treatment preceding land disposal is necessary because of the proximity of
development in this area. This criteria is considered proper and justified
because of the adjacent salt marsh and suburban development.
The CEA (copy attached), as presented, shows that effluent disposal by ra-
pid infiltration is 47% more costly than the recommended ocean outfall.
This analysis assumes that the pumping costs for both options are equal,
however, it appears that the pumping cost for the outfall would be more
costly. Although the same size pumps would be needed to pump the same
flow to each option the total dynamic head of the outfall would be greater.
PA Form 1320-6 (Row. 3-76)
-------
- 2 -
therefore, larger motors would be required. These motors would cost slightly
more and require more energy to operate.
The total present worth of the land disposal option presented in the CEA in-
cludes chlorination facilities. Because of the nature of this type of efflu-
ent disposal chlorination may not be required.
Adding in the additional pumping costs to the outfall alternate and subtract-
ing the chlorination cost from the land disposal alternate does not change
the conclusion of the CEA. The result is that land disposal is 27% more
costly than the outfall. Because of this large difference the 15% alterna-
tive cost preference is not applicable. The cost estimates, engineering
assumptions and calculations in the remainder of the CEA arereasonable and
correct. Therefore, because the land disposal option is not cost effective
it need not be further analyzed in the SEXS*
Borings taken on Site "B" show ground water at 7.5, 9.2, 10 and 11 feet be-
low the ground surface in the lower portion of the site. The remainder of
the parcel that would have to be taken for land disposal (if cost effective)
is at a lower elevation than the 17 acre parcel (site B) where the borings
were taken. Also these borings were taken during a very dry winter period,
therefore, it can be expected that the ground water will be higher during
a normal spring high ground water period. Considering this it is very pos-
sible that the site would have to be filled to maintain the minimum 10 feet
to ground water. Whitman and Howard has estimated that to fill this site
with filter sand would cost $387,000 per foot. Therefore, the addition of
one or two feet of filter sand to the site would increase the cost of the
land disposal option by $387,000 or $774,000, thus emphasizing the cost ef-
fectiveness of the recommended ocean outfall for this project.
D-5
------- |