WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
SOUTHERN
for the
KENNEBEC VALLEY
and

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMFftCT STATEMENT



Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission
Region I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
December 1977


-------
Cover Photo: courtesy of the central photo Lab, State House,
Augusta, Maine 04333

-------
PREFACE
The Water Quality Management Plan for the Southern
Kennebec valley and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
is a joint product of the cooperative efforts of the
Southern Kennebec valley Regional Planning Commission
(Augusta, Maine), the Cobbossee Watershed District
(Winthrop, Maine) and the United States Environmental pro-
tection Agency (EPA) Region I (Boston). It is the final
report of a two year areawide water quality management
planning process funded by the EPA as a result of the
1972 Federal water Quality Act Amendments, Section 208.
This document is divided into two parts. In part
one a description of the planning area is presented and
the plan recommendations are discussed under the major
sub-headings of Land use Planning, Structural Wastewater
Facilities, and Water Quality Management. The second
part of this document deals with implementation activities
and their impacts under the sub-headings of Action at
the Local Level, Action at the State Level, Action at
the Federal Level, The Role of the private Sector, and
Water Quality Management Coordination and Plan Update.
Part II also contains a discussion of the public partici-
pation efforts and the Draft Environmental impact State-
ment process which were a part of the planning activities.
The purpose of this final EIS is to provide the pub-
lic with a means of evaluating and commenting upon pro-
posed actions resulting from the areawide water quality
management planning process. This is mandated by the
National Environmental policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Section
102(2)(C) of the Act requires an Environmental Impact
Statement whenever a proposed action will "significantly
affect the quality of the human environment." To the
extent necessary, the environmental impact statement to
follow must address:
1)	The environment impacts of the proposed
alternatives,
2)	Any adverse environmental effects which
cannot be avoided....
3)	Alternatives for proper management of
water bodies,
4)	The relationship between local short-term
uses of man's environment and the maint-
enance and enhancement of long-term
productivity, and
5)	Any irreversible and irretrievable commit-
ments of resources which would be involved
in the alternatives which have been explored.
i

-------
Major decisions of the courts and guidelines by the counc
on Environmental Quality have clarified and amplified the
intent of this Act.
Additional copies of this EIS can be reviewed at:
-	Southern Kennebec valley Regional planning
Commiss ion
16 Bangor Street, Augusta, Maine
-	Cobbossee Watershed District
15 High Street, Winthrop, Maine
-	Lithgow Public Library (Augusta)
-	Isaac Umerhine public Library (Richmond)
-	Wayne Memorial Library (Wayne)
-	Maine Department of Environmental protection
State House, Augusta, Maine
-	U. S. Environmental protection Agency
Region I - Room 2203
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A two year planning effort leading to this Final Report
would have been impossible without the assistance of a
great number of people. First and foremost, it is appropri-
ate to acknowledge the volunteers who served on the numerous
committees that guided and reviewed the Plan's development.
A list of committee membership appears in a chapter of part
II of the Plan. Special appreciation is due Oliver Coulling,
Chairman of the 208 Sewer and Water Committee and Linda
Dyer, chairman of the 208 Management Planning Subcommittee
for their extra effort in organizing and conducting meet-
ings of these two important committees.
The 208 planning staff at the Regional planning Com-
mission and the cobbossee Watershed District worked dili-
gently and effectively in meeting the many interim report
deadlines as well as producing the drafts of this Final plan.
Without the extra effort and commitment to the project,
the Commission would not have met its original timetable
set for the completion of the Plan. The SKVRPC and CWD
208 planning staffs included.-
SKVRPC: Steven Freedman - 208 Staff Engineer
Sue Burns - Land Use Planner
Holly Dominie - coastal Zone Planner
Thomas ursia - Land Use planner
Patrick Rowland - Cartographer
Judy Carleton - Administrative Assistant
Debbie Ross - Secretary
CWD:	Thomas Gordon - Executive Director
Katherine Sage - Non-Point Source planner
Elizabeth Moran - Monitoring Director
David Dominie - Sewage Systems Analyst
Wendy King - Technical Assistant
A final note of gratitute is due the private consultants
and public agencies which worked under contract to the Com-
mission. These included:
private
Consultants: Whitman & Howard
SEA, Inc.
James Sewall Co.
Carroll Taylor
Wright, pierce, Barnes & Wyman
A. E. Hodsdon
Herbert Doten
Curt Beal Assoc.
Alda Stich
William MacDonald
i i i

-------
Public
Agencies:	Soil Conservation Service - U.S.D.A.
Kennebec County Soil and Water Conservation
District
U.S. Geological Survey
Maine State Bureau of Geology
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
To all of those mentioned above I wish, on behalf of
all the Commissioners, to express my thanks.
John B. Forster
Planner-Administrator
S.K.V.R.P.C.
iv

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page no.
PART I
INTRODUCTION	 3
THE SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY SETTING
1.	The Physical Setting	 10
2.	population Distribution and Economic
Setting	 22
3.	The political and institutional
Setting	 25
PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
LAND USE PLANNING: CONTROL OF NON-POINT
SOURCES OF POLLUTION AND UTILIZING OUR LAND
1.	Animal waste Management	 28
2.	Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater
from Agricultural Activities	 33
3.	Erosion from Agricultural Lands...	 34
4.	Erosion and Sedimentation from
Construction		36
5.	Stormwater Runoff from Developed Areas..	43
6.	Sand and Gravel Mining		53
7.	Road Salt and Salt Storage		56
8.	Solid and Residual Waste Disposal		57
9.	Forest Management practices		64
10.	Sensitive Areas protection	 65
11.	The Secondary Effects of Sewer and
Water Line Extensions	 76
12.	Code Enforcement	 79
13.	The Local Planning and Implementation
Process	 80
STRUCTURAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES
1.	Needed Treatment Facilities		96
2.	Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows.	101
3.	Non-Sewered and Remote Areas		105
4.	Industrial pretreatment		113
5.	Monmouth-Winthrop-Manchester-Hallowell-
Augusta Regional Trunkline	 113
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT: STANDARDS,
RESTORATION AND MONITORING
1.	Standards and Goals for Lakes and
Their Tributaries	 117
2.	Standards and Goals for the Kennebec
River and Urban Tributaries		126
3.	Lake Restoration		130
4.	Long Range water Resource Monitoring....	132
5.	Other water Resource Data Needs		13 5
v

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page No.
PART II
IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY
1.	Management Framework		13 9
2.	Implementation Strategy				141
ACTION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL		143
Augusta		154
Chelsea		16 5
Farmingdale		171
Fayette		177
Gardiner		183
Hallowell					190
Litchfield		197
Manchester		2 08
Monmouth			217
Mount Vernon		2 27
Pittston		234
Randolph	-		241
Readfield		245
Richmond		2 52
Vienna		2 61
Wayne		266
West Gardiner		273
Whitefield		281
Windsor				286
Winthrop				293
ACTION AT THE STATE LEVEL		305
ACTION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL		313
THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR		319
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT COORDINATION AND
PLAN UPDATE: THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL PLAN-
NING COMMISSION		328
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DRAFT E.I.S. PROCESS.. 334
vi

-------
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1 - Water Quality Issues
2	- Definition of Selected Terras and
Abbreviations
3	- Letters in Response to Draft E.I.S.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
TECHNICAL APPENDIXES
(This Final Plan is accompanied by three technical appendixes.
These are available from the SKVRPC or Region I of E.P.A.)
Appendix 1 - Land Use Reports
Demographic Trends and Projections
Economic Conditions
Transportation Analysis
Land Use Trends and Projections
Preliminary Report on Development Goals
Preliminary Land Use Constraints
Appendix 2 - Domestic and Industrial Wastewater Reports
Publicly Owned Facilities
Non-Sewered Areas Wastewater Disposal Problem
Areas, Phases I, II, III
Industrial Waste Overview
Appendix 3 - Non-Point Source Pollution and Water Quality
Reports
Non-Point Source Pollution
Land Use Evaluation Areas - Selection
Non-Point Sources of Pollution to Lakes
Water Quality Overview
Lake Fact Sheets
vii

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
Figure 1 - Summary of Annual Phosphorus Loading
to Southern Kennebec Valley-
Lakes 1976-77	 12
2	- Earthen Lagoon for Storage of Liquid
Manure and Concrete Storage Pit for
Solid Manure	 30
3	- Typical Erosion and Sedimentation
Controls for Construction Sites	 38
4	- Hydrologic Changes caused by
Development	 45
5	- Dutch Drains and Seepage pits	 47
6	- Detention and Retention ponds	 48
7	- Multi-use Seepage Areas (Infiltra-
tion Basins)	 49
8	- The Hydrologic Cycle	 54
9	- A Typical Cluster System	 107
10	- Septic Tank Systems	 110
11	- phosphorus Loadings to Southern
Kennebec Valley Lakes by Source (%)
1976-77	 119
12	- phosphorus Load: Concentration
Relationship - Southern Kennebec
Valley Lakes	 121
13	- Phosphorus Load: concentration
Relationship - Expanded Scale	 122
viii

-------
> 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LIST OF MAPS
Page No.
-	208 Water Quality Study Area	 1
-	Regional perspective	 2
-	Steep Slopes	(back pocket)
-	wetlands	(back pocket)
-	Floodplains	(back pocket)
-	Shallow to Bedrock	(back pocket)
-	Groundwater Aquifers	(back pocket)
-	Current Lake water Quality	 14
-	Assimilative capacity	 15
-	Need for Protection	 18
-	Surface Water Classifications	 19
-	Public Water Supply Sources	 20
-	Domestic and Industrial Wastewater
Management Situation	(back pocket)
-	Drainage Areas	 21
-	Population Increase in the SKVRPC
Region	 24
-	Drainage Areas in Litchfield	 198
ix

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Pa go No.
Table 1 - Selected Land Use Comparison in the 208
Study Area	 11
2	- 1974 Land Uses — Southern Kennebec
Valley Region	 13
3	- Lake Resources - Need for protection	 17
4	- Population Change -- Southern Kennebec
Valley Region	 23
5	- Checklist of Erosion and Sediment
Control Measures	 39
6	- Development Density and Stormwater
Runoff	 44
7	- Measures for Reducing and Delaying urban
Storm Runoff	 46
8	- DEP Observations on Solid Waste Management 59-62
9	- Groundwater as a Source of water
Supply	 68
10	- The Occurrence of Wetlands	 70
11	- Current Status of Community Planning
Activities	 83
12	- Minimum Lot Size Controls in Southern
Kennebec valley Municipalities	 84
13	- projected 20 Year Wastewater Generation
Publicly Owned Facilities	 98
14	- projected 20 Year Public Wastewater
Expenditures - 1976 Dollars	 99
15	- Cluster Alternatives for Non-Sewered
Problem Areas	 108
16	- Non-Cluster Alternatives for Problem
Areas	 109
17	- Regional Industrial Wastewater Pre-
treatment Situation	 114
18	- Southern Kennebec Valley Lakes
Current Water Quality	 118
19	- Lake Restoration: Needed Reduction in
Phosphorus Loading	 131
x

-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 20 - Summary of Plan Implementation
Agencies and Responsibilities	 140
21	- implementation Strategy	 142
22	- Local Water Quality Management
Responsibilities	 144
23	- Existing and proposed Controls on
Development	 150
24	- Existing and Recommended Controls on
Agriculture, Silviculture, and Sand
and Gravel Mining	 151
2 5 - Existing and Recommended Controls on
Public and private Sewage Disposal	 152
26 - State Water Quality Management
Responsibilities	 311
2 7 - Federal Water Quality Management
Responsibilities	 317
28 - private Sector Water Quality Management
Responsibilities	 320
2 9 - Draft E.I.S. and Final Plan Public
Meetings	 341
xi

-------
PART I
PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS

-------
INTRODUCTION

-------
IV1A.P 1
S08 WATER QUALITY
STUDY AREA
WINDSOR
MT VERNON
FAYETTE
READFIELD
AUGUSTA
WAYNE
ALLOWELL
FARNHNGDALE
5
RANDOLPH
WHITEFELD
WEST GARDINER
S	\ P|T1
f GARDINER 1
PITTSTON
LITCHFIELD
JB—
RICHMOND
WWWW1 BY P. ROWLAND
ww »k\/wc to/rm

-------
MAP 2
-To Bangor
Skowhegari.
Rum ford.
208 Water"
Quality
Study Area
r~ /
Rockland
Auburn:
Brunswick
To Boston

-------
INTRODUCTION
This document, THE WATER QUALITY MANAOKMKNT PLAN FOR
THE SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY, is the culmination of two
years of intensive effort on the part of the Southern Kenne-
bec Valley Regional Planning commission (SKVRPC), the
Cobbossee Watershed District, a number of local, State and
Federal representatives to committees established within
the planning process and several private consultants. The
plan presented here is also the result of suggestions and
constructive criticisms by residents and business people of
the planning area who responded to interim reports and
attended meetings at which elements of the plan were dis-
cussed. The plan lays out the process by which the partic-
ipants arrived at the recommendations. it also presents
the recommendations for upgrading and preserving water qual-
ity in the region and describes the activities at the local,
State and Federal level which must take place in order for
the plan to be carried out.
The first question that had to be addressed before
starting the planning process was whether improved water
quality management was important enough to merit a major
effort in time and money within the region. The Commission
presented this question to every community in the proposed
project area. The municipal officers were asked to support
the proposed designation as a water quality management plan-
ning area based on their knowledge of existing problems and
the relative importance of addressing those problem:;.
The composite answer from these meetings indicated
that water quality was a very important issue to the people
of the region. The poor water quality in some of the larg-
est lakes was particularly troubling. To the communities
around the lakes it represented a recreational and economic
resource being threatened. On the most severely polluted
lake (Annabessacook), property tax rates had already fallen
to about half the regional lakefront average. To the
Augusta Water District, the decrease in lake water quality
threatened the possible need for an expensive treatment
system to insure high quality drinking water. These two
concerns, the use of water for recreation and for water
supplies for communities and industries, were expressed in
most communities. There was also a strong desire to pre-
serve the existing high level of water quality in the less
developed lakesheds. Because of the strong response from
communities, the Regional Planning Commission voted to
request designation from the State and Federal government
for water quality planning.
-3-

-------
This initial plan is a direct result of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-
500). Section 208 of the Act provides for areawide waste
treatment management planning in areas which, as a result
of urban-industrial concentrations or other factors, have
substantial water quality control problems which cannot
be solved through the traditional approach of treatment
facility construction. Through Section 208, such areas
are provided funds to plan and manage a comprehensive pro-
gram to control municipal and industrial wastewater,
stormwater runoff, non-point source pollutants, and land
use as it relates to water quality.
The purpose of the 208 planning process is to formu-
late an areawide water quality management plan that can be
implemented by a management agency or by a group of man-
agement agencies. These agencies must be identified in
the plan. The planning process therefore integrates both
the technical needs for pollution control and the manage-
ment arrangements required to implement the controls.
The Maine Department of Environmental protection
(DEP) played a major role in the development of five area-
wide 208 planning regions within the State. It was the
DEP which translated the 1972 Act and the Federal regula-
tions that followed the Act into a process allowing areas
to apply for designation at the State level. The areas
accepted were then forwarded through the Office of the
Governor to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for final acceptance. Because of the DEP1s initiative,
while many other states were holding back their designa-
tion processes, all five Maine areas were funded.
The S.K.V.R.P.C. has been interested in water quality
management activities since its inception in 1967. The
Commission assisted in the formation of a four-community
trunkline sewer project which removed a great deal of
municipal and industrial wastewater from a sensitive lakes
area for treatment and disposal in the Kennebec River.
The Commission also acted as the vehicle for an inter-
community planning effort in the Gardiner, Farmingdale and
Randolph area, leading to an agreement to use a single
collection and treatment system for the three communities.
At the request of Augusta, Chelsea and the Togus veterans
Administration Hospital, the Commission also investigated
problems in the Togus Pond and Stream area. Finally, the
Commission developed the enabling legislation, and after
passage, actively supported the creation of the Cobbossee
Watershed District. This District is the first of its kind
in Maine and is empowered to raise money to improve water
quality and insure water levels within its jurisdiction.
Because of these activities occurring between 1967 and 1974,
the S.K.V.R.P.C. felt that Section 208 was a natural contin-
uation of its water quality management involvement. In
undertaking the program, the Regional Planning Commissioners
-4-

-------
were particularly pleased with two aspects of 208 planning.
First, the comprehensive nature of the program allowed,
for the first time, the Commission to look at all aspects
of water quality management on a regional basis. Second,
and perhaps more important, Section 208 was intended as a
"bottom-up" process to allow analysis of water quality prob-
lems and their solutions at a regional level and thus
held the promise of greater local control of the important
decisions which are necessary to manage water quality. The
Commission has always advocated a strong role for local
governments and local citizens in all governmental planning
and implementation activities.
A very large part of the two year planning effort has
gone into increasing the understanding of the water quality
problems in the region. The Southern Kennebec Valley was
designated for 208 funding primarily because of the severely
degraded condition of several of its lakes and its compli-
cated system of regional wastewater collection and treatment
facilities. Thus the major emphasis was placed on the anal-
ysis of lake water quality and associated land drainages,
and on the future of the regional wastewater facilities sys-
tem. Because there were no indications of an areawide
groundwater quality problem, and because of the high costs
associated with the analysis of groundwater systems, this
aspect of the region's water resources was not a major focus.
A need for future research in this area was clearly identi-
fied during the planning process, however, in order to ade-
quately protect this resource from future water quality
problems.
The 208 investigations were divided into two groupings -
point and non-point sources of pollution. Point sources of
pollution enter surface or groundwater at a precise location
usually at the end of a sewer line, storm drain or treat-
ment facility outfall. Non-point sources of pollution enter
lakes, streams, rivers or groundwater over a large area and
are therefore difficult to collect at a single point for
quantification or treatment. Under the heading of point
sources of pollution, the 208 plan examines existing and
proposed community wastewater treatment systems, stormwater
runoff systems and combined storm and sanitary sewer sys-
tems in highly developed urban areas and major industrial
waste treatment arrangements within the region. Under the
heading of non-point sources of pollution, stormwater prob-
lems in non-urban areas, ac. icultural practices, construc-
tion activities, on-site subsurface waste disposal, solid
waste and other residual waste disposals, forest management
practices, sand and gravel miring and road salting and stor-
age were all examined. All of these subjects were investi-
gated while current and alternative future management ar-
rangements were being explored to determine how and by whom
the recommendations could be implemented.
-5-

-------
Throughout the two year planning process, interim
reports were written for review and comment so that the plan-
ners 1 increasing knowledge could be discussed, shared and
revised with the help of interested citizens and technicians
from many State and Federal agencies. The following is a
list of the program's interim reports. They will be refer-
enced throughout this final report and used to back up
the recommended plan. They are available for review at a
number of locations for convenience. These are the Regional
Planning Commission, the Cobbossee Watershed District, the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the u. S.
Environmental Protection Agency in Boston.
WATER QUALITY:
Existing Water Quality (December 1975) - an initial
analysis of the area's water quality.
Water Resources Data Availability (October 1975) - a
preliminary analysis of the extent of available
hydrologic and water quality data.
Water Quality Overview (April 1977) - a final assess-
ment of the region's water quality taking into ac-
count the data gathered as part of the planning pro-
gram.
STRUCTURAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES:
Existing Publicly Owned Facilities Report (October
1975) - a brief synopsis of the area's existing
municipally owned wastewater facilities.
Regional Facilities Overview (February 1976) - a
look into the region's 20-year sewering needs and
wastewater treatment needs.
Publicly Owned Facilities (March 1977) - a more
detailed report on the above subject including waste-
water facilities, stormwater needs and sewer systems.
Industrial Waste Overview (January 1976) - a de-
scription of the area's industrial wastewater dis-
posal problems.
Non-Sewered Areas Wastewater Disposal Problems -
Phases I, n and III (June 1976; December 1976; Janu-
ary 197 7) - a three part study of the non-sewered
areas in terms of their wastewater disposal problems,
the physical, institutional and financial alterna-
tives available to them, and other subsurface dis-
posal recommendations.
-6-

-------
Areawide Water Quality Management Plan for Gardiner
Subregion Waste Management Systems (January 19 77)
- By SEA Consultants, Incorporated, Boston, Mas-
sachusetts .
Report On Facilities Planning Update, Urban Runoff and
Storm Drainage, Future Sewer Service Areas, Sedimenta-
tIon7Erosion and Sludge Disposal For the Richmond ~
Utilities District (September 1976) - By Wright, Pierce,
Barnes & Wyman Engineers & Planners, Topsham, Maine.
20 8 Study, Manchester (February 1977) - By Carroll E.
Taylor and Associates, Auburn, Maine.
20 8 Study, Winthrop (October 19 76) - By Carroll E.
Taylor and Associates, Auburn, Maine.
An Analysis of the_Hall_owell Water District Waste Manage-
ment System with Regard to Storm Sewers Sewer Service
Area Extensions, and Water Quality Problems in Hallowell,
Maine" (December 19 76] - By James W. Sewall Company, Old
Town, Maine
A Study of the Storm Water Management System of the Town
of Monmouth, Maine (January 1976) By Herbert R. Doten,
Consulting Engineer, Augusta, Maine.
A Study of the Waste Management of the Town of Monmouth
Maine (December 1976) - By Curt. E. Beal Associates,
Incorporated, Augusta, Maine.
Inter-Community Trunkline Analysis (August 1976) - Whitman
and Howard, Incorporated, Wellesley, Massachusetts
Water Quality Management Plan, Augusta Sector (December
1976) - Whitman and Howard Incorporated, Wellesley, Mas-
sachusetts .
LAND USE AND NON-POINT SOURCES OF WASTES:
Economic Conditions in the Southern Kennebec valley
(November 1975) - a study of the region's manufact-
uring, employment and other pertinent data.
Demographic Trends and Projections (January 1976) -
study of the region's population with projections
for the future.
Transportation Analysis (February 1976) - an analysis
of the region's transportation networks and traffic
volumes.
Land Use Trends and projections (March 1976) - an
analysis of the 1966-1974 changes in land use.
-7-

-------
Preliminary Land Use Constraints (June 1976) - a
brief description of the area's critical and sensi-
tive resources.
Non-Point Source Pollution (March 1976) - a prelimi-
nary look at the non-point pollution problems in the
region, including guidelines for their control.
Land Use Evaluation Areas - Selection (February 1976) -
a short explanation of a select number of areas for
land use - water quality study.
Preliminary Report on Development Goals - (March 1976) -
an analysis of the area's land use and development
attitudes.
Lakeshed Study Areas - Detailed Studies of Land Use -
Water Quality Relationships in the Southern Kennebec
Region (April 1977) - comprehensive studies of the
seven lakesheds chosen for intensive land use - water
quality studies: Annabessacook Lake, Cobbossee Lake,
Pleasant Pond, Togus Pond, Jamies-Hutchinson, Carlton-
Narrows and Lovejoy-Pocasset.
Non-Point Sources of Pollution to Lakes (April 1977) -
a summary type report of the above lakeshed studies
expanded to the other lakes in the region.
MANAGEMENT:
Legal-Institutional Arrangements for Area-wide Waste
Treatment Management Planning (March 19 76) - an over-
view study conducted by four Maine 208 agencies.
Regional Managment Study (February 1977) - a study
of the local and reginal institutions, their strengths
and weaknesses with initial recommendations.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (January 1977) -
a joint publication of the Commission and EPA on the
impacts of the various management alternatives.
The Plan is divided into two Parts. Part I, entitled
PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS consists of a chapter briefly describing
the region in terms of its current land and water conditions,
population and economic characteristics, and political and
institutional arrangements. This is followed by the main body
which consists of plan recommendations under the sub-headings
of Land Use Planning, Structural Wastewater Facilities, and
Water Quality Management. Part II is entitled IMPLEMENTATION
ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPACTS. This Part translates the recom-
mendations of Part I into recommended actions at the local,
State, and Federal levels as well as the role of various pri-
vate sector groups and the Regional Planning Commission. Parts
-8-

-------
I and II are also a Federally required assessment of the pro-
posed plan, containing environmental, economic and social-
political impacts of the various recommendations.
The region's waters are one of the most important re-
sources it possesses. The Commission firmly believes that
all persons must understand the components of good water
quality management and make a commitment to implement water
quality management in this region. This plan represents the
first comprehensive attempt to carry out this belief.
-9-

-------
THE SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY SETTING

-------
THE SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the Southern
Kennebec valley. its purpose is to give a frame of refer-
ence to the recommendations in the next section of the plan.
For a more complete description of the setting, see chapter
Two of the Draft Environmental impact Statement on the pro-
posed 208 Water Quality Management Plan for the Southern
Kennebec valley of Maine as well as the several interim
reports that are referenced in the text.
1. The physical Setting
The Southern Kennebec Valley area is located in south
Central Maine in a region including the Kennebec River from
Merrymeeting Bay north to the head of tide in Augusta (see
Maps 1 and 2) . To the west of the Kennebec River, the
Cobbossee drainage includes a number of large lakes. Fur-
ther to the west, a portion of the Androscoggin River, the
Thirty Mile Stream, runs through the region with another
chain of connected lakes. The terrain is higher and steep-
er in the north-west corner of the region. (Refer to Map 3
in back pocket.) To the east of the Kennebec there are
fewer lakes and ponds; the Togus Pond drainage area is the
only large system wholly within this portion of the study
area. The drainage of the region also includes extensive
wetlands and floodplains. (See pocket Map 4 and 5.)
The surficial geology of the region includes areas of
sand and gravel, marine clays and till that is shallow to
bedrock. (See Pocket Map 6.) Many of the soils occurring
in these deposits are considered poor for a number of
development and waste disposal uses. Other constraints in
the region include extensive wetlands and floodplains. As
indicated in a report by the Maine Bureau of Geology en-
titled Reconnaissance of Ground Water Resources and Sur-
ficial Geology of the Southern Kennebec Valley, several sur-
ficial deposits store large quantities of groundwater.
(See Pocket Map 7.)
The Study established six categories of land uso: 1)
densely developed urban areas, 2) less dense suburban and
rural development, 3) agricultural land, 4) reverting
fields, 5) forest land and 6) wetlands. Table 2 on page 13
-10-

-------
shows the various land uses by municipality in 1974. in
1974 forests covered 72% of the region's land area.
Between 1966 and 1974 significant land use changes
occurred. Table 1 shows changes in selected land uses on
a regional basis.
Table 1



SELECTED LAND USE COMPARISON IN
THE 208
STUDY
AREA
Land use Type
1966

1974
URBAN-RURAL DEVELOPMENT
17,219
acres
30,780
dense urban areas
suburban, village, rural areas
open recreational areas
sand and gravel pits
3,058
13,021
302
838

4,461
24,504
293
1, 522
AGRICULTURAL LAND
44,201

31,439
FOREST LAND
223,977

227,853
disturbed
undisturbed
156,457
67,520

28,161
199,692
WETLANDS
12,998

12,941
It is important to note that while the amount of farmland
within the region decreased between 1966 and 19 74, the in-
tensity of that use increased. That is, more livestock
were kept on less land. This is significant in terms of
non-point pollution as will be demonstrated in the discussion
of agricultural water quality management activities. Be-
sides the decline in agricultural acreage, Table 1 shows a
significant increase in developed land, especially the sub-
urban village and rural areas category. This land use
change is also significant in terms of non-point pollution.
The relationship between these major land uses and current
water quality can be seen graphically in Figure 1, taken
from the report entitled Non-Point Sources of Pollution to
Lakes.
The quality of the region's waters varies greatly. Some
lakes and streams exhibit very high quality while others are
severely polluted. The major contaminant to the area's lakes
are nutrients which encourage the growth of algae, particu-
larly phosphorus. The planning process identified two impor-
tant criteria for judging the needs of lakes for various
water quality management activities. These two criteria are
current water quality and assimilative capacity. (See Maps
8 and 9.) The assimilative capacity of a lake is its ability
-11-

-------
FIGURE 1
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING TO
SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY LAKES1
1976-77
AGRICULTURE
(manure fields)
DEVELOPMENT
20%
FORESTS
8%
PRECIPITATION
5%
SEPTIC TANKS
3%
INTERNAL2
0	1000	2000	3000	4000	5000	6000
kilograms/year
"'"Sum of loadings from 21 of the region's
28 lakes.
Phosphorus release from lake bottom sediments m
Annabessacook Lake.

-------
Table 2
1/
1974 LAND USES — SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY REGION
(by percentage)
Developed Areas

1/



Agri.
Reverting
Forest
Wet-
Municipality
Total
Urban
Suburban
Other
Land
Fields
Lands
lands
Augusta
16%
6%
9%
1
8%
4%
66%
7%
Chelsea
10
—
9
1
10
8
69
4
Farmingdale
13
5
6
2
12
5
68
2
Fayette
6
—
6
0
6
2
83
4
Gardiner
21
9
11
1
9
4
66
1
Hallowell
27
15
9
3
18
5
50
0.1
Litchfield
7
—
6
1
9
4
78
2
Manchester
10
—
9
1
10
2
76
2
Monmouth
9
—
8
1
14
3
69
6
Mt. Vernon
5
—
5
0
6
2
79
8
Pittston
8
—
8
0
10
10
70
2
Randolph
32
20
12
0
19
14
35
0
Readfield
9
—
o
U
1
10
3
76
3
Richmond
12
2
10
0
20
5
61
2
Vienna
4
—
4
0
5
2
84
4
Wayne
8
—
7
1
6
2
80
4
West Gardiner
10
—
10
0
11
7
70
1
Whitefield
6
—
5
1
12
5
73
5
Windsor
7
—
6
1
11
10
64
9
Winthrop
13
2
11
0
9
3
73
2
SKV REGION
10%
1%
8%

10%
5%
72%
4%
1/ Land Use Interpretation by Alda Stich, Landscape Architect, for SKVRPC.
2/ The percentages do not add to 100 in seme cases due to rounding of the figures.

-------
MAP B
CURRENT
LAKE WATER QUALITY
MODERATE


LOW
mt venNQN
\ i)
V
fj v LiTc.HFiei^a
f	-~i
/ ,/ '
[ Soullieii1 KmwK.
-------
MAP 3
ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY
HIGH
LOW
MT VERNON
MONMOU
OAPDINBR

Southern Kennebec Valley
Regional Planning Commission
location map
SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY REGION

This map has been financed with
Federal funds from the Environmental
Protection Agency under Grant no.
P 001-06-301
PRIPARID BV P. ROWLAND
JUNE a, 1977 FOR SKVRPC
-15-

-------
to withstand additional amounts of phosphorus. A lake's
shape, depth, volume and flushing rates are all taken
into account in determining its assimilative capacity.
Table 3 which follows the maps interprets these factors in-
to the need for protection, ranked high, moderate or low
as shown in Map 10. The surface water classifications of
the region's waters are depicted in Map 11.
There are four lakes in the region with currently low
water quality: Annabessacook, Cobbossee, Little Cobbossee
and Pleasant Pond. Several streams which are tributaries
to these eutrophic lakes were monitored during the plan's
development. Of primary interest was the amount of phos-
phorus (a nutrient) being carried to the lake. Several of
the streams showed high phosphorus content, including
Wilson Stream and Mill Stream into Annabessacook, jock
Stream and jug Stream into Cobbosseecontee, and Potters
Brook into Pleasant Pond.
Water quality in the Kennebec River as it flows
through the region is severely degraded. This is due to
upstream pollution from the Waterville-Winslow area and
the municipal waste from the Augusta through Gardiner cor-
ridor within the region. The degradation is evidenced in
visible solids and complete oxygen depletion resulting in
an anaerobic decomposition with its associated foul odors
during low flow periods. The tributaries to the Kennebec
are severely degraded during storm runoff periods accumula-
ting sediment and other pollution from developed lands and
roadways.
The uses of the region's waters are varied, ranging
from industrial and domestic water supply to recreation and
wastewater disposal. Several lakes are used for public
water supply as shown in Map 12; unfortunately two of these,
Pleasant Pond and Cobbossee, have severe water quality
problems. The Kennebec River is a major receptacle for
wastewater disposal throughout the entire Kennebec valley.
Pocket Map 13 illustrates that all of the industrial and
municipally-collected wastewater is or will be discharged
into the Kennebec River after treatment. Most lakes have
both year-round and seasonal development, although the
trend is toward year-round usage. Map 14 shows the drainage
areas within the 208 region. It is important that any
water quality management activities take into account the
different needs of various drainages.
For more detailed information on the physical setting
of the study area, see the interim reports entitled Land
Use Trends and projections and water Quality Overview.
-16-

-------
Table 3
LAKE RESOURCES
NEED FOR PROTECTION^/
High Need for Protection: low water quality (phosphorus
concentration equal to or greater than 15 parts per
billion) and/or low assimilative capacity (slow
flushing or shallow).
Annabessacook Lake
Carlton Pond
Cobbossee Lake
Cochnewagon Lake
Little Cobbossee Lake
Lower Narrows Pond
Parker Pond
Pleasant Pond
Togus Pond
Torsey Lake
Upper Narrows Pond
Moderate Need for Protection: moderate water quality
(phosphorus concentration between 10 and 15 ppb) and/
or moderate assimilative capacity.
Androscoggin Lake
Berry Pond
Buker Pond
Dexter Pond
Hutchinson Pond
Maranacook Lake (upper basin)
Threecornered Pond
Low Need for Protection: high water quality (phosphorus
concentration less than 10 ppb) and/or high assimi-
lative capacity (deep or fast flushing).
Echo Lake
Plying Pond
Jamies Pond
Lovejoy Pond
Minnehonk Lake
Maranacook Lake (lower basin)
Pocasset Lake
Sand Pond
Wilson Pond
Woodbury Pond
i./ Phosphorus concentration of 15 ppb is oomtionly accepted as the level at
which nuisance algae blocms can be expected and is also used by the Maine
DEP as the upper level os phosphorus to be allowed in Class 6P-A lakes.
A level of 10-15 ppb was chosen to indicate moderate need for protection
somewhat arbitarily, reflecting water quality conditions relative to Maine.
-17-

-------
MAP lO
FOR PROTECTION
HIGH
LOW
MT VIRNON

Southern Kennebec Vafley
Regional Planning Commission
location map
SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY REGION
TMb map has been financed with
Federal funds from tta emrironmentat
Protection Agency under Grant no.
P-001-06-301
Scale 1": 16,000'
li 11 ? 1 fj *"
-18-


-------
MAP 11
Surface Water Classifications
flMT \ VBRNCMM
Compiled by: Cobbossee Watershed District
NOTES
1. All Rivers, Streams and Brooks not specified
are Classified B-1
ZAII Great Ponds are Presently Classified B-1
3.Maine	Department of Environmental Protection
recommended to the 108th Legislature the following;
(a| All Great Ponds to be Classified GP-A with the
following exceptions which are GP-B; Amabeeeacook,
Cobbosseecontee and Little Cobbosseocontce Lakes
and Pleasant Pond.
ib] Certain Streams to be Upgraded to B-2,denoted by *
(cj Certain Streams to be Upgraded to B-1,denoted by ~
4.Changes	in Classification denoted by-*-^.
^Nonoscooow
Has* j


W/
/ CHCLSIA /

Ml
RICHMOND
Southern Kennebec Valley Region
1" * 18,000'
CARTOOAAPMC STAFF:
Patrick D. RowUnd

-------
MAP 18
THE PUBLIC
WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
primary sources
secondary sources
WT ymNOlSi
Mafanadook Uteft
MMlYISM
V>
WtNOSO*
w(NT
pper >NarrdwsM0j5hd
hallow*
Kermfttec Vatfey
B^ooal Planning Commission
location map
SOUTHERN
KENNEBEC
valley region
Both Augusta and Gardiner Water Districts also
us® groundwater sources.
The Monmouth Water Association and th*
Richmond UtMtiss District us® groundwater only-
SSL-WJSSfc!!!!
ScMt 1**18,000'
****** A RBD BY - m. nCWLONO
•»M>m m, tmm worn «KVnpc

-------
MAP 14
DRAINAGE AREAS
/
A
v«rtr«
MAJOR BASINS
MINOR BASINS
LAKESHEDS

A
¦UMMIRHAVIN
LAKI
V
<\J.i
//,
3MAf
ii^ednm^o

IMCHMOND
.u
Southern Kannabac Vsllay
Regional Planning Commission
location map
SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY REGION
TWs map tin bm fW»w»d »rith
Fadsral lundt Irom tl» Environmental
Protection Jtaancy undar Grant no.
P-001-06-301
Scata 1H> 16,000'
33"	¦* MOWLAW
JiXstm a, W7 nn «kv«pc
_

-------
2 population Distribution and Economic Setting
The population of the region has been growing in the
past decade and its distribution has been changing. The
profile of population change in 1960-1975 indicates a
shift in the growth of numbers of residents from urban to
rural places. The urban and rural distinction is not
merely one of the population of a municipality. It in-
volves also the density of the development. During the six-
ties, the communities bordering the west bank of the Kenne-
bec River from Augusta to Gardiner, with the exception of
Farmingdale and with the inclusion of Randolph across the
river from Gardiner, either lost residents or gained only
a very small number. These communities are the most densely
settled in the region and continue to attract commercial
and industrial development.
This shift in the decade of the sixties reflects
national and State trends. People moved out from densely
settled urban areas to surrounding suburbs or the country-
side. The estimated population changes from 1970-197 5
further emphasize this shift. Table 4 on the following
page indicates the population change in each community with-
in the study area from 1960-1975. Map 15 which follows
graphically illustrates this change.
The growth rate of the region's labor force from 1960-
1970 exceeded that °f.the State by a considerable margin.
This trend continued into the early 1970-s	i
ability of jobs, however, did not Lllow tte trenSM
1975 the Augusta Labor Market Area (including all but two
towns xn the study area) began to fall behind the State
average as unemployment rose significantly At oresent
the region is still behind the State average present'
The region's work force is composed of a h-icrhor r^rcent-
^atfwilf^raSfanfS"1031 8113	worths th£ the
tltftZlT/fZZiranfopeSt^Pri??iLl0WS; ¦ °L
a function of the State GoveS^ent ^ S ThlS 13 Primarily
in Augusta. Not surprisingly, the City^^g^tf
primary place of employment within +--k~ ^ ^ugusta is tne
There Sere 14,183	in Aug^tf	re910"'
total, 7,078 resided within the city and A So,	•
other communities within the reaion & 4»783 resided in
residents of the region worked outcs^o ^roximatel-y 10,000
within Kennebec County and 3,000 outsitf Augusta; 7,000
2 shows the relationship of the reci-ini f County. Map
portation and economic corridor wh?r>,	State trans-
Maine Turnpike.	follows 1-95 and the
For further information on the*
setting, the reports entitled DemoarS«?U	and economlC
jections and Economic rrmH-j fiortr—1	Tffnds and pro-
yalley should be referenced. ~	the Southern Kennebec
-22-

-------
Table 4
POPULATION CHANGE — SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY REGION

1960
1970
% Change
1960-70
July 1,
1975
% Change
1970-75
Maine
969,265
993,663
2.5%
1,057,955
6.5%
Kennebec Co.
89,150
95,247
6.8
100,745
5.8
SKV REGION
54,001
57,268
6.0
60,453
5.6
Augusta
21,680
21,945
1
21,029
-4.2
Chelsea
1,893
2,095
11
2,287
9.2
Farmingdale
1,941
2,423
25
2,492
2.8
Fayette
328
447
36
518
15.9
Gardiner
6,897
6,685
-3
6,723
5.7
Hallowell
3,169
2,814
-11
2,790
-.9
Litchfield
1,011
1,222
21
1,540
26.0
Manchester
1,068
1,331
25
1,490
11.9
Monmouth
1,884
2,062
9
2,523
22.4
Mt. Vernon
596
680
14
756
11.2
Pittston
1,311
1,617
23
2,074
28.3
Randolph
1,724
1,741
1
1,879
7.9
Readfield
1,029
1,258
22
1,429
13.6
Richmond
2,185
2,168
-1
2,424
11.8
Vienna
160
205
28
233
13.7
Wayne
498
577
16
689
19.4
West Gardiner
1,144
1,435
25
1,642
14.4
Whitefield
1,068
1,131
6
1,449
28.1
Windsor
878
1,097
25
1,545
40.8
Winthrop
3,537
4,335
23
4,941
14.0
Source: U.
S. Census of Population,
1970; Current Population Reports,
Population Estimates and Projections, April 1975.
-23-

-------
MAP IS
POPULATION INCREASE AREAS IN
THE SKVRPC REGION
I960-1973
MT VIRIMON
B1°ta AND AIOVI
AUOU8TA
™WT QARDIIMbb-I
N3Q
Southern Kennebec Valley Region
PREPARFrn	^	
_ _ « vail^ j iw;
PREPARED BY'-R ROWLAND
FOR SKVRPC 6/77
-24-

-------
3. The political and Institutional Setting
The study area is composed of twenty cities and towns.
These units of general local government have police powers
which include the power to regulate land use. In terms of
the non-point sources of pollution which are closely associ-
ated with land use, each community has the power to limit
water pollution through the exercise of land use regulation.
In a summary of public attitudes towards land use controls
as reported in an interim report entitled Preliminary Report
on Development Goals, the following findings and conclusions
were presented:
1.	An awareness of increased population growth
pressures has stimulated a number of towns
to undertake comprehensive planning. The
awareness results primarily from an increased
rate of residential home building in the
towns.
2.	increasing growth is perceived as a potential
threat to the character of the community as
well as to the environment, and some communi-
ties are beginning to feel zoning is needed
to guide growth, presently five of the
twenty towns in the 208 Region have areawide
zoning.
3.	Most towns wish to preserve their small town
rural atmosphere which is characterized by
a small village center surrounded by low
density rural residences and farms. The Kenne-
bec River corridor towns (Augusta, Hallowell,
Farmingdale, Gardiner, Richmond, pittston,
Randolph and Chelsea) are more favorable to
a mix of urban and rural growth.
4.	Additional industrial growth is desired by
over half of the residents in the Kennebec
Corridor towns. Other towns reflect less of
a desire for additional industrial growth and
feel that the town needs some criteria from
which to judge the acceptability of industrial
development proposals.
5.	A majority of residents in the Kennebec Cor-
ridor towns and Litchfield prefer a slow
growth rate, with about 30 percent preferring
no growth at all. It is likely that this is
typical of the entire region.
6.	Areawide town zoning occurs in only five towns
in the region, and only a few exhibit an ade-
quate understanding of the purposes of such
-25-

-------
zoning - to encourage a diversity of uses
in such a manner as to protect natural
resources, and to minimize unnecessary costs,
which are imposed on the town by ill-planned,
poorly sited development.
7. Existing areawide zoning ordinances will not
discourage a widespread, linear sprawl pat-
tern of development in the future. There is,
therefore, a need to inform towns of alterna-
tive control mechanisms which could be util-
ized to avoid this kind of growth which could
escalate town service costs.
8• Only a few towns perceive the need to plan for
open space and recreation. Only one of the
towns with zoning provides for an open space
district.
9. Towns in the region are in basic agreement
with the goal of shoreland zoning - water
quality protection - and have fo? the most
part met and exceeded minimum State require-
ments for shoreland zoning. Concern ove"5ater
SrehensSr^/V1^0	in" few
comprenens lve plans which arque for
controls around water supplyi3vPa a ^ g
support to regional apprSIcLst^ter^ality
protection such as watershed districts! q y
10. It appears that towns have accents ™
which are related to protect-^ controls
while they have rejected areaw^Wa quality,
on the less
growth. Areawide plannlna	orderly
improvement ana protection mus^Serefore^e
based on clearly understanriaKi ~ *-«ererore be
between land use and water qualitvLa^1°Jships
be acceptable to the local J? ¥ 1 13 to
watershed management concept iSS?h°Pie* The
success of the 208 planing ef|o«? Y t0 the
A complex of institutions present-i
with point sources of pollution. Ma it' exists which deal
pocket should be referenced. Theresa encl°sed in the
wastewater treatment plants in operat- ^ tW° Publicly-°wned
The Augusta Sanitary District operated Wlthin the region,
facility serving the City of Augusta a ^ Primary treatment
Chester, Winthrop and Monmouth and most p t?wns of Man_
The Augusta Sanitary District is awa ' +- ¦	industries.
to construct a secondary treatment additfundin(?
ing facility. The Hallowell water Dis-t- • ¦ heir exist-
Federal funds in order to build inter iCt :''s a^so awaiting
nect to the Augusta plant. The Richmo6^ •S^wers to con~
also operates a primary treatment plan? utilities District
Richmond. The District is awaitina	serviri9' the town of
aerai funds to upgrade
-26-

-------
its sewer system and add secondary treatment. The City of
Gardiner and the towns of Farmingdale and Randolph presently
discharge raw wastewaters. They are waiting for Federal
funds to build a regional secondary treatment facility and
interceptor system.
In urban areas, stormwater is handled by catch basins
and storm or combined sewer systems discharging to lakes,
streams or the Kennebec River. in some cases these sewers
are the responsibility of a sanitary district; in others
they are operated by the municipality. In the rural areas,
stormwater is usually handled by drainage ditches along road-
ways maintained by the State Department of Transportation
or the municipality.
Most of the major industrial firms in the region use
the available public sewer systems. In Augusta this includes
the Edwards Manufacturing Company (textile), Lipman Poultry
Company, and Kirschners meats. The Carleton Woolen Mill in
Winthrop and the Globe Albany fabric mill in Monmouth are
connected to the trunk sewer which conveys the wastewater
to the Augusta treatment plant. In Gardiner, the Yorktowne
Paper Mill is prepared to use the public sewer system as
soon as the Cobbossee Stream interceptor is constructed.
The Statler Tissue paper mill in Augusta has built its own
treatment plant. The Togus Veterans Hospital in Chelsea is
also operating its own treatment facility. For further
information on existing and proposed facilities, see the
interim reports entitled Publicly Owned Facilities and Indus-
trial Waste Overview and the STRUCTURAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES
section of this report.
A major task of the 208 planning process has been to
coordinate the water quality management functions of the
numerous institutions which affect point and non-point
sources of pollution. The following section entitled THE
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHERN KENNEBEC
VALLEY describes the results of this process.
-27-

-------
PLAIN! RECOMMENDATIONS
LAND USE PLANNING: CONTROL OF NON-POINT SOURCES OF
POLLUTION AND UTILIZING OUR LAND

-------
LAND USE PLANNING: CONTROL OP NON-POINT SOURCES OF
POLLUTION AND UTILIZING OUR LAND
I. Animal waste Management
Animal waste management has been shown to have a
significant impact on several lakes in the Southern Kenne-
bec valley Region. This was detailed in the interim report
entitled Non-Point Sources of Pollution to Lakes- Lake
eutrophication - the process of overenrichment by phosphorus
with resultant nuisance algae growths, has been identified
as the region's number one water quality problem It has
previously been shown that animal wastes contain*large
quantities of phosphorus. One dairy cow produces 16 times
as much phosphorus per year as one human, and in the cobbos-
see Stream lakes area there are approximately 42 dairy opera-
tions including 3,300 animals. m terms of phosphorus pro-
duction, this is the equivalent of 52,800 people. The popu-
lation in this same area is roughly 12,000 including the
towns of Monmouth, Litchfield, Winthrop, Readfield, west
Gardiner, Wayne, Wales and Fayette.
Obviously, the potential for phosphorus loading to
lakes from animal wastes is great. m fact, studies con-
ducted m the cobbossee Lake watershed (see 208 interim
report "Cobbossee Lake Study", April lQ^T shoSed tha£l0%
of all animal related phosphorus wastes produced in the
watershed eventually reaches the lake. At this rate of loss,
manure runoff is a major source of phosphorus Jo several
lakes, contributing 30% or mora of the total ye°r!y p£os-
phorus input. These include three of the four nrohlSn lakes
m the region - Cobbossee Lake Tittle r^v.£ problem lak
and pleasant Pond - and nine other ^L^bOSSe? ¦Lake'
otner moderate quality lakes.
It is important to note that agricultural
AnnabessacooK Lake'and^h^nlo' CoSSss91"19 directly int°
to become degraded to their present- ^ see caused the lakes
Because of the stress placed upon	condition.
charges, they no longer can withstand +^«eS from these
loadings they could in the past fl&c	pollutional
direct discharges have beenT^the £act that the
Augusta sewage treatment facility	diverted to the
-28-

-------
All sources of phosphorus are now significant. Be-
cause total reversal of the degradation caused by past
point sources is not considered realistically achievable
even with in-lake restoration techniques, to adequately
restore the lakes to good water quality, agricultural
phosphorus contributions must be reduced as well as con-
tributions from development and other sources.
The future of agriculture, and hence its future im-
pact on lakes not presently stressed, is difficult to
assess. The amount of land in active agricultural use
has been declining statewide for some time. More impor-
tantly, however, the average beef and dairy herd size
has steadily increased so that more animals are being
supported on less land. Between 1966 and 1974 agricult-
ural land in the region dropped by 29%, but between 1969
and 1974 the total number of animals increased by 12%.
If these trends continue, agriculture could increase by
45% by 1995. Without controls to reduce phosphorus runoff
from animal wastes, this could endanger the future water
quality of several of the region's lakes, including
Berry pond, Maranacook Lake, Cochnewagon Lake, Torsey
Lake and Upper Narrows Pond.
Excessive phosphorus runoff of animal manures is pri-
marily the result of inadequate winter manure storage and
disposal practices. in the past, farmers stored manure
in pits beneath their barns, accessible through a system
of wooden trap doors. Health regulations, however, were
implemented which prohibited this practice and forced the
farmers to remove the manure from their barns and store
or dispose of it elsewhere. in most cases, to adequately
handle manure in the winter, a storage facility is needed
as shown in Figure 2. However, costs of a winter manure
storage facility today range from $8,000 to $25,000. A
maximum of $2,500 is allowable for 75%-25% Federal match-
ing grant assistance under the Agricultural Conservation
Program from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service (ASCS) of the u. S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA). Because dairy farmers do not control the price of
their product they cannot pass these costs on to the con-
sumer and therefore cannot afford to build a storage
facility without grant assistance. As a result, they
have been forced to spread or pile the manure on frozen
fields. This is an appropriate practice only if slopes
do not exceed 3%, a highly uncommon situation in this reg-
ion. The result - runoff of much of the manure during
snowmelt and spring runoff.
Other 208 reports which detail the impacts of manure
runoff on lakes, and which discuss the present and future
extent of agricultural operations, include:
Non-Point Source pollution (March 1976)
Non-Point Sources of Pollution to Lakes (April 1977)
-29-

-------
Figure 2
Earthen Lagoon for Storage of Liquid Manure
comm
Pao ,
Concrete Storage Pit for Solid Manure

-30

-------
Individual Lakeshed Studies (April 1977)
Annabessacook Lake
Cobbossee Lake
Carlton and Narrows Ponds
pleasant Pond
Togus Pond
Lovejoy and pocasset Lakes
jamies and Hutchinson Ponds
To reduce phosphorus runoff from animal wastes a num-
ber of technical policies and standards are outlined below,
followed by a series of management recommendations describ-
ing how these policies and standards should be implemented.
Recommended Policies and Standards;
Manure disposal operations should, where practicable,
follow the practices recommended by the "Maine Guidelines
for Manure and Manure Sludge Disposal on Land", except
that spreading should not be allowed within 100 feet nor
piling within 300 feet of any wells, springs, ponds, lakes,
or tributaries to lakes (including intermittent tribu-
taries) .
An animal waste management plan should be developed
for every commercial farm, consistent with the Maine
Guidelines as amended above. This should be part of an
overall farm conservation plan which details procedures
necessary to avoid loss of agricultural productivity as
well as export of pollutants. All plans must be approved
and filed with the Kennebec Soil and Water Conservation
District and made available to the Cobbossee watershed Dis-
trict (for towns within its boundaries) and the Southern
Kennebec valley Regional Planning Commission. For the
estimated 75 commercial dairy or beef farms in the region,
this could cost on the order of $30,000 in Federal time
(SCS engineers and support staff). Another $4,000 in
Federal planning time could be required to develop plans
for approximately 65 poultry operations in the region.
Where practices in conformance with the Guidelines
are not practicable due to financial limitations, interim
plans should be developed and should include best possible
piling sites for winter storage, or some alternative to
spreading on frozen soils.
It is projected that without Federal grant assistance
few farmers will be able to implement recommended manure
management plans. in most cases, a winter manure storage
facility is needed, which can range in cost from $8,000
to $25,000. Cost estimates for facilities on 23 dairy
farms in the cobbossee Lake, Annabessacook Lake and
Pleasant pond drainages total $266,000, or an average of
$11,600 per farm. If this average is typical, it will
cost on the order of $870,000 to provide facilities for
all beef and dairy farms in the region.
-31-

-------
Plans may require revision if observance of approved
practices nonetheless results in phosphorus concentra-
tions in tributaries to lakes of 50 parts per billion
(ppb) or greater (instantaneous levels); or in-lake con-
centrations above critical levels as defined under the
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT: STANDARDS, RESTORATION AND
MONITORING section.
Consideration should be given to the prevention of
direct pollution of lakes and their tributary streams
from adjacently pastured animals. Animal waste manage-
ment plans should address the need for fencing animals
out of lakes and streams, and provision of alternate
watering sources, where feasible.
Management Recommendations;
The primary cause of excessive non-point pollution
from agriculture in the Southern Kennebec valley Region
is the inability of many farmers to properly handle
animal waste in the winter months due to lack of finan-
cial resources needed to construct appropriate manure
management systems. Therefore, the solution to the prob-
lem is primarily one involving financial assistance, not
regulation, as detailed below.
The Federal Government should develop grant pro-
grams to assist farmers in the construction of manure
pits and other systems necessary to ensure proper manure
management. This could be accomplished by augmenting
the existing Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS) grant program and changing the existing
grant limit of $2,500 per farmer per year per project.
ASCS should be allowed to grant a larger sum of money
for manure storage pits to individual farmers. Alterna-
tively, a new program could be developed through the
Environmental protection Agency (EPA) for financing man-
ure storage facilities.
Because changing existing Federal programs or initi-
ating new programs could be a long term process, the 208
planning program undertook to utilize existing programs
to improve agricultural waste management. it was dis-
covered that Federal grant money was available at a local-
Federal ratio of 50:50 from EPA through Section 314 of
the Federal water pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (Lake Restoration) which could be utilized for manure
management systems. Coupled with existing ASCS and Small
Business Administration (SBA) or Farmers Home Administra-
tion (FmHa) programs, this program was seen to have great
potential for assisting farmers in the watersheds drain-
ing into Annabessacook Lake, Cobbossee Lake, Little
Cobbossee Lake, and Pleasant Pond, all of which remain
eutrophic in whole or in part due to agricultural runoff.
As a result, the Cobbossee watershed District, u. S. Soil
-32-

-------
Conservation Service, the Kennebec County Soil and water
Conservation District, and the Southern Kennebec Valley
Regional planning Commission cooperated in developing a
grant proposal to EPA for this purpose. A grant totalling
$278,000, of which $133,000 was earmarked for agricultural
purposes, was awarded to the Cobbossee Watershed District
in August of 1977.
The possibility of utilizing tax incentive programs
to encourage proper manure management should be studied
from both a State and local perspective. Tax credits
(sales and property) are presently available to industry
for pollution abatement facilities.
The Kennebec County Soil and Water Conservation
District should continue to encourage proper manure man-
agement practices through education and persuasion. it
should actively assess the performance of its members
through periodic field surveys to check conformance with
approved plans on file at its office. When problems are
encountered, every effort should be made to assist the
farmer in the correction of such. The Soil and Water
Conservation District should be the primary agency deal-
ing with the farmers, and should be contacted by the
Planning Commission, Cobbossee Watershed District or
Department of Environmental protection whenever problems
are brought to their attention, for the purpose of re-
solving these problems. The DEP is proposing to use in-
stream phosphorus standards to identify among other
things gross problems arising from agricultural runoff.
If in a period of five years there has been little
noticeable activity to reduce agricultural runoff, the
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission,
the Department of Environmental Protection and the Cobbos-
see Watershed District should reassess the problem to
determine if additional measures,such as greater finan-
cial assistance or regulation, are needed.
2. Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater
from Agricultural Activities
Animal waste, particularly poultry manure, is high
in nitrogen. Because nitrogen leaches readily through
soil to groundwater, nitrate contamination could occur
if manure is disposed of improperly. Contamination of
private wells from animal wastes does occur in the region,
but only in isolated instances. There is no evidence
to indicate a widespread nitrate contamination problem
according to the Division of Health Engineering (Maine
Department of Human Services), and therefore this was not
pursued as a central water quality problem.
-33-

-------
Nitrate contamination can be serious, especially
for infants which can develop methemoglobinemia, a poten-
tially fatal blood disorder, from excessive amounts of
nitrate-nitrogen in water supplies. Lacking a systematic
way to detect nitrate contamination in the future in
water supplies, the plan recommends the following:
Recommended policies and Standards:
Disposal of manure on land should be done on appropri-
ate soils and at appropriate rates of application as
specified in the "Maine Guidelines for Manure and Manure
Sludge Disposal on Land."
A program to encourage proper manure disposal on
non-commercial farms as well as commercial farms should
be initiated. It is often the small non-commercial
farmer that is most unaware of appropriate manure dis-
posal practices, in part due to the fact that SCS-ASCS
programs are geared to commercial farmers.
A groundwater testing program should be established
to determine possible nitrate contamination from manure
disposal. Refer to the WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT: STAND-
ARDS, RESTORATION AND MONITORING section.
Management Recommendations:
Existing educational programs through the Kennebec
County Soil and Water Conservation District should be
augmented and assisted by the State Department of Human
Services, the Cobbossee watershed District and the South-
ern Kennebec valley Regional Planning Commission to reach
non-commercial farmers as well as commercial farmers,
encouraging proper manure disposal and protection of
groundwater supplies.
Monitoring efforts to assess groundwater pollution
should be carried out in accordance with the water Quality
recommendations. The existing groundwater testing program
at the Department of Human Services, Public Health Labora-
tory, should be revised so that problem areas can be
readily referenced from the results.
3. Erosion from Agricultural Lands
Presently, according to the SCS and Kennebec Soil and
Water Conservation District, there is not a significant
erosion problem in the Southern Kennebec Valley Region
from agricultural lands. (See also 208 interim report
-34-

-------
"Water Quality Overview", April 1977, pp. 34, 61.) This
is primarily due to a lack of tillage in this area since
most fields are used for pasture or hayland. in 1974,
less than 2 percent of the total land area in the region
was tilled. Directly north of the region, there has been
a noticeable trend toward cultivated crops, particularly
corn, as dairy and cattle farmers have faced higher and
higher costs of importing grain for feed. The same
pressures have affected dairy and cattle farmers in the
Southern Kennebec Region, but here farmers have responded
with more intensive use of hayfields. Although the
difference may be due to poorer soils, it is too soon
to speculate whether or not increased corn production
will occur in this region in the future. if it does, the
need for conservation practices such as crop rotation,
contour plowing, strip cropping, and others will be
substantial with the hilly terrain and poor drainage
prevalent in the region.
Another phenomenon which can result in a signifi-
cant erosion problem in the region is the trend, already
evidenced, of clearing marginal land such as rocky, shal-
low, wet soils and land with steeper slopes. As resident-
ial and other development continues to compete for prime
agricultural land, farmers will be forced to utilize
their marginal lands in order to continue providing for
steadily increasing herd sizes. They cannot compete
successfully with developers and homesteaders for pro-
ductive land. The water quality implications of this
include increased erosion and runoff of applied ferti-
lizers. Measures to minimize these impacts are recommended
below.
Additional discussion can be found in an interim
report entitled Non-Point Source Pollution (March 1976).
Recommended policies and Standards:
Tillage practices should conform to accepted SCS
conservation practices including terracing, strip crop-
ping, contouring, use of diversions and grassed waterways,
crop rotation, and use of fall cover crops. These prac-
tices are designed to reduce soil loss to a limit of 3
tons per acre per year.
Land clearing activities should be conducted in
accordance with an erosion control plan approved by and
filed with the Kennebec County Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District to be available to the cobbossee Watershed
District (for towns within its boundaries) and Southern
Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission. This
should be part of an overall farm conservation plan.
The erosion control plan will assure that soil loss will
be minimized and that increases in runoff resulting from
land clearing will be retained on-site for infiltration,
-35-

-------
to the extent feasible. This will reduce the potential
stream bank erosion which could result from increased
runoff, as well as the transport of pollutants such as
phosphorus and pesticides.
The Soil conservation Service (SCS) of the u. S.
Department of Agriculture is mandated to assist farmers
in sound land management practices which will minimize
erosion from established fields or newly cleared fields.
It is not expected that a policy requiring an erosion
control plan for land clearing would add significantly
to the SCS workload in this region, so that additional
costs should be minimal.
Management Recommendations:
Best management practices for agricultural crop pro-
duction and land clearing should be encouraged on a volun-
tary basis to reduce erosion until such time as a demon-
strated problem arises mandating regulatory controls.
The Kennebec County Soil and water Conservation District
should continue to perform this role with assistance from
the SCS, Cobbossee Watershed District and the Southern
Kennebec valley Regional Planning Commission when approp-
riate. When problems arise, the Conservation District
should be the agency responsible for resolving them,
except that sedimentation violations are subject to
Department of Environmental protection regulation under
existing law. However, only gross violations are likely
to be enforced.
The possibility of utilizing tax incentive programs
to encourage proper management should be studied from
both a State and local perspective. Tax credits (sales
and property) are presently available to industry for
pollution abatement facilities.
4. Erosion and Sedimentation from Construction
Construction activities are presently a source of
sedimentation to the region's rivers and lakes, observa-
tions as a result of the 208 monitoring program of the
areas waterways led to the conclusion that while not a
widespread problem, sedimentation from construction is
a growing problem. Between 1966 and 1974, developed
lands grew by 76% (or a total of 13,000 acres). These
figures were developed through a comparison of aerial
photographs (see Table 2). Eight towns grew in excess
of 100% in that time - Fayette, Manchester, Readfield,
Vienna, Wayne, West Gardiner, Whitefield and Winthrop.
-36-

-------
Development in these towns increased by 5,800 acres. All
but one of these are major lakes communities.
The primary impact of new developments results from
erosion and sedimentation during construction phases.
Sediment yield from developing areas ranges from 1,000
to 100,000 tons per square mile per year in the eastern
United States, as compared to 200 to 500 tons per square
mile per year from undeveloped areas. Thus the short-
term impacts can be significant. Further, in some cases,
improper engineering of structures or roads could create
a long-term erosion problem persisting even after the
construction phase is completed.
The water quality impacts include loss of fish habi-
tat and other aquatic life, and changes in stream chan-
nels through increased scouring and deposition. if a
waterbody is used for a water supply, pretreatment needs
will increase, costing the consumer.
The primary approach recommended to minimize erosion
and sedimentation from construction activities is regula-
tory. Avoidance of erosion and sedimentation can be
accomplished through the use of site planning and a few
structural measures at a cost which is relatively low
compared to total project costs, yet few developers have
incorporated erosion control measures into their con-
struction activities. Figure 3 illustrates a number of
these for a hypothetical construction site, and Table 5
contains a more complete listing of these measures.
Costs range from a few hundred dollars per acre for straw
or woodchip mulching to several thousand dollars per acre
for blanket sodding. Diversion dikes and berms range in
cost from $300 to $400 per hundred lineal feet. Sediment
traps could consist of a series of straw bales designed
to catch eroding sediment or a structured basin which
would cost $100 to $200 per acre of development (the
size of the sediment basin is related to the size of the
development). Thus for a typical development which
would market 1 acre residential homes at $35,000 to
$40,000, the costs may be raised by a few hundred to a
few thousand dollars, which is not enough to alter market-
ability.
For a summary of erosion and sediment control mea-
sures for construction sites and their costs see the Non-
Point Source pollution interim report. Other excellent
references include a 1973 report by the U. S. Environ-
mental protection Agency entitled processes, procedures,
and Methods to control Pollution Resulting from all con-
struction Activities; another EPA report by Thronson (1973)
entitled comparative costs of Erosion and Sediment Control.
Construction Activities; a 1975 report by the SCS Standards
and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
in Developing Areas; the Environmental Quality Handbook for
Maine by the Maine Soil and Water Conservation Commission,
-37-

-------
FIGURE 3
Pegged sod-- stabilizes cut slope
uphiII from consirudion Siie.
Canstruciian Site.
I
I
U>
CO
I
Diversion Ditch and
DiKe- diverts SiormiMter
runoff from upstope areas
away from contraction
Stte.
Berm: diverts runoff-from
¦'•filled slope -fo slope drain.
Slope drain: channels runoff
/ ¦	from cons+ruc-fion safelu dou)n
f/Ued slope.
Drainage dlfcK
stabilized bqsod
orrocHs- cames
runoff +o sediment
Pond.
Seed and mulch: Stabilize
'banKs containing sediment
P01"^	level Spreader-.zero grade
cross slope channel u)/iich
Pond outlef converts channeled runoff
Pipe -f-o sheet-floua.
Sediment ponj-
settles out sediment
beFcire discharqinqio
natural draindgeiMy
energy dissipator
large rocKs, reduce
erosion force of
runoff.
towlkm
vege+atfi/e
buffer: slou)S
movement of
runoff and aids in-
¦filWion.
natural
Sfream
Typical Erosion and Sedimentation Controls for Construction Sites
Source: Cebbossee VhtersM District

-------
Table 5
CHECKLIST OF
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES
Measure
Purpose
Roadway Ditches
-	Check dams
-	sediment traps/
Straw bale filters
-	Sodding
-	Seeding with Mulch
and Matting
-	Paving, Riprap, Rubble
Roadway Surface
-	Crowning to ditch or
sloping to single berm
-	Compaction
-	Aggregate cover
Cut/Fill Slopes
-	Berm at top of cut
-	Diversion Ditch/Dike
-	Slope benches
-	Slope drains (piped, paved)
-	Sodding
-	Seed/Mulch
-	Slope Paving, Riprap
-	Temporary Cover (plastic sheets)
Protection of Adjacent Property
-	Brush barriers
-	Straw bale barriers
-	Sediment traps/pools
-	Energy dissipators
-	Level spreaders
Slow runoff, catch sediment
Catch sediment
Stabilize channels and banks
Stabilize channels and banks
with low velocity runoff
Stabilize channels or steep slopes
subject to high velocity runoff
Direct runoff to a prepared ditch
Reduces erosion potential
Minimize surface erosion, allow con-
struction traffic in adverse weather
Minimize erosion prior to paving
Diverts water from cut face, collects
for slope drains
Collects and diverts water to a suit-
able disposal area
Slows velocity of surface runoff; col-
lects sediment, collects water for
slope drains or may divert water to
natural ground
Channel water dcwn unstable slopes
Immediate stability of slopes; protect
adjacent property
Stablize moderate slopes with per-
manent cover
Provides irmvediate protection for high
risk areas and under structures
Temporary erosion control
Catches sediment
Catches sediment
Catches sediment
Slew velocity of runoff to permit sedi-
ment collection and minimize erosion
off site
Convert collected channel or pipe flow
back to sheet flew, reducing erosive
force, slewing runoff, and facilita-
ting infiltration
-39-

-------
1974; and an Erosion Control Handbook for Construction
Sites, an unpublished reference for local planning boards
and contractors put together by the construction sub-
committee of an ad hoc committee on erosion and sediment
control, chaired by Fred Hutchinson, University of Maine,
Orono (1976-77).
Recommended policies and Standards;
Specific policies and standards to be utilized in
the development of erosion and sedimentation control regu-
lations are*.
Developers should be required to design an erosion
control plan which would minimize erosion during con-
struction of new subdivisions, commercial/industrial
developments, or roads. Such a plan should include a
schedule of major activities, and should provide for:
a.	Minimization of stripped areas at any one
time, and duration of exposure.
b.	Minimization of cut-fill operations.
c.	protection of natural vegetative cover
whenever feasible.
d.	Stabilization of disturbed soil as quickly
as practicable.
e.	Use of temporary vegetation or mulching
on areas to be exposed less than 12 months.
f.	Conservation of topsoil for use in estab-
lishing a permanent vegetative cover on
areas exposed more than 12 months.
g.	use of permanent structural erosion con-
trol measures when vegetative stabilization
is not feasible.
h.	Use of debris basins, sediment basins, silt
traps, etc. to capture soil which is un-
avoidably washed from the site during con-
struction.
i.	Use of diversions, berms, terracing, and
other techniques to minimize the impact of
stormwater on the cut face of excavations
or the sloping surfaces of fills.
j. Protection of adjacent properties from
adverse impacts from cut or fill operations.
-40-

-------
wii.h Road construction should be carried out in conformance
mmxmum standards to ensure maximum life expectancy
i . Minimum erosion. The recommended standards are out-
fh?o hrieflY below. Further explanation is available from
anS Southern Kennebec valley Regional Planning Commission
"u rrom the documents listed previously.
a'	nacre; A minimum of 12 inches of gravel
for roadbed drainage should be required. The
proper amount is related to soil type. pro-
per compaction is necessary to avoid soil
movements which might erode the shoulders of
the road.
k* Cut and Fill Embankments;
-Trees, bushes and stumps are not suitable
fill materials.
-Slopes should not exceed 33% (3:1) if
vegetative cover is to be established,
except on soils of low erodibility and ade-
quate moisture holding capacity, in which
slopes of 50% (2:1) are acceptable. How-
ever, a 33% slope is considered the maxi-
mum slope upon which maintenance equipment
can reasonably operate.
c* Loaminq and Seeding; A soils test should be
performed to determine if loaming and seed-
ing will adequately stabilize cut and fill
embankments. Soils with a silt-clay content
less than 25% or more than 85% are problem-
atic for plant growth.
A plant scientist or soil conservationist
should be consulted for appropriate stabili-
zation techniques. In areas suitable for
loaming and seeding, loam should be spread
on the prepared areas to a uniform depth of
two-three inches and should be free of
gravel, roots, stones, and other material
which would tend to form air pockets in
the soil. Erosion control practices, such
as berms, dikes, grassed waterways, grade
stabilization structures, diversion ditches,
and sediment basins, should be installed
prior to seeding.
d. Culverts: Gravel or sand should not be used
under the pipe, unless the natural founda-
tion material is unstable or cannot be com-
pacted. If the addition of foundation
material is required, it should be of uni-
form thickness.
Culverts should be checked periodically for
sand, silt and debris to prevent unnecessary
buildup and loss of stormwater capacity.
-41-

-------
e. Road Gradient: Where avoidable, roads should
not exceed a slope of 10 percent.
Management Recommendations;
Municipalities should utilize the Municipal Subdivis-
ion Law (T.30 §4956) and the Land Use Ordinance Law (T.33
§662) to control erosion and sedimentation resulting from
new developments. All developers should be required to
obtain a permit from the town prior to commencing con-
struction, a condition of which should be an erosion ana
sediment control plan.
Towns should have all erosion and sediment control
plans reviewed by the Kennebec County Soil and water
Conservation District and made available to the Southern
Kennebec Valley Regional planning Commission and the
Cobbossee Watershed District. The Conservation District
should be the key in the review process, certification
of the technical adequacy of the plan by the conservation
District should be required prior to approval of a
development.
A fee schedule should be defined to be charged to
the developer according to the size of the development,
to cover the cost of the technical review by the Kennebec
County Soil and Water Conservation District and a portion
of the town s costs for hearings, lawyers, etc.
Enforcement of approved erosion and sediment con-
trol plans should be accomplished by a town or regional
codes enforcement officer, with technical assistance from
the Kennebec County Soil and Water Conservation District
when necessary.
To guarantee adherence to an approved erosion and
sediment control plan, the developer should be required
to deposit funds or a bond which can be utilized to cor-
^CiJl0latl°r- r®fundable as the project is completed,
be DhSsSd°arnnrdS ? °CCUr in sta,3es» the refund should
^Lv ihSnld S ding}y' *A schedu;Le of the amount neces-
sary should be developed based upon the size of the pro-
Si violations should be subject to a
fine of not less than $25 for each occurrence.
of townsWhave"failed^to °tl^ S".	ic*nt nU"*f
j	. . . _	wtAKe action to control erosion
and sedimentation from develn™«o„+. a., Q-on^ro1- eJ-	—
qhed n-istr-in-h Qrmth«^ afve-Lopment, the cobbossee Water-
shed District, Southern Kennebec Vallev Recr-i onal planning
Commission, Kennebec Countv c-n-n	Re9l0nai P1T.'
District, and the Department oi ,.1"3 Wat6r	£„
should consider	/ °? Envi*onmental protection
lar to the Mandatory Shoreland zoning Act? ^ SU°
-42-

-------
5. Stormwater Runoff from Developed Areas
Runoff from established developed areas has been
identified as the second most significant non-point source
of pollution in the Southern Kennebec Valley Region. It
contains sediment, bacteria, metals, nutrients and chemi-
cals from activities such as vehicle operation, littering,
lawn fertilization, leaf burning, grass cutting, pet
waste disposal, car washing, and construction. In sewered
areas, urban stormwater can have a BOD (biochemical oxy-
gen demand) concentration which is 67% that of raw sewage
(Colston, 1974). This can have a significant impact on
receiving waters. The Kennebec River, for instance, may
not meet a Class B-2 quality (swimmable, fishable) in
the future simply due to stormwater runoff and combined
sewer overflows (see also WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT and
STRUCTURAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES sections).
The phosphorus content of runoff from developed
areas is 30 times that found in natural runoff - a fact
of great significance to lakes, given their tendency to
algae blooms when overenriched with phosphorus. Runoff
from development is presently the largest source of phos-
phorus to Togus pond in Augusta and Lower Narrows pond
in Winthrop, contributing 50% and 40% of the total annual
phosphorus load to these lakes respectively. in addition,
it is the second most significant source of phosphorus to
17 of 21 lakes studied in the region. (See 208 interim
report, Non-Point Sources of pollution to Lakes, April
1977.)
Since development is projected to increase substant-
ially in the future, it may well become a causative factor
in lake water quality degradation throughout the region
unless controls are instituted to reduce the water quality
impacts of this growing land use. Generally, increased
development will cause the lakes to suffer only a slight
loss in visibility as they become more productive, but
at least four may be triggered into severe algae blooms
due to their present marginal water quality and/or
extremely sensitive nature: Togus pond, Cochnewagon Lake,
Torsey Lake, and Upper Narrows pond.
Besides affecting water quality, increasing develop-
ment can also have a significant impact on the hydrology
of a watershed. The increase of residential and commerc-
ial-industrial developments in a watershed results in a
corresponding increase in impervious surfaces, as shown
in Table 6.
-43-

-------
Table 6
development density and stormwater runoff
_(sq ftI
lot size
(acres)
% impervious
ground cover
6,000
.14
80
8,700
.2
32
15,000
.34
25
78,400
1.8
8
Source: Leopold, 1968. Urban Hydrology.
U. S. Geological Survey
This reduces infiltration and increases runoff, which in
turn aggravates downstream flooding and erosion and pre-
vents replenishment of groundwater supplies. it also re-
sults in the transmission of more pollutants such as
phosphorus, pesticides, sediment, etc., to waterbodies.
Ultimately it could necessitate the construction of ex-
pensive stormwater sewers at great expense to the entire
community, especially if collected stormwater must be
treated prior to discharge to a sensitive waterbody (lakes
and small streams).
Figure 4 illustrates the changes that would occur in
the hydrology of an area before and after development, with
and without runoff controls such as detention and retention
basins. Luna Leopold, a hydrologists for the u. S. Geo-
logical Survey, describes the effects of these changes
(Urban Hydrology, 1968). If an undeveloped watershed one
square mile in size were urbanized 80%, the stream dis-
charge would double and cause the stream to deepen and
widen itself to accommodate the increased flow. Where
storm sewers exist, the same watershed urbanized by 50%
would cause the width of the stream to double and the
depth to increase by 50%; over a % mile stretch, this
would yield 2,500 tons of sediment in streambank erosion
alone.
Obviously, controls are warranted to assure that the
water quality and quantity impacts of development are mini-
mized, particularly in sensitive lake areas. A number of
measures are available which would slow or reduce runoff,
reducing the hydrologic impacts and at the same time allow-
ing pollutants contained in the runoff to settle out.
These are listed in Table 7, and a selected few illustrated
in Figures 5 through 7.
-44-

-------
FIGURE 4
HYDROLOGIC CHANGES CAUSED BY DEVELOPMENT
.Runoff Before Development
TIME
¦Uncontrolled Kwoff A for Development
^	Runoff Controlled By Detente
Runoff Contro/kd By /retention
-45-
Sown: Shorn Wshr Menzyemmt 0rs/pt a
Wa»w4/ of fr*tdurt$ and QuiSthtoes; Xcu
K Weston, l»c. &76	7

-------
Table 7
MEASURES FOR REDUCING AND DELAYING URBAN STORM RUNOFF
REDUCING RUNOFF	DELAYING RUNOFF
Large flat roof
1.
Cistern storage
1.
Ponding on roof by con-
2.
Rooftop gardens

stricted downspouts

3.
Pool storage or
2.
Increasing roof roughness


fountain storage

a. Rippled roof

4.
Sod roof cover

b. Gravelled roof
Parking lots
1.
Porous pavement
1.
Grassy strips on

a. Gravel parking

parking lots


lots
2.
Grassed waterways draining


b. Porous or punc-

parking lot


tured asphalt
*3.
Ponding and detention measures

2.
Concrete vaults and

for iitipervious areas


cisterns beneath

a. Rippled pavement


parking lots in

b. Depressions


high value areas

c. Basins

*3.
Vegetated ponding




areas around parking




lots



*4.
Gravel trenches


Residential	1. Cisterns for indi- *1.
vidual hones or	2.
groups of botes
2.	Gravel driveways	3.
(porous) 4.
3.	Contoured landscape 5.
*4. Ground-water recharge
a.	Perforated pipe
b.	Gravel (sand)
c.	Trench
d.	Porous pipe
e.	Dry wells
*5. Vegetated depressions
General	1. Gravel alleys	1. Gravel alleys
2.	Porous sidewalks
3.	Mulched planters
* See Figures 5, 6, and 7,.
Sources: U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Urban hydrology
for small watersheds. Technical Release no. 55.
Reservoir or detention basin
Planting a high delaying
grass (high roughness)
Gravel driveways
Grassy gutters or channels
Increased length of travel
of runoff by means of gutters,
diversions, etc.
-46-

-------
FIGURE 5
DUTCH DRAINS
		Mdat gem

Sm4* •/» ->~
Grass and 6-8"
course sand set on
a crushed stone base
Dividing strips between areas of ^permeable paving to collect
sheet runoff. These will usually be paved so as not to hinder
the passage of traffic. Alternatives are shown below.
To collect roof runoff for roofs without gutters. Drains run the whole length
of the eaves. Runoff falls directly onto the surface of the Dutch drain which
may be bare gravel, grass or occasionally porous paving. A combination
Dutch and French drain could also be used to ease the problem of
maintenance. Sidewalks running alongside may also discharge Into
Dutch drains.
SEEPAGE PITS
i a'.phak napimaid;
. *lhr®>
4

Hypothetical case showing a
seepage pit draining roof
and parking lot.
Construction. No pits should be constructed where the water table
TTTessilMn 48" below bottom of pit 1n all seasons. The ratio of
bottom area to side area should not exceed 1/2. If possible, coarse
sand or fine aggregate should be used at the bottom and edges while
backfilling. Only paved areas should drain Into these pits, and
they should either Incorporate a sediment trap or allow replace-
'tnent of a filter of sand.
Size. The minimum size of a pit should be sufficient to maintain Infiltration at predevelopment level. This
depends on the porosity of the soil and on the number of falls of rain per year. It 1s assumed that the seepage
pit will be located close to the Impermeable surfaces which 1t serves, and that the time of concentration will be
less than five minutes.	Additionally, extra capacity should be allowed to offset clogging and
loss of permeability of the pit. The minimum size recommended 1s to take the equivalent of 1" of rainfall over the
whole area of Impermeable surface drained. The maximum size should be to take the maximum design storm for a 24-
hour period.
Snot* "Mfcr (town* Thktim tkmm Ut
-47-	tutfX.

-------
FIGURE 6
DETENTION AND RETENTION PONDS
A detention basin 1s the most effective technique for reducing the peak
flow at a point immediately downstream of the Impoundment, and should be
used where frequent flooding 1n the area Immediately downstream Is Intoler-
able. Some detention ponds have a retention capacity (a small permanent
pool), but although retention of the design storm for periods longer than
the time of concentration can depress hydrograph, retention ponds should
only be used where recreational or water supply advantages are required.
Detention/Retention Ponds. Where a permanent pool 1s required for, say, recreation and amenity, flood control
must be provided by a volume 'on top' of the permanent pool	The same procedure may be used to cal-
culate the necessary storage volume and maximum discharge capacity of the spillway as for a detention pond,
Ignoring the volume of storage 1n the permanent pool. Note that If runoff Is carrying heavy sediment loads, the
aesthetic and recreational value of the permanent pool and Its surroundings will be severely reduced by depos-
ited sediment and would necessitate clean-up operations following storms.
Retention Ponds.
Retention ponds can only be located on a drainage channel 1f the channel only carries storm runoff. Their
efficiency 1s not as great as detention ponds per unit of storage. This 1s for two principal reasons. There
1s no outflow during the period of the storm and thus the storage capacity needs to be larger
Secondly, following a storm the pond will not be emptied rapidly and thus a second storm
could cause a high peak discharge. However, 1f the aim of a pond 1s to reduce the frequency of fairly small
floods downstream (which may be, for Instance, causing bank erosion) and at the same time provide some storage
for, say, Irrigation water; such a retention pond may be useful. They will also be effective 1n controlling
sediments for the design storm.
Retention basins may be located off channel, 1n which case they operate more or less as flood-skimming
devices and, provided they are emptied fairly soon after a storm, have a high efficiency per unit of storage
If, for Instance, 1t Is desired to 11m1t the discharge 1n a channel to predevelopment peak (QM)
for a 25-year storm, then a pipe with a maximum discharge capacity of QN would be located In the channel and
any flow 1n excess of this would be diverted Into the pond. This pond Would be of sufficient capacity to con-
tain all discharge 1n excess of QN for the design storm. In Figure 1, this volume 1s represented by the
trapezium BCDX. Thus, for a giveR storm, this type of basin requires less storage volume than a detention basin.
wet h> It m# max
. mv in mo»\ .
igjuwvff! todesiettt
Fl#w i»i twrfiOf-
ttvwt. iM ww«
Mwh
OvmA
f"
Hqa jj,	ix&ef
-------
FIGURE 7
MULTI-USE SEEPAGE AREAS (INFILTRATION BASINS)
These areas may be either paved (porous paving) or grass and may have vertical retaining walls or grass banks.
If the depth of water can reach more than 30", fencing around the facility should be provided. Examples:
1. Hard-surfaced basketball court draining grassed & paved areas. Water collects 1n grass swales around edge,
seeps into the gravel French dr&1n, dropping Its sediment load and discharges onto the porous asphalt. The grass
swales should be graded so that during very Intense storms some runoff can overflow to receiving water before
capacity of the seepage area 1s reached. In this way the effectiveness of the facility 1n reducing flood peaks
is Increased.
Coarse sand 1n
trench may be
replaced when
clogged.
l4lribtonWll

osm 6W0
/ftUsdfcWKS.
Maitw**I.

we.
^Ct ,c


otypopte lose.
In cases where use of facility 1s less pre-
dictable, 1t may be desired to Incorporate
a manually operated drain which may be used
1f the facility 1s required before seepage
1s complete.
Note: A deep aggregate base will keep the facility dry except during heavy storms.
Porous paving is in an early stage of its development and its capacity to resist clogging by sediment 1s not known.
It may be that providing the facility 1s vacuumed after each Inundation, sediment trapping swales and trenches could
be dispensed with. Most sediments will settle at edges where the flow of water is slowed.
Q&'tPbe .
2. Grassed areas should also be protected from sediment denncu*	L
course to allow reasonable surface conditions following Infiltration v,Hn!! men! !IUCted ?1th a deep P°rous bi»se
sediment prior to runoff discharging onto grass, but it should be rememhs^S w? tmay used t0 sett1e out
grass should be avoided where possible.	remembered that discharges from pipes directly onto!
® setrtirHtrJrptnd
(7) SiwUe mtfa
pojsous toam.
^ tatut getfAew* ofMt

Oi
Sturc*: "Wrtr tiaatnn fainhm Mtumrt
Mltmi OnthpuuM-A HutdMt*
ha r,	
-------
Infiltration of excess runoff produced by a develop-
ment is considered feasible only on soils which infil-
trate water at a rate of 0.07 5 per hour or more, costs
for providing infiltration depend on the measures selected
to accomplish this. A sedimentation basin is necessary
to remove sediment prior to discharging to an infiltra-
tion basin to prevent clogging. The cost of this is esti-
mated at $100 to $200 per acre of development drained
according to information in an EPA report Characterization
and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff by Newton Colston
(1974). The runoff collected by the sediment basin can
then be discharged to a flat, grassy area, with near
zero slope, the size of which would depend on the soil
type and the desired rate of infiltration. For this type
of system, infiltration within three hours is desirable.
This could mean that up to 13% of the site would be re-
quired for this purpose (on the most limiting soils with
% acre lot density). Costs would involve primarily grad-
ing and seeding down.
Alternatively, an infiltration basin could be pre-
pared with a gravel base equal in volume to half the vol-
ume of runoff to be infiltrated and covered by loam and
grass or porous pavement. (Figure 7). infiltration with-
in 12 hours would be desirable for this type of system,
and costs would range from $50 to $500 per acre of
development at a 1 acre lot density and $60 to $600 per
acre for a h acre lot density. The costs of providing
storm sewers for h acre developments is roughly $3,000
per acre.
For both types of infiltration areas described above,
desired infiltration rates reflect multiple use considera-
tions. . .parks, ballfields, etc.
Stormwater detention or retention systems could be
designed as a part of a runoff management system which
would decrease peak flow and remove sediment prior to
discharge to an infiltration basin or storm sewer. Costs
of these are $100 to $300 per acre of development, ap-
proximately the same as for sediment removal basins.
For additional reference see other 208 reports, in-
cluding: Non-Point Source pollution, the seven lake-
shed reports, publicly Owned Facilities, and Non-Point
Sources to Lakes.
Recommendations to alleviate water quality and
quantity impacts based on the above discussion follow
below:
Recommended policies and Standards:
In areas not served by storm sewer systems, developers
should be required to retain on site any additional storm-
-50-

-------
water runoff created by a change in land use in such a
way as to allow infiltration within a reasonable time
(3 to 12 hours). The design storm for residential
developments (impervious surfaces of 38% or less) is
the maximum 10 year 1 hour storm (1.5 inches); the
design storm for urban-commercial-industrial develop-
ments (impervious surfaces of 65-85%) is the maximum
25 year 1 hour storm (1.8 inches).
The above may be accomplished through single pur-
pose seepage or recharge basins or multi-use recharge
basins. (Figure 7). The size of the recharge basin
depends upon the soil type on the site, and may be
determined through the use of a Runoff Management Chart
available from the Southern Kennebec valley Regional
planning Commission or the cobbossee Watershed District.
Additional measures to increase infiltration such
as use of dutch drains or porous paving, can reduce the
size of seepage basin specified by the Runoff Manage-
ment Chart.
On-site infiltration need not be a requirement in
areas presently serviced by a storm sewer system which
has the capacity to accept additional runoff. However,
detention/retention basins may be required to reduce
the peak flow from a development thus enabling its
acceptance to an existing storm sewer system. (Figure 6).
Developers should be required to submit detailed runoff
management plans demonstrating that the existing storm
sewer system does in fact have adequate capacity for
the additional runoff created by the development.
Detention or retention basins should also be re-
quired for developments discharging to storm sewer sys-
tems which discharge to a sensitive water body (lake or
lake tributary). The purpose of this requirement is
the removal, by settling, of pollutants contained in
the runoff prior to discharge to an existing storm
sewer.
An educational program should be established to
inform property owners how to minimize non-point pol-
lution from their residence or business. For example,
leaf burning should be discouraged and composting en-
couraged; lawn fertilization should be done in accord-
ance with a soils test to avoid unnecessary additions
of phosphorus.
Management Recommendations:
Municipalities should utilize the Subdivision Law
(T.33 §662) to regulate stormwater from new develop-
ments. All developers should be required to obtain a
permit from the town prior to commencing construction,
-51-

-------
a condition of which should be a stormwater management
plan. The stormwater management plan should provide for
infiltration within 3 hours of any excess runoff gener-
ated by the development, or the disposal of excess run-
off to an existing storm sewer system, according to the
standards recommended above.
Stormwater management plans submitted by developers
to towns for approval should be subject to review by
special districts having jurisdiction over stormwater
runoff as well as the Kennebec County Soil and water
Conservation District and made available to the South-
ern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission and
the cobbossee Watershed District. Special districts
should be the key in the review process if applicable;
otherwise certification of the technical adequacy of
the plan by the Soil and Water Conservation District
should be required prior to approval of a development.
A fee schedule should be established to be charged
to the developer, according to the size of the develop-
ment, to cover the cost of the technical review by the
County Soil and Water Conservation District, or special
district and a portion of the town's costs for hearings,
lawyers, etc.
Enforcement of approved stormwater management plans
should be accomplished by special districts if applic-
able; otherwise by a town or regional codes enforcement
officer with technical assistance from the County Soil
and Water conservation District when necessary.
To guarantee adherence to an approved stormwater
management plan, the developer should be required to
deposit funds or a bond which could be utilized to cor-
rect violations, refundable as the project is completed.
If the project is to occur in stages, the refund should
be phased accordingly. A schedule of the amount neces-
sary should be developed based upon the size of the pro-
ject. violations should be subject to a fine of not
less than $2 5 for each occurrence.
Maintenance of on-site stormwater retention systems
could be the responsibility of a town or special dis-
trict, especially if it also maintains a storm sewer
system elsewhere in the town, in this case, ownership
should be deeded to the town or special district.
Alternatively, maintenance of on-site stormwater
retention systems could be required of the developer,
either directly or indirectly through provision of a
property owners association and/or a legal contract
arrangement with a contractor.
The cobbossee watershed District and the Southern
Kennebec valley Regional planning Commission should co-
-52-

-------
operate to develop educational materials on minimizing
pollutant activities from established developments.
Additional recommendations for discharges from
existing storm sewer systems are discussed in a subse-
quent section "Structural Wastewater Facilities, Storm-
water and Combined Sewer Overflows."
6. Sand and Gravel Mining
There is a growing demand for sand and gravel pro-
ducts in the Southern Kennebec valley Region. Between
1966 and 1974 development in the region increased by
76%, and the amount of land in sand and gravel mining
correspondingly doubled. Since this resource often
serves to recharge groundwater aquifers (Figure 8), it
is important that extraction be conducted carefully and
that reclamation be required to protect these areas
from subsequent inappropriate uses (such as auto dumps
or solid waste dumps). m addition, when extraction
areas are close to water bodies, there is potential for
erosion and sedimentation if extraction is not carried
out properly. The extent of water quality problems in
the region derived from sand and gravel mining is not
known at this time.
presently there are few controls to ensure adequate
operation and reclamation. A State Mining and Rehabili-
tation of Land Law excludes sand and gravel mining.
However, the Site Location of Development Act effectively
regulates sand and gravel mining for pits of 5 acres or
more. The Maine Department of Transportation has adopted
strict reclamation policies recently for those pits used
in highway construction. Nevertheless, a majority of
pits are 5 acres of less and thus remain unreclaimed and
unregulated. To remedy this situation, the plan recom-
mends the following:
Recommended policies and Standards;
Appropriate site planning should be required of all
proposed sand and gravel operations. Operators should
be required to:
a.	Demonstrate that procedures will be utilized
to avoid sedimentation to nearby water
courses, such as the construction of sedi-
ment catchment basins.
b.	selectively clear the site, saving vegeta-
tion along the site periphery and over
-53-

-------
FIGURE 8
PRECIPITATIOM
TRANSPIRATION
BOG.
EVAPORATION
MARSHLAND
FARMLAND
ZEDKOCK
ROAD
SWAMP
river

CLAY
The ydrologic Cycle
3
-------
marginal portions of deposits. This pro-
vides immediate screening whereas newly
planted stock is not effective for 8 to 10
years.
c.	Where possible, utilize the potential of
dozers and loaders with front buckets to
scoop up small trees and transplant at
periphery or in drainage swales to aid
filtration of sediment runoff. Remove
large boulders to periphery of site as
part of screen, or place where they can
serve as a check dam across swales to con-
tain mudflows.
d.	Limit clearing to the area equivalent to
one year's excavation, if possible. if an
entire site is cleared at once (where sites
are small), a cover crop should be planted
to cushion the impact of clearing opera-
tions on surrounding vegetation and reduce
dust problems. This will not impede ex-
cavation because the plant growth can be
peeled away with the topsoil by stripping
equipment.
e.	Dispose of cleared wood through some method
other than burning—preferably by sale to a
local sawmill or farmer.
Reclamation plans should be required for all pro-
posed sand and gravel operations which deal with both
interim and final site reclamation. The operator should
be required to:
a.	Regrade or fill the slopes to a maximum
grade of 50% and plant these with trees or
other vegetative cover simultaneous with
excavation to allow progressive rehabili-
tation.
b.	Adequately restore the base grade (bottom
of the pit) in such a way as to produce an
adequately drained site with contours that
are as natural as possible. As with slope
development, this should be conducted simul-
taneously with extraction.
c.	Utilize special procedures for the develop-
ment of sand and gravel resources in water
areas to assure that water areas are left
deep enough for a proposed use and are free
of windrows of materials.
There should be an increased effort to identify ground-
water recharge areas (not all gravel deposits are recharge
areas).
-55

-------
An effort must be made to increase local awareness
of the need to protect groundwater recharge areas and the
significance of certain sand and gravel deposits.
Management Recommendations;
The Department of Environmental Protection and/or
Conservation should continue to press for increased regu-
lation of the extraction of gravel and sand.
Local governments should adopt the requirements
recommended above in a special ordinance, regulating all
size operations.
7. Road Salt and Salt Storage
Road salt and salt storage areas are not a signifi-
cant threat to water quality at this time. Monitoring of
tributaries adjacent to roads and uncovered storage areas
in the winter of 1975-76 showed insignificant chloride
concentrations of less than 40 parts per million.
Localized contamination of wells located close to
roads being salted has occurred in the region, and the
State Department of Transportation has had to redrill
several. This has not been a widespread problem, how-
ever, since most wells are located at a sufficient dis-
tance from the roads. Additional discussion can be found
in an interim report entitled Non-Point Souces of pollu-
tion at the Southern Kennebec valley Regional planning
Commission.
in view of the above, the proposed standards and
policies are designed to prevent problems from occurring
in the future:
Recommended policies and Standards;
A program should be developed by the SKVRPC to in-
ventory the amount of salt used each year in each town in
the region. If usage increases significantly in a par-
ticular town, the waterbodies which may be affected should
be monitored to detect any changes and possible problems.
Towns should be encouraged to cover salt storage areas
to prevent leaching of chlorides into groundwater and run-
off into surface waters. in the future, a baseline ground-
water quality study should be conducted to assess the ef-
fects of salt storage on groundwater. This is further dis-
cussed in the WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT section which fol-
lows .
-56-

-------
Salt should only be stored at appropriately planned,
designed and managed sites to avoid adverse impact on
water quality.
Educational workshops should be conducted to dis-
cuss salting techniques and methods of calibration. For
example, the best time to salt is at the beginning of a
storm, in order to prevent snow adherence to the roadway
surface. This would avoid an improper use of salt, which
is expensive to the town and an unnecessary strain on the
environment.
Management Recommendations;
Communities should keep records of the total amount
of road salt usage on a yearly basis. The Southern Kenne-
bec valley Regional Planning Commission and the Cobbossee
Watershed District should assemble this information
yearly to record trends and note areas in need of water
quality monitoring. The cobbossee Watershed District
should have responsibility for testing any areas of po-
tential contamination in its own jurisdiction and in
towns outside its jurisdiction by special arrangement
with individual towns or the Southern Kennebec valley
Regional Planning Commission.
The Maine Department of Transportation should con-
tinue to conduct educational workshops with communities
on the most efficient methods of use and storage of
road salt.
8. Solid and Residual Waste Disposal
Solid and residual wastes are a significant threat
to both ground and surface water quality in the Southern
Kennebec valley. Residual wastes include septic tank,
cesspool, municipal treatment and industrial sludges.
Solid wastes include organic garbage, paper, metal,
rubber, waste petroleum products, plastics, miscellaneous
chemicals, abandoned vehicles, construction and demo-
lition waste, leaves and other assorted street litter.
Solid wastes contain a variety of pollutants which
may be transported to water bodies through surface run-
off or groundwater, in the Southern Kennebec valley
Region, landfill dumps are the sole means of disposing
of solid wastes, and leachate from open dumps and sanitary
landfills usually contains high bacteria, biochemical and
chemical oxygen demands (BOD and COD), metals and Chlor-
ides. Some nitrates and ammonia are also found, while
phosphates are hardly detectable. Thus solid waste dis-
-57-

-------
posal sites are not a significant contributor to lake
eutrophication but do present a potential health hazard.
The potential for groundwater or surface water con-
tamination from solid waste landfills is a function of
the geologic setting and the disposal procedures. in the
Southern Kennebec Valley Region most landfills are poorly
located, in highly permeable soils, (spent gravel pits)
or in areas of high groundwater and close proximity to
surface waters. This indicates a high potential for con-
tamination. None of the disposal areas are operated in
conformance with procedures to minimize leachate (daily
covering and compaction, graded to shed water and mini-
mize percolation, etc.) as required by the DEP in its
Solid Waste Management Regulations which became effect-
ive in July 1977. (Table 8 contains DEP observed
deficiencies.) Thus it is highly likely that groundwater
contamination does occur from solid waste disposal in the
region. The extent or severity of this is not known but
should be investigated and every effort should be made to
improve the operation of landfill sites and even locate
new sites where necessary.
The DEP regulations for solid waste if complied with
would significantly decrease pollution from landfills,
but the requirements may not be workable for most towns
in the region which lack the technical expertise and fund-
ing needed to conform to the regulations. The requirement
that landfills be compacted and covered with fill daily
may not improve the situation if this operation is not
engineered properly. The result could easily be a
depressed basin-like pile of refuse poorly covered over
and acting to collect water instead of shed it. This
would increase the leaching of contaminants into the
groundwater beneath.
Disposal of residual wastes varies by the type of.
waste. Septic tank and cesspool sludges, or septage, and
animal processing wastes must be disposed of at DEP ap-
proved sites. All septage in the region, except in the
town of Richmond, are presently taken to the Augusta
Sanitary District (ASD) treatment facility. Richmond has
an approved land disposal site for septic and municipal
near its existing dump. ASD disposes of its wastewater
treatment sludge at the Hatch Hill dump site.
A recent DEP proposed regulation requires all un-
sewered towns to find land disposal sites for septic
sludges rather than disposing of these wastes at the
Augusta Sanitary District treatment facility. improperly
located and managed sites may create a potential environ-
mental hazard since septage is high in nutrients, bac-
teria and other pollutants. Nitrate contamination of
groundwater could occur and surface runoff of improperly
handled wastes could aggravate or cause water quality
problems in the region's lakes. The complexities in-
-5P-

-------
Table 8
DEP OBSERVATIONS ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Town
Site
Augusta
Date of
Observation
7/26/77
Chelsea
6/24/7 7
E.C. Barry Site 6/27/77
(Farmingdale,
Dresden, Gardiner,
Pittston, Randolph)
Hallowell
7/28/77
DEP Observed Deficiencies
(based on regulations)
Poor drainage - Ponded water
at base of dump site, no fire
control, dump face and brush
pile too steep, no designa-
ted hotload area, loose lit-
ter, long length of uncovered
refuse on face, no daily or
intermediate cover, final
cover to thin, erosion evident,
minimal compaction, visible
leachate, odor present, flies
and segulls at site, possible
300 ft. violation.
Attendant not on duty, no
communication equipment, no
fire control, no gate, no grad-
ing, no hotload area, loose
litter, face width too long,
no equipment at site, no daily,
intermediate or final cover,
erosion evident, minimal com-
paction, no cover material at
site, visible leachate, odor
from burning, flies abundant.
No area for junked vehicles &
white goods, dumping face too
big and steep, leachate flowing
into stream, loose litter,
daily cover not applied to
active area, final cover not
sufficient, erosion evident,
odor present, seagulls and
flies evident, possible 300
foot violation.
No communication equipment, no
fire equipment, face slopes
too* steep and high, no hotload
area, poor drainage, loose
litter, face is too wide, no
daily or intermediate cover,
erosion control needed, mini-
mal compaction, cover mater-
ial too sandy, visible leach-
ate.
-59-

-------
Table 8 (continued)
Town
S i te
Litchfield
Date of
Observation
7/29/77
Wayne
8/18/77
Winthrop
7/29/77
Savage Site
(West Gardiner,
Manchester,
Winthrop)
Readfield
7/2 9/7 7
7/28/77
DEP Observed Deficiencies
(based on regulations)
Junk vehicles and white goods
should be consolidated in one
area, dump face too steep,
hot load area not designated,
loose refuse around site,
active dumping area not
covered, closed areas should
be seeded, inadequate compact-
ion, cover material too sandy,
odor, 300 foot violation.
Presenting clearing additional
area for landfill operation.
No provision for white goods
and junked vehicles, no attend-
ant on duty, no fence or gate,
face slope too high and too
wide, loose litter, no equip-
ment, no daily, intermediate
or final cover, no erosion con-
trol, no compaction, odor,
flies abundant. No communica-
tion or fire control facilities,
Needs sign to indicate white
goods and junked vehicles
area, no communication equip-
ment, no fire control, no
designated hotload area, poor
drainage, loose litter, refuse
only partly covered, no erosion
control, apparently poor com-
paction, leachate evident,
flies evident.
Vehicle salvage should be done,
back access road needs gate,
hotload area not designated,
loose litter, minimal erosion
control, metal scrap and white
goods should be consolidated
in one area.
No communication equipment, no
designated hotload area, some
loose litter, needs daily
cover, no erosion control, un-
covered refuse not compacted,
cover material too sandy,
closed dump area needs to be
seeded to grass.
-60-

-------
Table 8 (continued)
Town	Date of
Site	Observation
Richmond	7/21/77
Mt. Vernon	8/3/77
Vienna	8/3/77
Windsor	7/7/77
DEP Observed Deficiencies
(based on regulations)
No designated area for white
goods and junked vehicles,
no attendant on duty, no
communication equipment, no
fire control, inadequate
fencing, face too steep and
high, no designated hotload
area, poor drainage, loose
litter, no equipment, no
daily, intermediate or final
cover, no erosion control,
minimal compaction, leachate
present, flies present,
dump in drainage gully to
pond, refuse and litter at
entrance gate.
Snow fence in poor condition,
face too high and steep, no
designated hotload area, poor
drainage, loose litter, no
equipment, no daily cover,
inadequate final cover, no
erosion control, no compaction,
inadequate cover material,
leachate evident, flies and
rats at site, possible 300
foot violation, abundant refuse
and litter at entrance gate.
No area designated for white
goods and junked vehicles, face
too steep, poor drainge, no
backup equipment, cover re-
quired once every two weeks,
insufficient final cover, no
erosion control, no compaction
evident.
No area designated for white
goods and junked vehicles,
salvaging being done by indi-
viduals, no limitation on
access when attendant is not
at site, no fire control, no
lockable gate, face slope too
high, no hotload area, some
loose litter, no equipment at
site, back-up equipment should
be available, no daily, inter-
-61-

-------
Table 8 (continued)
Town
Site
Windsor
(con't)
Monmouth
Date of
Observation
8/29/77
DEP Observed Deficiencies
(based on regulations)
mediate or final cover,
minimal erosion control,
little compaction, leachate
evident.
No designated area for white
goods and junk vehicles,
considerable amount of in-
dustrial wastes deposited at
facility, no communication
equipment at site, no hotload
area designated, no litter
control, active dump area
too high, too wide, no daily
or intermediate cover, no
erosion control at closed
area, no compaction, odor,
flies at site.
-62-

-------
volved in properly disposing of septic sludges in the
region which has a number of vulnerable lakes and a
generally unsuitable topography and geologic setting for
this type of disposal indicate that the DEP's position
on land disposal of septic sludges should be seriously
re-evaluated.
For additional reference see the interim reports en-
titled publicly Owned Facilities and Non-Sewered Areas
Wastewater Disposal Problems.
In light of the above, the plan recommends the fol-
lowing:
Recommended Policies and Standards;
All municiaplities should conform to DEP solid waste
regulations.
The monitoring of groundwater in the vicinity of all
disposal sites should be increased in order to determine
the presence and extent of groundwater contamination.
The feasibility of utilization and recycling of
solid and residual wastes should be explored and coordi-
nated at the regional level.
Non-sewered communities should be allowed to dispose
of their septage either at the ASD or proposed Gardiner
treatment facilities if land disposal is not feasible from
an economic, enforcement or environmental standpoint.
This refers to Chelsea, Windsor, Whitefield, Readfield,
West Gardiner, Pittston, Litchfield, Wayne, Mt. Vernon,
Vienna and Fayette.
Management Recommendations:
The DEP should increase its technical and financial
support to local or regional governments in their solid
and residual waste management programs, including moni-
toring of ground and surface wastes.
Municipalities should consider regional or subregional
centers for the disposal and recycling of solid wastes in
order to minimize costs and to avQid environmental prob-
lems. This should also be considered for utilization of
residual wastes and septage. The Planning Commission
should assist the communities in coordinating their efforts.
The DEP should develop a comprehensive solid and
residuals management program where all such wastes are
looked upon as recoverable resources.
-63-

-------
9. Forest Management practices
For the study, the forest management activity of great-
est interest is timber harvesting. The construction of log-
ging roads and trails constitutes a major disturbance result-
ing in erosion and sedimentation of streams and lakes, and
export of nitrogen and phosphorus, and increased stream
temperatures.
The degree of impact from forest harvesting is related
to the amount of harvesting occurring in any given year.
Although not presently a problem (less than 3% of the for-
ested land in the region was harvested in 1974),a substantial
increase in harvesting in the future could create a signifi-
cant water quality problem, since 7 5% of the region is
forested.
Undisturbed forests are naturally one of the most
erosion resistant ecosystems known. The trees themselves,
leaf mat and vegetation on the forest floor break the impact
of the rain and act as a sponge. Little overland flow is
detectable. As a result, undisturbed forested watersheds
yield only 7.2 to 15.2 tons per square mile per year (T/mi2/
yr) of sediment as compared to rural agricultural watersheds
which can yield upwards to 200 T/mi /yr and construction
sites which can yield as high as 100, 000 T/mi2/yr.
A mature forest ecosystem also has a highly conserva-
tive phosphorus cycle, of particular interest to this study
for the impacts on lake water quality. While much phosphorus
is deposited on the forest floor each year (2 kg/ha/yr) from
rainfall and leaf drop, only a small fraction leaves the
system in its streams and rivers, less than .03 kg/ha/yr.
This is due to the fact that little overland flow occurs
which would erode the forest floor or leach phosphorus from
organic debris and leaves.
When a forest system is subjected to harvesting, its
mineral and biological cycles may be upset. Studies of clear-
cutting and stripcutting under controlled conditions under-
taken at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hamp-
shire in the late 1960's indicated that nutrient export was
increased. Nitrate concentrations were increased one hundred
fold, and phosphates exported from the watershed were in-
creased by a factor of 10. clearcutting caused an increase
in suspended sediment in the streams by a factor of 9, in-
creased flows averaging over 30 percent greater than normal
with summer flows from 20 to 50 times greater, and increased
in stream temperature.
The effects of the cutting operations were shown to
peak during the second growing season following the disturb-
ance, and to decline to negligible levels within 3 years
-64-

-------
after the harvesting. Long-range effects will therefore be
insignificant. As the forest regenerates, it stabilizes
the disturbed biogeochemical cycles. An exception is the
construction of logging roads and trails in particularly
sensitive areas. These may continue to erode for many
years, even though use is discontinued.
For further reference see interim reports, including
Non-Point Source Pollution, the 7 lakeshed studies on non-
point pollution, and their summary Non-Point Pollution to
Lakes.
Recommended Policies and Standards;
Initiate a public information program to inform wood-
lot owners and managers of practices harmful to water
quality and encourage proper management practices.
Continue monitoring of water quality and land use
changes to determine the effectiveness of voluntary com-
pliance with recommended management practices. If in-
adequate, consider regulation.
Management Recommendations:
The Maine Department of conservation, Bureau of
Forestry, should increase its service forester program
and should prepare educational materials for distribution
which emphasize water quality protection.
The Maine Department of Conservation, Bureau of
Forestry, should devise a system for determining the acre-
age of forest land harvested each year by town, through
the service forester program. This will allow the South-
ern Kennebec valley Regional Planning Commission, Depart-
ment of Environmental protection and Cobbossee Watershed
District to monitor changes in water quality that might
be the result of increased cutting.
10. Sensitive Areas protection
The successful management of water resources is closely
linked to the protection of certain areas that are vulner-
able to the adverse impacts of poorly planned development.
Many sensitive areas such as groundwater aquifers and re-
charge areas, wetlands, streams and floodplains are directly
connected to the water cycle. Others are less obviously
linked to water quality; yet land use activities, particu-
larly those occurring in the drainage areas of sensitive
-65-

-------
water bodies, can disrupt steep slopes and highly erod-
ible soils, thus degrading water quality. in addition,
when farmers are forced to sell off prime agricultural
land to development or can no longer compete with develop-
ment for new lands, they then have to depend upon marginal
soils for their operations. Increased runoff and erosion
can result.
There are several State programs concerned with sensi-
tive areas including the Maine critical Areas program, the
Coastal Zone Program, the Great Ponds Act and the State
Plumbing Code. Enabling legislation at the State level
also instituted the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Law, the
Minimum Lot Size Law and Title 30 of the Maine Revised
Statutes Annotated which gives municipalities the authority
to undertake land use planning, zoning and other land use
controls. Maine communities are well equipped with the
authority to protect sensitive areas. However, at the
local level in the rural parts of the State, including
this region, efforts have only recently begun to achieve
sufficient momentum to develop land use programs for the
protection of water resources. For a discussion of the
regulatory program of each community, see the section in
Part II entitled ACTION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
The occurrence of sensitive areas in the Southern
Kennebec Region and their significance to water resources
planning was the subject of an interim report entitled
Preliminary Land Use Constraints Analysis. Since the writ-
ing of that report, more detailed information has been
developed and additional kinds of sensitive areas investi-
gated. Pocked Maps 3 through 7 which accompany this Plan
show at a regional scale the locations of steep slopes,
wetlands, floodplains, areas of shallow overburden, and
potential groundwater resources. Land use constraints
attributed to soils, such as erodibility and depth to water
table, have not yet been mapped as the soil survey for
Kennebec County is only presently being published.
Although the regional maps provide a good overview of
the region, they are not well-suited to planning at the
local level. Sensitive areas should be mapped and field
checked at a scale more appropriate to town needs. A fund-
ing proposal is now being considered by the State Planning
Office's Coastal Division that would enable the Regional
Planning Commission to prepare a sensitive areas overlay
system and composite tax map for each community in the
Coastal Zone. This proposal includes Augusta, Hallowell,
Farmingdale, Gardiner, Richmond, Pittston and Randolph.
Chelsea upon its own initiative has already begun such an
effort. Readfield and Winthrop have also developed re-
source information. Some other communities have done like-
wise to varying degrees.
Just having this information, however, is not enough;
it must become part of a municipality's land use decision-
-66-

-------
making process in order to be effective in avoiding water
quality problems. Certain sensitive areas by their nature
lend themselves to inclusion in a resource protection zone.
Wetlands and slopes greater than 15 or 25% are such con-
straints. in contrast sensitive lakesheds, often comprise
vast areas, portions of which in this region have already
experienced considerable development. To eliminate these
drainage areas from development entirely would be unreal-
istic, inequitable and unnecessary. Such sensitive areas
lend themselves better to a strong regulatory approach to
land use that includes an effective review procedure and en-
forcement program. Some land uses which create severe
water quality problems should probably be prohibited from
these areas? most land uses, however, can be required to
perform in a manner that will not impair water quality. By
applying standards such as restricting the amount of ad-
ditional runoff that can be created by a new development,
a community can insure that the development will not perform
in a manner that will cause water quality and erosion prob-
lems. Density controls may also be utilized effectively in
controlling the development of sensitive areas.
Alternative approaches to regulating land use for the
protection of sensitive areas are discussed in a subsequent
section, The Local Planning and Implementation process and
in a report entitled Preliminary Land Use Constraints
Analysis. The discussion below describes the occurrence of
several sensitive areas in this region.
Groundwater Aquifers and Recharge Areas: Although
there is an abundance of surface waters in the region, many
communities, particularly the rural towns and those east of
the Kennebec River, depend upon groundwater as a source for
private water supplies. As shown in Table 9, four communi-
ties, Augusta, Monmouth, Gardiner and Richmond use groundwater
at least partially for municipal supply. With the exception
of Richmond which owns much land around its well site, no
municipality has developed a thorough program for the pro-
tection of groundwater resources. The absence of protection
exists partially because of a lack of accurate knowledge of
where aquifers and their recharge areas are located and
what are their potential yields and storage and recharge
capacities.
Using well drillers' records, the State Bureau of Ge-
ology recently identified areas of potential high yield that
might be suitable for municipal supply in their report en-
titled Reconnaissance of Ground Water Resources and Surfic-
ial Geology of the Southern Kennebec Region. Unfortunately,
this data is not complete as some well drillers were reluct-
ant to disclose their records. However, the report serves
as a good preliminary look at the region's groundwater re-
sources. The Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning
Commission has extrapolated this information which is shown on
Pocket Map 7. The impacts of development occurring in these
-67

-------
Table 9
GROUNDWATER AS A SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY
Utilize ground-
water for muni-
cipal supplies
Utilize ground-
water at least
partially for
private well
systems
Have poten-
tial high
yield areas*/
Protect aqui-
fers and re-
charge areas
through regu-
lation or owner-
ship
Augusta
Chelsea
Farmingdale
Three wells in
Bond Brook area —'
X
X
X
X
ASD cwns approx.
100' dcwn grad-
ient and 600' up
gradient frcm
each well
Fayette

X
X

Gardiner
Hallowell
Two wells in S.
Gardiner:?/
X
X
X
GWD owns only a
small area
Litchfield

X
X

Manchester

X
X

Monmouth
Mt. Vernon
Two wells in
village area
X
X
X
MWA. cwns
fifty ft. radius
at well sites
Pittston

X
X

Randolph

X


Readfield

X


Richmond
Vienna
Wayne
One well in
W. Dresden
X
X
X
X
X
RUD owns
greater than 5
acres at well
site
West Gardiner

X
X

Whitefield

X
X

Windsor

X
X

Winthrop

X
X

^See pocket map 7. -^These wells supplement the supply from Carlton Pond.
r/These wells are emergency supplies only.
-68-

-------
areas are currently not a consideration in the land use re-
view process of most local governments. Although the Read-
field Conservation Commission has advocated placing re-
charge areas in a resource protection zone, most municipal-
ities where potential sources are located are often either
not aware of their good fortune or they are not concerned.
Groundwater resources have not been generally recognized as
valuable, particularly by municipalities that have an abund-
ance of lakes and streams.
Wetlands: As shown in Table 10, wetlands comprise ap-
proximately 13,000 of the 317,000 acres in the Southern
Kennebec area. Several communities have over one thousand
acres of their land areain wetlands: Augusta, Monmouth,
Mount Vernon, Whitefield and Windsor. Pocket Map 4 shows
the wetlands in the region.
In addition to their value for wildlife, visual enhance-
ment, recreation and education, wetlands perform valuable
functions in the protection of the region's water resources.
They filter sediment and debris from storm runoff and tribu-
taries, thus helping to prevent debris from entering lakes
and ponds. They chemically and biologically oxidize organ-
ic s and pollution, thus trapping them in the wetland eco-
system. Wetlands also often serve as important recharge
areas for groundwater supplies. And one of their most sig-
nificant contributions to the hydrologic system is their
ability to absorb flood and storm waters, thus minimizing
erosion and flood damage. The protection of wetlands can
help a community to avoid costly measures to remedy the ad-
verse impacts of development. For instance, by preventing
wetlands from being filled in, a community can use the
natural system for the partial control of stormwater and
thereby lessen the need for a costly stormwater collection
and maintenance program.
Statewide, wetlands are only protected partially by the
Great Ponds, Streambank Alteration, and Shoreland Zoning
Acts when the wetland abuts a lakeshore or streambank. Other
wetlands, higher up in the watersheds, are not protected
except by local initiative, in this region, Wayne, Richmond
and Monmouth are the only communities protecting several
additional wetlands, although no buffer zones are included.
Augusta and Manchester have each designated one large wet-
land for resource protection.
Floodplains: Floodplains not only are potential hazard
areas, but also perform valuable functions in regard to the
hydrologic cycle. They store floodwaters during times of
peak runoff and also act as a filter to remove sediments and
other pollutants from floodwaters. As intensive floodplain
development creates impervious surfaces, it limits the
ability of the floodplain to perform these functions. Fur-
thermore, as intensive development occurs, the elevation of
-69-

-------
Table 10
THE OCCURRENCE OF WETLANDS

Total
Acreage
1974
Acres
%
SKV REGION
317,028
12,941
4.1%
Augusta
33,288
2,250
6.8
Chelsea
11,371
446
3.9
Farmingdale
6,372
144
2.3
Fayette
17,070
654
3.8
Gardiner
9,083
80
0.9
Hallowell
3,035
2
0.1
Litchfield
21,552
412
1.9
Manchester
12,383
258
2.1
Monmouth
20,368
1,118
5.5
Mt. Vernon
22,536
1,709
7.6
Pittston
18,504
357
1.9
Randolph
1,181
0
0.0
Readfield
17,538
460
2.6
Richmond
17,761
416
2.3
Vienna
13,894
609
4.4
Wayne
11,586
413
3.6
West Gardiner
14,259
182
1.3
Whitefield
27,008
1,316
4.9
Windsor
19,987
1,794
9.0
Winthrop
18,252
321
1.8
Source: Alda Stich, Air photo interpretation, 1976.
-70-

-------
the one hundred year flood is displaced to higher ground
as the storage capacity of the old floodplain is lessened
by the additional volume taken up by new structures. Thus
people who at one time built above the floodplain could
find themselves within the limits of a newly created haz-
ard area at a higher elevation.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has
contracted with the U. S. Geological Survey to identify
flood hazard areas in the Southern Kennebec valley. This
work involves a detailed flood study identifying the stream
channel, the floodway necessary to carry the hundred year
flood {that with a one percent chance of occurrence in
any given year) and the fringe area of that flood where
complete encroachment of the fringe will not raise the
level of the floodwaters more than one foot. pocket Map 5
shows roughly the extent of the one hundred year flood-
plain in the Southern Kennebec valley. Currently, work
is underway to complete the detailed study by 1978 for
Augusta, Chelsea, Hallowell, Farmingdale, Gardiner, Rand-
olph, Pittston, Manchester, Monmouth, Readfield, west
Gardiner, and Winthrop. Litchfield is scheduled for 1977
and Richmond for 1979. Whitefield is the only community
not enrolled in the National Flood insurance program.
Prime Agricultural Land: The preservation of prime
farmland is indirectly connected to water quality manage-
ment. it is, of course, foremost a resource of State and
national significance that merits protection; it is rapidly
disappearing, irretrievably, under new development. Un-
fortunately, soils that are good for agriculture are also
excellent for development; such soils are usually flat and
well drained. According to the report entitled Land Use
Trends and projections, approximately 13,000 acres of
agricultural land in this region were converted to some
other use between 1966 and 1974. Economic pressures are
forcing some farmers to give up their prime lands to
development, other farmers must expand production but
cannot compete with developers for good land. This causes
farmers to use marginal lands which have soils and slopes
with greater potential for erosion.
prime farmland in Kennebec county will be inventoried
by the USBA Soil conservation Service in 1978. There are
currently no regulatory programs at either the State,
regional or local level to protect this resource, although
the Richmond Zoning Ordinance attempts to do so. Monmouth
is currently attempting to identify its prime agricultural
land.
Steep slopes and Highly erodible Soils? The develop-
ment of steep slopes and erodible soils can lead to serious
erosion and sedimentation problems as well as increased run-
off due to the disturbance of vegetation and natural drain-
age patterns, in this area slopes greater than fifteen per-
cent exist throughout the region, and predominantly in the
hilly sections of the northwest and along the Kennebec River
-71-

-------
as shown on Pocket Map 3. This map depicts steep slopes at
the regional scale and should not be assumed to show all
steep slopes in each community. A topographic map with
more precise contour intervals should be consulted to deter-
mine the extent of steep slopes within a community.
There are five soils in the area considered by the USDA
Soil conservation Service to be highly erodible: Belgrade,
Hadley, Hartland, Nicholville and Winooski. To map these
soils, each community should consult its medium-intensity
soil survey.
Through site plan review, developers can be requested
to show steep slopes, erodible soils and other sensitive areas
on subdivision plans and other development proposals. The
Randolph subdivision regulations is the only regulatory con-
trol in the region which currently requests such information
of developers. The Shoreland Zoning Ordinances of several
communities include steep slopes in the resource protection
zone. However, only shorelands are regulated in this manner
and problems created upland in a drainage area or lakeshed
can also impair water quality.
Non-discharge Soils: Non-discharge soils are those which
the State plumbing Code restricts from the installation of
septic systems because they are too wet to accommodate the
underground disposal of wastewater. Non-discharge soils oc-
curring in Kennebec County include: Ridgebury, Monarda,
Scantic, Limerick, Biddeford, Scarborough, Winooski, and
Hadley. The characteristics of these wetland and river bot-
tom soils also make them unsuitable for other kinds of con-
struction because they cause wet basements, poor storm drain-
age, and other problems. in fact, they are usually the low
areas which play an integral role in the natural collection
and regulation of storm drainage. By allowing the filling
and the building upon these areas, many communities are
eliminating natural seepage areas, in addition to causing prob-
lems to perhaps unsuspecting homeowners. In this manner,
these communities are helping to create the need for costly
storm drainage systems in the future, with the exception
of septic system installations, there are currently no regu-
lations guiding development on these soils. The situation
is particularly critical in communities where sewers have
made otherwise unbuildable land available to development.
Areas with Shallow Overburden: Pocket Map 6 shows at a
gross scale areas where soils are shallow to bedrock. Areas
where the depth is less than five feet to bedrock can present
constraints for development, particularly in regard to sep-
tic systems and the laying of sewer lines. They usually
have a high stormwater runoff rate and consequently there
may be drainage and seepage problems. Also, these areas if
over a bedrock fracture zone and improperly developed could
result in severe groundwater pollution.
-72-

-------
Sensitive and Water Supply Watersheds; Of course,
with regard to water quality, development occurring on
the aforementioned sensitive areas would not be as great
a problem if it were not for the fact that many water
bodies cannot tolerate the excessive increases in pollut-
ants caused by such development. Several lakesheds have
been identified as having a high need for protection for
this reason. These are listed on Table 3.
The communities in which the drainage areas of these
lakes are located are shown on Map 15. Because these
lakes are sensitive to nutrient loading, land use changes
occurring in their drainage areas could easily impair
water quality, if not adequately regulated, performance
standards for new development are particularly essential
in sensitive lakesheds.
It should be noted that although several lakes have
been identified as having a high need for protection, water
quality in all waterbodies can be impaired by inappropriate,
ill-planned land use activities. Although nuisance con-
ditions may not develop in lakes with a moderate or low
need for protection, the amount of algae or sediment will
increase and visibility will decrease.
There are several lakes used for water supply in-
cluding Carlton Pond, Upper Narrows pond, cobbossee Lake,
jamies pond and Hutchinson pond. Some water districts
own land in these drainage areas including:
Jamies-Hutchinson Ponds - Hallowell Water District
Carlton pond - Augusta water District
Upper Narrows pond - Winthrop Water District
Of these, the Carlton Pond drainage area is the most tight-
ly controlled through ownership.
With the exception of the partial ownership of land
in the drainage areas of the above water supplies and the
Watershed Protection Zone for upper Narrows designated by
Winthrop, there are no special programs for the regulation
of activities occurring in sensitive watersheds. Many
communities have established density requirements as shown
in Table 12 of the Local Planning and Implementation Pro-
cess section; yet these minimum lot sizes when applied
town-wide seem to have been established more to maintain
visual character and other social needs than to directly
influence water quality. Some towns also limit the per-
centage of lot area that can be covered by impervious sur-
faces .
Recommended policies and Standards:
Highly productive agricultural land should be identi-
fied and protected. The definition of what is "highly
-73-

-------
productive" should be tailored specifically to Maine and
its counties rather than to national "prime" farmland
standards. Displacement of agricultural activities from
prime to marginal lands should be discouraged.
certain sensitive areas should be designated through
land use regulations for resource protection which would
exclude development from occurring on:
a.	Municipal well sites, a four hundred (400)
foot radius circle around them and their
known aquifer recharge areas;
b.	Slopes greater than twenty-five percent (25%);
c.	The 75' shoreland setback already established
by State guidelines under the Mandatory Shore-
land Zoning Statute. The shorelands of wet-
lands, streams and smaller ponds should be
added to this restriction;
d.	Inland wetlands and non-discharge soils: the
filling of these areas and floodplains should
be prohibited to preserve the natural storm
drainage system.
The impacts of proposed land use changes should be
reviewed,or certain uses restricted from occurring, in
sensitive areas including:
a.	The one hundred year (100) floodplain;
b.	Groundwater aquifers and recharge areas;
c.	Slopes greater than 15%;
d.	Highly erodible soils;
e.	Shallow to bedrock soils;
f.	Highly productive agricultural land;
g.	watersheds used for water supply or with
high or moderate need for protection.
Other sensitive areas not directly influencing water qual-
ity such as unique or high value wildlife habitats and
areas of high visual quality or sensitivity should also be
similarly protected.
The review and enforcement of land use proposals
should receive the highest priority in the drainage areas
of lakesheds requiring a high need for protection.
Open space planning should include sensitive areas
whose degradation will cause water quality problems.
-74-

-------
Management Recommendations;
Local
a.	Sensitive areas and land capability should be
a major foundation for a community's compre-
hensive planning process, including a growth
management plan and regulatory programs. Each
community should develop and utilize 1) a
Sensitive Areas Overlay and 2) a Composite
Tax Map Overlay at the same scale in either a
zoning or site plan review process. (Approxi-
mate cost per town: $500. including field
work, drafting and photographic reproduction.)
b.	A conservation commission should be established
or activated in each community with the responsi-
bility of planning for and managing public open
space in the community.
c.	Conservation Commissions, Recreation Commis-
sions, Planning Boards and special districts
should coordinate open space planning efforts
to incorporate sensitive areas protection.
Such tools as acquisition, easements, land
trusts, zoning site plan review and even trans-
fer of development rights may be utilized to-
ward this end.
Regional
a.	The Regional Planning Commission should provide
increased technical assistance, mapping services
and educational programs to communities.
b.	The Regional Planning Commission should provide
increased assistance to communities in the prep-
aration of grant proposals for financial assist-
ance in protecting resources.
c.	The Regional Planning Commission should continue
working with the USGS and State Bureau of Ge-
ology and with private well drillers to improve
information on aquifers including their loca-
tion, potential yield, vulnerability to pollution
and their capacity to be recharged.
d.	The Regional Planning Commission should work
with the USDA Soil Conservation Service and the
State Department of Agriculture in order to
define and identify highly productive agricult-
ural land for the region and to work out a pro-
gram for its protection.
-75-

-------
11. The Secondary Effects of Sever
and Water Line Extensions
As indicated in the Regional Management Study, there
are several special districts and municipalities which pro-
vide public sewer and water utilities. The special districts
that maintain public water systems are listed below along
with their sources and the communities served:
Supplier
Sources
Communities Served
Augusta Water
District
Carlton Pond and
3 wells near Bond
Brook
Augusta, Manchester,
E. Winthrop and
Chelsea
Ha Howe 11 Water
District
Cobbossee Lake -
secondary source
Jamies Pond
Hutchinson Pond -
secondary source
Hallowe11
Gardiner Water
District
Pleasant Pond
2 wells in S.
Gardiner - emer-
gency source
Gardiner, Farming-
dale, Randolph and
Pittston
Winthrop Water
District
Monmouth Water
Association
Richmond Utili-
ties District
Upper Narrows Pond Winthrop
Maranacook Lake -
secondary source
2 wells in
Monmouth
1 well in
Dresden
Monmouth
Richmond
The special districts and municipalities currently pro-
viding public sewers include: Monmouth Sanitary District,
Manchester Sanitary District, Augusta Sanitary District,
Hallowell Water District, Winthrop Water District, Richmond
Utilities District, Farmingdale, Randolph, and Gardiner.
Sewers were initially introduced into the region in
order to remedy serious water quality problems in the Kenne-
bec River and Annabessacook Lake. By diverting municipal
and industrial wastes, the Structural Wastewater Facilities
Program will allow these surface waters to begin a rejuvena-
tion process to higher water quality. However, this initial
sewer program with its service areas and management network
-76-

-------
has opened the door to pressures for sewering areas without
present water quality problems. The extension of sewers to
accommodate new growth or only minor subsurface malfunctions,
potentially can generate a greater water quality problem
than the sewer was originally planned to avoid. Such prob-
lems are called the "secondary effects" of sewer or water
extensions.
The secondary effects of extending sewer and water
lines usually originate from the intensive development pat-
terns that these utilities tend to stimulate, without ade-
quate controls, an effort to service a problem area on a
lakeshore remote from the trunkline could encourage two and
three-tiered development or large subdivisions. The secondary
effects from poorly planned, rapid development could be numer-
ous. 1) Private well supplies could become contaminated.
2) Uncontrolled stormwater runoff could carry sediments,
nutrients, organics or other pollutants into sensitive water
bodies. 3) Economic pressures to fill and develop on valu-
able wetlands could result. 4) Traffic safety and congest-
ion problems could occur. 5) Pressure to increase municipal
services could rise rapidly, thus drastically changing the
tax structure. The list could continue.
In the past, the extension of facilities for the most
part has been on a "demand" basis, particularly in communi-
ties with independent utilities districts. The twenty year
extension projections outlined in an interim report entitled
Publicly Owned Facilities were a first attempt to work out
strategies for the future. The next step is the coordination
of sewer and water line extensions with local land use and
municipal service planning efforts in order to anticipate
and avoid negative secondary effects of facilities extens-
ions. As described above, the responsibility for these activi-
ties is in many cases the function of separate bodies. in
general, these local bodies presently are not effectively
coordinating their short and long-range planning activities,
although the decisions of policies of either group directly
affect the responsibilities of the other.
Another aspect of this issue involves two Federal pro-
cesses, A-95 Review and the National Environmental Policy Act
(including environmental assessments and sometimes impact
statements), which exist in order to provide a review process
for projects using Federal funds such as wastewater facili-
ties construction programs. Sources of funding include
Farmers Home Administration, Environmental Protection Agency,
Economic Development Administration and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development at the Federal level; some-
times the Maine Department of Environmental protection and
the Public Utilities Commission are involved. This review
process is not effective in encouraging the coordination of
sewer line extension planning with land use planning efforts
because each proposal is reviewed independently.
-77-

-------
Recommended policies and Standards:
Plans for the extension of sewer and water lines
should be based upon a municipality's comprehensive plan
for future growth and development.
Sewer line extensions should be used to rectify pres-
ent problem areas that cannot be corrected on-site either
individually or in a cluster fashion.
Sewer and water line extensions should be used to
guide new high density development such as village, com-
mercial, industrial or planned unit developments. How-
ever, if development is to occur remote from an existing
system, on-site solutions for water supply and/or waste-
water disposal should be the preferred alternative unless
it can be shown otherwise.
Critical areas such as flood prone areas, steep
slopes, high soil erodibility or ledge should be avoided
in the extension of sewer lines in order to prevent environ-
mental problems from occurring.
Special value or sensitive resources such as signifi-
cant wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge areas, and
waterways should be avoided in the extension of sewer and
water lines.
projects with potential impacts on water quality that
require A-95 review should be reviewed in accordance with
the region's water quality management plan, water quality
impacts should be thoroughly investigated.
Management Recommendations;
In communities where public water and sewer facilities
exist, a body should be established to coordinate the land
use planning activities of local boards and districts.
This coordinating body should be responsible to the chief
elected officials of the municipality and should be com-
posed of representatives from the utilities districts,
selectmen or council, planning board, school committee,
code enforcement officer, city or town manager, fire
department and others. The group should meet quarterly,
or more often if necessary, acting in an advisory capacity
to: review the short and long-range plans of the various
boards represented; to review the various planning pro-
cesses occurring in the community in terms of coordinating
activities? and to have an input into the community's
growth management plan.
State agencies involved in water supply regulation
such as the Public Utilities commission, should allow water
districts greater flexibility in capital budgeting. Capi-
tal budgeting will allow for orderly and planned local
-78-

-------
development. it is not currently permitted under State
law.
The A-95 and Environmental Impact Statement processes
and the powers of the Federal Office of Management and
Budget should be utilized to guide the Federal government
in its disbursement of funds in accordance with the pro-
visions of the region's water quality management plan and
local growth management plans.
12. Code Enforcement
Code enforcement in the Southern Kennebec area cur-
rently suffers two weaknesses: 1) the present fee
structure and 2) the unwillingness of local officials in
a few towns to insist upon adequate enforcement proced-
ures. Of these, the latter is the most significant and
widespread problem.
The use of a code enforcer varies throughout the
region. The range includes: 1) Readfield has designated
a part-time, unsalaried but professional code enforcement
officer who also acts as plumbing code enforcer? 2)
Winthrop which employs a full time professional to admin-
ister local codes? and 3) all others which have appointed
a part-time, unsalaried code enforcer as required by
State law under the plumbing code and Shoreland Zoning.
Good land use plans and appropriate ordinances do
not insure proper land use practices by themselves. A
review of development activities within the region indi-
cates a great lack of enforcement review at the local level.
The sentiment of many individuals in the region is
that enforcement should not be a local, unsalaried position.
The argument holds that townspeople are uncomfortable im-
posing compliance on their neighbors. For this reason
the result of local enforcement is in many instances an
uneven treatment of cases. Currently, local plumbing
inspectors (with the exception of Winthrop) are not paid
for thoroughness, but receive a fee for each tank installed.
This system encourages a laxity in enforcement procedures;
the incentive is to increase the number of inspections
rather than to insure time-consuming quality reviews or
to investigate problems with older systems. Farmingdale
has responded to this situation by doubling the inspection
fee over that mandated by the State. A second approach,
the creation of a salaried position would call for an
allocation by the municipality either for its own officer,
or for a contract through an interlocal agreement. The
sharing of a code enforcement officer among municipalities
-79

-------
would lessen the financial impact on a small town where
activity is not sufficient to merit a full time inspector
for administering the plumbing code and other town ordi-
nances.
Management Recommendations;
Each community needs stronger than presently exist-
ing code enforcement capability.
Depending upon the size of the community and the
expected work load, each municipality should utilize one
of the following approaches:
a.	A full time municipal code enforcement
officer to administer plumbing code and
all other local land use ordinances.
(Approximate minimum cost: $8,000 to
$13,000 per year including overhead.)
b.	A part-time officer with same responsi-
bilities as above. (Approximate minimum
cost: $2,000 to $5,000 per year.)
c.	A shared salaried, full time professional
through interlocal agreement of two or
more towns. (Approximate cost: depends
upon number of towns and cost-sharing
arrangement.)
Interlocal agreements are logical between towns that
are contiguous to one another. Those towns in either the
Coastal zone or cobbossee watershed District also share
natural interests in cooperating with one another. Even
code enforcement is particularly important on a water-
shed basis where common interests are shared in the utili-
zation of a non-polluted water resource.
13. The Local planning and Implementation Process
The recommendations offered in the previous land use
and non-point source issues suggest several areas for in-
creased local control. They include the regulation of
erosion and sedimentation, stormwater runoff, sensitive
areas, and sand and gravel mining. It is also recommended
that increased code enforcement capabilities are essential
and improved coordination between utilities planning and
local land use planning merits immediate attention.
Planning based upon natural resources and physical
constraints is a relatively new direction for Southern
-80-

-------
Kennebec communities. From the previous issues it is
apparent that while several municipalities have improved
conditions in various aspects of the above areas, few
have been successful in establishing comprehensive ap-
proaches that consider the range of improvements required
to protect a community's water resources.
A comprehensive approach would include several con-
siderations :
a.	it should recognize the direct linkage
between land use activities and their
impacts on water quality. It should be
based upon a knowledge of the land's
capability to accept development.
b.	it should be based upon a future land use
plan for the community, developed through
a process in which several alternatives
have been considered. The selection of an
alternative or combination of alternatives
should be based upon input from townspeople.
c.	considering land use and water quality
linkages, it should require new develop-
ment to perform in a manner that will not
impair water quality. Towards this end,
it should establish performance standards
so that developers easily understand what
is required of them.
d.	it should contain a review procedure so
that the community has the opportunity to
insure that local requirements are being
met in the planning of new development.
Review should not be limited to subdivis-
ions, but to other kinds of development as
well, such as commercial and industrial.
e.	it should have the ability to guide growth
to areas that are suitable for development
or varying intensities of development and
away from hazardous areas, vulnerable re-
sources and irreplaceably scarce or unique
resources of value to society, in this
regard, the coordination of land use and
utilities planning is vitally important.
f.	it should insure through enforcement that
standards set by the community are not being
violated.
g.	It should be a workable program that is not
too complex for local officials to effectively
manage, townspeople to easily comprehend, or
developers to reasonably adhere to.
-81-

-------
h.	Perhaps, most importantly, it should be an
equitable arrangement protecting resources of
public value to insure sustained health,
welfare and prosperity for the community and
yet not inflict unreasonable hardship on
individuals or social classes.
i.	And last of all, since water quality manage-
ment is only effective on a watershed basis,
the comprehensive approach should include
coordination among municipalities in matters
of mutual concern and value to society. A
program where three out of four communities
within a lakeshed are effectively managing
water quality and the fourth is allowing land
use changes to degrade water quality of the
lake, certainly is not going to be effective
nor equitable.
While most communities have not yet developed compre-
hensive approaches to land use planning that fully take
into account the above criteria, there is a strong desire
in most communities to improve their planning programs.
The degree of weakness in the local planning process var-
ies from community to community. Many communities have
achieved greater sophistication than others in their ap-
proach to land use planning. This is in part due to the
greater growth pressures that several communities have
experienced and the nature of the development problems
that have occurred. However, as shown on Map 14, "Popula-
tion increase in the Southern Kennebec Region", current
growth pressures are focusing on the rural communities,
thus presenting the need for more effective programs with
which to manage growth, in fact, recently many towns have
begun to look for alternatives to the traditional tools of
land use planning in order to protect their natural
resources.
Tables 11 and 12 show the current status of planning
and regulatory activities in the region. Many of these
ordinances have been adopted since the two-year water qual-
ity management program began. Others are currently being
prepared. The effectiveness of each municipality's compre-
hensive and regulatory program to protect water resources
is described in Part II of the plan under the ACTION AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL section.
Presented below is a brief description of the major
alternatives available to communities for the management
of growth and water quality. It should be recognized that
each of these tools cannot stand alone. Those alternatives
selected to meet the needs of a community must be inte-
grated with proper public education, enforcement and co-
ordination provisions in order to be effective and to pro-
vide a comprehensive program. More detailed information
concerning these and other tools can be obtained from the
-82-

-------
Table 11
CURRENT STATUS OF COMMUNITY PLANNING ACTIVITIES


D










r-\



¦a
14

C



to


•H
H
0)

0





u
r-)
0)
4J
J2
c
c
<0
(0
tn
0)
0)

~H
CO
4->
u
0
-P
0)

•P
c


0)
3
0)
+>
to
to


•H
0
.C

o
>
a
3
H
E
4>
T3
»—1
O
o
6

+>
0*

ft Di 0) G c <0 o 0 (0 •1-f c e <0 Q> •H •H 10 s 2 s & s X X X x X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X xV X X X X X X X X X X X X u X X X X X u X X u u u X X X u U X X X u X X X X X u u X X X X X 4/ X X X xi/ X X X X X u u X - Adopted U - Under Consider- ation or being revised S - Shoreland Zone only


-------
Table 12
MINIMUM LOT SIZE CONTROLS
IN SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY MUNICIPALITIES

Square
footage

Dimensions (feet)

Shoreland
Zone 11)
Sewers
Without
Sewers(2)
Road
Frontaqe
Water
Frontaqe
Depth x
Width
Augusta
20,000; 30,000
&200,000

20,000



Chelsea
20,000

30,000*
150

150 x 200
Farmingdale
30,000
30,000
30,000
150
100

Fayette
22,500

20,000



Gardiner
25,000; 40,000
10,000 &
20,000
20,000 &
40,000
100
125

Hallowell
	
10,000
20,000*
100
	
	
Litchfield
40,000

40,000*
200
200**

Manchester
20,000 and
40,000
40,000
60,000
L25 to 200
100

Monmouth
40,000
40,000
40,000
200
200
200 x 200
Mt. Vernon
30,000

20,000

150
100 x 125
Pittston
40,000

40,000
150


Randolph
20,000

20,000



Readfield
80,000
(resicten
80,000
iial lots)
200
200

Richmond
20,000

20,000



Vienna
20,000

20,000
100
100

Wayne
40,000

20,000;
40,000 & n
Dne
100
varied
W. Gardiner
20,000

20,000



Whitefield
80,000

80,000 (3)
150
150

Windsor
20,000

80,000(4)
200
100
- x 100
Winthrop
20,000
15,000
20,000 S
40,000



(1) and (2) - State law mandates 20,000 square feet miniirum.
(3) and (4) - The State Pluntoing Code, whichever is greater.
* - subdivisions
** - restricted residential zone
-84-

-------
Regional planning Commission or from the publications
listed below. Model ordinances and examples of various
kinds are also available from the Regional Planning Com-
mission, although communities are not encouraged to
adopt a model ordinance without first tailoring it to
suit the special needs of the community.
.Goodall, Clifford, Esq. and Southern Kennebec
Valley Regional Planning Commission. A Model
For Maine Towns: Regulations For the Review of
Subdivision Applications with Explanatory Com-
ments . 1977.
.Greater Portland council of Governments. All
Land is Not Created Equal; A Handbook For The
protection Of Environmentally Sensitive Lands.
1976. (Copies may also be obtained from the
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional planning com-
mission. )
.Kline, Elizabeth, protecting Open Space, A
Guide to Selected Protection Techniques. Society
for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.
1975.
.League of women voters. Land use, can We Keep
Public and Private Rights in Balance. 1975.
.peskin, Susan. Guiding Growth and Change; A
Handbook for the Massachusetts Citizen. Massa-
chusetts Audubon Society. 1976.
•The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Reilly, William K.,
ed. The Use of Land; A Citizens' Policy Guide
to urban Growth. 1973.
.U. S. Environmental protection Agency. Performance
Controls for Sensitive Lands; A practical Guide
for Local Administrators. EPA #600/5-75/00. 1975.
Site plan Review Ordinance - This is a technique
relatively new to Maine, it gives a municipality the
authority to review proposals for new development using
criteria such as have been established under Title 30 of
Maine law for subdivision review. Site plan review goes
beyond the limitations of the Subdivision Law by consider-
ing the review of new commercial and industrial develop-
ment that otherwise would have been exempt from comment by
the municipality. An alternative to zoning, it eliminates
the inflexibility of traditional districts that prohibit
certain uses, instead, through performance standards
developers are encouraged to fit their proposals harmoni-
ously into the existing cultural and physical setting. Al-
though by law it does not have to be, the enactment of a
site plan review ordinance should be accompanied by a
future land use and growth control plan for the community
-85-

-------
in order to guide growth to suitable areas and to protect
sensitive areas, whitefield is the only community in
this region that has adopted site plan review, although
the Augusta planning Board is currently considering this
option.
Zoning - The traditional zoning ordinance establishes
districts on the basis of which land uses are compatible
with one another and what density development should occur.
A good zoning ordinance also establishes performance stand-
ards for land use activities occurring within a particular
district and provides a review procedure so that new pro-
posals can be reviewed by the community in the same manner
as a site plan review ordinance.
Most zoning ordinances in this region, however, fall
short of these last two considerations. Their performance
standards often do not reflect water quality considerations
such as stormwater runoff. in addition, their procedures
usually do not require the review of conforming uses but
only those uses requiring a permit. This can be a serious
flaw as it leaves no opportunity for the community to work
with the developer to insure that local requirements are
being met.
Another drawback of many zoning ordinances is that
the designation of districts, with the exception of shore-
land zoning, often does not reflect natural resources and
physical constraints. Social and economic considerations
are usually the primary criteria for establishing districts
in areawide zoning. in order to protect water quality,
sensitive areas and soil limitations should also be a major
basis upon which a zoning ordinance is developed.
And lastly, in order to encourage the preservation of
open space and lands of marginal suitability, a good zon-
ing ordinance provides incentives for cluster development.
Such incentives should offer the developers who meet
certain conditions higher density allocations for building
in certain areas and providing open space, in this manner,
developers are permitted higher profits from more intensive
development, in return for public benefits.
Subdivision Review - Under Title 30 of Maine law, com-
munities are empowered already with the authority to re-
quire that subdivisions perform in a manner that does not
impair water quality. A community should not rely solely
on its authority, however, but should also develop written
review procedures so that developers and the community
have a mutual understanding of what is to be required.
The review procedure should be properly adopted, minimize
public expense, provide for quick and efficient review of
applications, maximize public participation, and be fLexible
enough to cover very small through very large subdivisions.
In addition to a clear procedure, a community should also
develop standards for the performance of the subdivision.
-86-

-------
These can either be included within a subdivision ordi-
nance or can be incorporated into other specific ordinances
regulating such activities as stormwater management and
street construction. In developing a site plan review
ordinance, a community could provide for the review of sub-
divisions to eliminate the need for two separate review
procedures.
Growth Control - Many communities in the region have
found it difficult to provide the municipal services re-
quired to accommodate the increases in population that have
occurred during the last two decades.
Regulations to control the rate of development within
a community are an innovative and relatively untested land
use control. The obvious choice for a community consider-
ing growth control is to place a ceiling on the number of
building permits issued per year according to past growth
rate. However, this approach is arbitrary and may be con-
strued to violate the constitutional "right to travel"
principle or to exlude a social class.
Growth control is more soundly based on a plan that
not only projects expected population increases, but
capital outlays for municipal services and specific im-
provements. A thorough study of local problems and cap-
abilities is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. In
enacting a growth control ordinance, a community should
consider its obligation to accept its share of the regional
housing demand.
Minimum Lot Size Ordinances, Building Codes and
Plumbing codes - While many communities have developed the
means with which to deal with large-scale development such
as subdivisions, few have developed adequate provisions
with which to regulate incremental growth, primarily from
residential development. Minimum lot size ordinances as
shown in Table 12 are prevalent in the region. The trend
is toward larger lots as a means to maintain rural character.
Readfield recently went to 2-acre zoning in reaction to a
major development proposal as well as a rampant growth rate.
The result, however, in community-wide large lot zoning
probably will be to create exclusive residential neighbor-
hoods, difficult to afford, especially to sons and daughters.
Instead of preserving rural character and controlling growth,
the result also may be to waste a precious resource - land,
unless incentives are also provided to cluster development.
Minimum lot sizes to allow development in sensitive
areas can be, if wisely applied, an effective tool. How-
ever, in establishing minimum lot sizes, communities should
consider the consequences of the ordinance on the future
land use, social and economic patterns that will result.
A minimum lot size ordinance should be compatible with a
community's comprehensive planning program and future land
use objectives.
-87-

-------
In regards to water quality, certain performance
requirements can be built into the building and plumbing
codes in order to regulate incremental growth for the
protection of water quality. These include:
Building Permit
a.	the issuance of a plumbing permit to precede
the issuance of a building permit;
b.	provisions for the control of erosion and
the removal of vegetation;
c.	provision for the handling of storm drain-
age .
Plumbing permit
a.	provision for the mandatory inspection and
maintenance of septic systems;
b.	the establishment of a review procedure for
the conversion of septic systems being con-
verted from seasonal to year-round use;
c.	limitations on the installation of leach
fields during winter months;
d.	provision to prescribe the volume of new
toilet installations (3^ gallons per flush
or less).
Sand and Gravel Mining ordinance - Appropriate site
planning should be required of all proposed sand and
gravel operations. Operators should be required to:
a.	Demonstrate that procedures will be utilized
to avoid sedimentation to nearby water
courses, such as the construction of sediment
catchment basins.
b.	Selectively clear the site, saving vegetation
along the site periphery and over marginal
portions of deposits. This provides immediate
screening whereas newly planted stock is not
effective for 8 to 10 years.
c.	Where possible, utilize the potential of
dozers and loaders with front buckets to
scoop up small trees and transplant at peri-
phery or in drainage swales to aid filtra-
tion of sediment runoff. Remove large
boulders to periphery of site as part of
screen, or place where they can serve as a
check dam across swales to contain mudflows.
-88-

-------
d.	Limit clearing to the area equivalent to one
year's excavation, if possible. If an entire
site is cleared at once (where sites are small),
a cover crop should be planted to cushion the
impact of clearing operations on surrounding
vegetation and reduce dust problems. This will
not impede excavation because the plant growth
can be peeled away with the topsoil by strip-
ping equipment.
e.	Dispose of cleared wood through some method
other than burning—preferably by sale to a
local sawmill or farmer.
Reclamation plans should also be required for all
proposed sand and gravel operations which deal with both
interim and final site reclamation. The operator should
be required to:
a.	Regrade or fill the slopes to a maximum
grade of 50% and plant these with trees or
other vegetative cover simultaneous with
excavation to allow progressive rehabilita-
tion.
b.	Adequately restore the base grade (bottom
of the pit) in such a way as to produce an
adequately drained site with contours that
are as natural as possible. As with slope
development, this should be conducted simul-
taneously with extraction.
c.	Utilize special procedures for the develop-
ment of sand and gravel resources in water
areas (see Johnson, 1966) to assure that water
areas are left deep enough for a proposed use
and are free of windrows of materials.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control - Specific policies
and standards to be utilized in the development of erosion
and sedimentation control regulations are;
Developers should be required to design an erosion
control plan which would minimize erosion during construction
of new subdivisions, commercial/industrial developments, or
roads. Such a plan should include a schedule of major
activities, and should provide for the:
a.	Minimization of stripped areas at any one
time, and duration of exposure.
b.	Minimization of cut-fill operations.
c.	protection of natural vegetative cover
whenever feasible.
-89-

-------
d.	Stabilization of disturbed soil as quickly
as practicable.
e.	use of temporary vegetation or mulching on
areas to be exposed less than 12 months.
f.	Conservation of topsoil for use in establish-
ing a permanent vegetative cover on areas
exposed more than 12 months.
g.	use of permanent structural erosion control
measures when vegetative stabilization is
not feasible.
h.	Use of debris basins, sediment basins, silt
traps, etc. to capture soil which is unavoid-
ably washed from the site during construction.
i.	use of diversions, berms, terracing, and
other techniques to minimize the impact of
stormwater on the cut face of excavations
or the sloping surfaces of fills.
j. protection of adjacent properties from adverse
impacts from cut or fill operations.
Road construction should be carried out in conform-
ance with minimum standards to ensure maximum life expect-
ancy and minimum erosion. The recommended standards are
outlined briefly below. Further explanation is available
from the Southern Kennebec valley Regional Planning Com-
mission.
a.	Drainage: A minimum of 12 inches of gravel
for roadbed drainage should be required. The
proper amount is related to soil type, proper
compaction is necessary to avoid soil move-
ments which might erode the shoulders of the
road.
b.	Cut and Fill Embankments:
-Trees, bushes and stumps are not suitable fill
materials.
-Slopes should not exceed 33% (3:1) if vegeta-
tive cover is to be established, except on
soils of low erodibility and adequate moisture
holding capacity, in which slopes of 50%
(2:1) are acceptable. However, a 33% slope
is considered the maximum slope upon which
maintenance equipment can reasonably operate.
c.	Loaminq and Seeding: A soils test should be
performed to determine if loaming and seeding
will adequately stabilize cut and fill embank-
ments. Soils with a silt-clay content less
than 25% or more than 85% are problematic for
plant growth.
-90-

-------
A plant scientist or soil conservationist
should be consulted for appropriate stabili-
zation techniques. in areas suitable for
loaming and seeding, loam should be spread
on the prepared areas to a uniform depth of
two-three inches and should be free of gravel,
roots, stones, and other materials which
would tend to form air pockets in the soil.
Erosion control practices, such as berms,
dikes, grassed waterways, grade stabiliza-
tion structures, diversion ditches, and sedi-
ment basins, should be installed prior to
seeding.
d.	Culverts; Gravel or sand should not be used
under the pipe, unless the natural foundation
material is unstable or cannot be compacted.
If the addition of foundation material is re-
quired, it should be of uniform thickness.
Culverts should be checked periodically for
sand, silt and debris to prevent unnecessary
buildup and loss of stormwater capacity.
e.	Road Gradient: whenever feasible, a road
should not exceed a slope of 10 percent.
Stormwater Management - The following policies and
standards can be incorporated into appropriate ordinances
that regulate development and/or a separate stormwater
ordinance of the Regional Planning Commission. For a
discussion of the rationale behind them, see 5. Storm-
water Runoff from Developed Areas within this section.
Developers should be required to retain on site any
additional stormwater runoff created by a change in land
use in such a way as to allow infiltration within a reason-
able time (3 to 12 hours). The design storm for resident-
ial developments (impervious surfaces of 38% or less) is
the maximum 10 year 1 hour storm (1.5 inches); the design
storm for urban-commercial-industrial developments (imperv-
ious surface of 65-85%) is the maximum 25 year 1 hour
storm (1.8 inches).
The above may be accomplished through single purpose
seepage or recharge basins or multi-use recharge basins.
The size of the recharge basin depends upon the soil type
on the site, and may be determined' through the use of a
Runoff Management Chart available from the Southern Kenne-
bec valley Regional planning commission or the Cobbossee
Watershed District.
Additional measures to increase infiltration such as
use of dutch drains or porous paving, can reduce the size
of seepage basin specified by the Runoff Management chart.
-91-

-------
On-site infiltration need not be a requirement in
areas presently serviced by a storm sewer system which
has the capacity to accept additional runoff. However,
detention/retention basins may be required to reduce the
peak flow from a development thus enabling its accept-
ance to an existing storm sewer system. Developers
should be required to submit detailed runoff management
plans demonstrating that the existing storm sewer system
does in fact have adequate capacity for the additional
runoff created by the development.
Detention or retention basins should also be re-
quired for developments discharging to storm sewer sys-
tems which discharge to a sensitive water body (lake or
lake tributary). The purpose of this requirement is the
removal, by settling, of pollutants contained in the run-
off prior to discharge to an existing storm sewer.
All developers should be required to obtain a per-
mit from the town prior to commencing construction, a
condition of which should be a stormwater management plan.
The stormwater management plan should provide for infil-
tration within 3 hours of any excess runoff generated by
the development, or the disposal of excess runoff to an
existing storm sewer system, according to the standards
recommended above.
Stormwater management plans submitted by developers
to towns for approval should be subject to review by
special districts having jurisdiction over stormwater run-
off as well as the Kennebec county Soil and water conserva-
tion District and made available to the Southern Kennebec
Valley Regional planning Commission and the Cobbossee
Watershed District for their towns. Special districts
should be the key in the review process if applicable;
otherwise certification of the technical adequacy of the
plan by the Conservation District should be required prior
to approval of a development.
A fee schedule should be established to be charged to
the developer, according to the size of the development,
to cover the cost of the technical review by the Kennebec
County Soil and water Conservation District, or special
district and a portion of the town's costs for hearings,
lawyers, etc.
Enforcement of approved stormwater management plans
should be accomplished by special districts if applicable;
otherwise by a town or regional codes enforcement officer,
with technical assistance from the Kennebec County Soil
and water Conservation District when necessary.
To guarantee adherence to an approved stormwater
management plan, the developer should be required to
deposit funds or a bond which could be utilized to correct
violations, refundable as the project is completed, if
-92-

-------
the project is to occur in stages, the refund should be
phased accordingly. A schedule of the amount necessary
should be developed based upon the size of the project.
Violations should be subject to a fine of not less than
$2 5 for each occurrence.
Maintenance of on-site stormwater retention systems
could be the responsibility of a town or special district,
especially if it also maintains a storm sewer system
elsewhere in the town, in this case, ownership should
be deeded to the town or special district.
Alternatively, maintenance of on-site stormwater
retention systems could be required of the developer,
either directly or indirectly through provision of a prop-
erty owners association and/or a legal contract arrange-
ment with a contractor.
Sensitive Areas protection - Regulatory ordinances
such as zoning, site plan review, street and sewer con-
struction should include provisions for protecting sensi-
tive areas. The following guidelines should be utilized
to develop policies and regulatory mechanisms depending
upon the physical characteristics and resources of the
community, including sensitive areas.
Certain sensitive areas should be designated for re-
source protection including:
a.	Municipal well sites, a four hundred (400)
foot radius circle around them, and their
known recharge areas;
b.	Slopes greater than twenty-five percent (25%);
c.	The 75' shoreland setback already estab-
lished by State guidelines under the Manda-
tory Shoreland Zoning Statute. The shore-
lands of wetlands, streams and smaller
ponds should be added to this restriction;
d.	inland wetlands and non-discharged soils:
the filling of these areas as well as flood-
plains should be prohibited in order to pro-
tect the natural storm drainage system.
The impacts of proposed development should be reviewed
or certain uses restricted from occurring, in sensitive
areas including:
a.	The one hundred year (100) floodplain;
b.	Groundwater aquifers and recharge areas;
c.	Slopes greater than 15%;
-93-

-------
d.	Highly erodible soils;
e.	Prime agricultural land;
f.	Watersheds used for water supply or with
high need for protection.
Acquisition, Easements, Land Trust and Other Techniques -
Such techniques can be utilized to help protect sensitive
areas. Although rural communities are not usually in a
position to acquire land outright, they still can develop
programs to identify where resources and sensitive areas
of value to the community exist. This information can
be utilized to develop regulatory programs and to work
with landowners in the creation of easements, conservation
restrictions and land trusts. The Maine Coast Heritage
Trust will provide assistance to communities as will the
Regional Planning Commission in the development of ease-
ments and other non-regulatory methods to protect open
space.
Management Recommendations;
Each municipality should have an institutional mech-
anism to review land use changes that may have an impact
on water quality. Part II of this Plan is an assessment
of each community's present planning and review mechanism.
Depending upon its needs, the sensitivity of its water
resources and the level of sophistication of its present
planning process, each community should consider adopting
a more comprehensive approach to planning, including one
or a combination of the following techniques:
a.	Upgrade existing ordinances to consider
stormwater and sediment and erosion con-
trol, the impact of proposals on municipal
services and the protection of sensitive
areas.
b.	Enact a site plan review ordinance with
performance standards for commercial, in-
dustrial and residential development.
c.	Enact areawide zoning with performance
standards and review procedure.
d.	Enact a sand and gravel mining and reclama-
tion ordinance to control surface and
groundwater pollution.
e.	Enact or upgrade existing building and
plumbing codes to reflect the stormwater
management effects of incremental growth
and other considerations.
-94-

-------
f.	Undertake open space planning to protect
sensitive areas through such techniques as
easements or aquisition.
g.	Adopt sensitive areas overlay procedure to
require a review of potential impacts or to
restrict certain uses.
h.	Any other techniques with comparable effects.
Each municipality should develop a future land use
strategy or plan that is coordinated with all boards or
other bodies who are either involved in developing poli-
cies that determine growth patterns (such as a utilities
district) or are affected by land use changes (such as
school districts). (Approximate cost: Assessments range
from $100 to $8,500 for Regional Planning membership or
between $10,000 and $20,000 for private consultant
assistance in comprehensive planning.)
Local regulatory processes that review land use pro-
posals should provide for comment by representatives from
the various municipal services that would be impacted by
such proposals.
Each municipality should develop a program to insure
public involvement and awareness of local planning activi-
ties, particularly the requirements to which they must con-
form.
The Regional Planning Commission should make avail-
able technical assistance for improving the local planning
process. Services would include assistance in the develop-
ment of growth, other land use plans and regulations neces-
sary to implement plans; and assistance in developing ade-
quate enforcement and applications review. (Approximate
cost per year to provide this service for the region:
$40,000.)
-95-

-------
STRUCTURAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES

-------
STRUCTURAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES
1. Needed Treatment Facilities
One of the key wastewater management activities in
the region has been and still is the planning and con-
struction of structural wastewater facilities including
collection systems or sewers, interceptor lines, pump
stations and force mains, treatment facilities and indus-
trial pretreatment facilities. The planning process
studied the twenty (20) year needs of the region in terms
of structural facilities as well as non-structural approach-
es which resulted in a series of both policy and manage-
ment recommendations which are presented throughout the
section.
The region has a history of regional cooperation in
the wastewater management area, as well as in the public
water supply field. Since January of 1972, the Winthrop-
Augusta Trunkline has been in operation removing a large
quantity of wastewater from the Cobbossee Lakes, parti-
cularly Annabessacook Lake. The Winthrop Water District's
now inactive primary treatment facility and Carleton Woolen
Mills wastewaters were intercepted. In the fall of 1976,
the extension of that line to Monmouth and N. Monmouth re-
moved the last point sources of wastewater from Annabessa-
cook Lake. Both villages were sewered and Globe Albany,
a textile mill in N. Monmouth, was connected. Also, the
village area of Manchester recently connected to this line.
Hallowell will also tie into this system.
The Gardiner subregion, including Farmingdale, Randolph,
parts of Pittston and Yorktowne Paper in Gardiner are wait-
ing for their State and Federal construction grants to con-
struct a regional wastewater interceptor and treatment sys-
tem. The completion of this subregional system, and the
intercepting of Hallowell's sewers, will eliminate remain-
ing point sources of untreated wastewater in the entire plan-
ning region. The town of Richmond operates a primary treat-
ment plant and collection system which covers the urban por-
tions of the community.
An interim report entitled Publicly Owned Facilitiesr
prepared in March 1977, presented the twenty year needs
in terms of physical systems and their associated costs,
A series of contracts with the local sewer agency consul-
ting engineers was developed to study the local conditions
-96-

-------
and generate the needed information for the regional analy-
sis. Upon analysis of these reports, the planning process
concurred that all of the major pending projects, such as
the proposed interceptors and secondary treatment facilities
should be built as quickly as possible. The delay in their
construction is due to the lack of Federal funds. The
proposals for collection system expansions, however, are
not similarly endorsed by the plan for two major reasons:
lack of coordinated local planning of such facilities and
the secondary environmental and economic impacts of their
construction, particularly where sewers were proposed along
or near sensitive waters.
Ten of the region's twenty communities presently have,
or propose to have in the near future, publicly-owned waste-
water facilities. These include Augusta, Hallowell, Farming-
dale, Gardiner, Manchester, Monmouth, Pittston, Randolph,
Richmond and Winthrop. The Pittston service area is ini-
tially proposed for only the SAD#11 Elementary School, but
may expand in the future. The remaining areas within the
region, including many of the more remote areas of the above
communities will rely on private on-site waste disposal or
possible publicly-owned clustered or small-scale collection
and treatment systems. This is discussed later in this sec-
tion under Non-Sewered and Remote Areas.
There are three secondary treatment facilities planned
for the region: regional facilities at South Gardiner and
Augusta and one at Richmond. The Augusta and Richmond faci-
lities are presently operating primary treatment plants. Map
13 in the enclosed pocket shows the location of the major ex-
isting and proposed interceptor and treatment facilities.
As shown in Map 13, the Augusta Sanitary District (ASD)
subregion is the largest wastewater collection and treat-
ment system in the region. At present it receives wastes
from Monmouth (including Globe Albany), Winthrop (including
Carleton Woolen Mills), Manchester and Augusta (including
several industrial sources). Hallowell will join once the
Hallowell Water District receives a construction grant to
build an interceptor, force main and pump station.
As previously discussed, the Gardiner subregion has all
untreated wastewater discharges at this time due to the lack
of adequate construction grant monies in Maine from the Fed-
eral Government.
Tables 13 and 14 taken from the Publicly Owned Facili-
ties report summarizes the current and projected wastewater
to be handled in the region's publicly owned facilities and
the projected capital expenditures. It must be noted that
all but two of the major industrial wastewater generators
are, or are proposed to be connected to the public system.
Statler Tissue in Augusta has its own "best practicable
treatment" or secondary facility in operation. Lipman Poultry,
which is now connected to the Augusta Sanitary District, is
planning to begin its own secondary treatment system in
February 1975.
-97-

-------
Table 13
PROJECTED 20 YEAR WASTEWATER GENERATION
PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITIES
Wastewater Generation(1)
1976	1996
BODc Generation
1976	1996
Augusta
Subregion
4.58MGD 6.50MGD
12,280ppd 17f000ppd
Gardiner
Subregion
1.35
1.80
3,137
4,188
Richmond
Subregion
0.25
0.28
321
573
TOTAL
6.18MGD 8.58MGD	15,738ppd 21,761ppd
.'OTAL DIS-
CHARGED
11,220 (2) 2,700 (3)
(1)	average daily flow
(2)	reflects 30-40% reduction of the ASD and RUD primary
treatment facilities
(3)	assumes approximately 85-90% reductions at the three
(3) proposed secondary facilities
-98-

-------
Table 14
PROJECTED 20 YEAR PUBLIC WASTEWATER
CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES
16-20 years TOTAL
$1,928,500 $22,141,100
Augusta
Subregion
Gardiner
Subregion
Richmond
Subregion
TOTAL
0-5 years
$12,644,700
10,877,000
1,075,000
1976 DOLLARS
6-10 years
$4,420,800
3,286,000
-0-
11-15 years
$3,127,100
1,692,000
250,000
$5,069,100
1,800,000
180,000
$3,908,500
17,655,000
1,505,000
$41,301,100
$24,616,700 $7,706,800
(1) Majority of this figure is eligible for ccmbination DEP-EPA 90%
construction grant funding since it entails interceptors and sec-
ondary treatment facilities
Recommended Policies and Standards:
The following major projects should be carried out as
quickly as possible. They are required by both Maine and
Federal Law since the affected communities do not treat
their wastewaters to a secondary level. This is due to
the lack of EPA construction grant monies that Maine an-
nually receives. This planning program did not re-evaluate
the secondary treatment planning in detail that had occur-
red prior to and during this planning process. Much of
this planning occurred through the coordinated efforts of
the Planning Commission, while other projects are primary
treatment upgradings to secondary to meet the DEP and EPA
effluent limitations.
a.	The primary treatment facility in Augusta should
be upgraded to secondary treatment. The facility
presently serves Augusta, Manchester, Winthrop
and Monmouth and most of their industries.
b.	The proposed regional secondary treatment facility
in Gardiner should be built to serve the urban
areas of Gardiner, Farmingdale, Randolph and a
small part of Pittston.
-99-

-------
c.	The primary treatment facility in Richmond should
be upgraded to secondary treatment.
d.	An interceptor sewer should be constructed in Hal-
1owe11 connecting that city to the Augusta treat-
ment facility.
A 1971 study using DEP funds indicated that a trunkline
from Augusta should be built to serve the V.A. Hospital
and Togus Pond. The 208 study has re-evaluated this recom-
mendation and finds that the cost for a trunkline would be
very high and that undesirable strip development could occur
because of the sewer line installation. We recommend there-
fore that the Togus V.A. Hospital should study alternatives
for correcting and upgrading its treatment facility at its
current location with consideration given to land disposal,
advanced wastewater treatment and storage during low flow
conditions.
In addition, many sewer lines are proposed or expected
to be extended. This should not occur without coordination
with land use planning and capital improvement efforts at
the local and regional level. Map 13 enclosed in the pocket
shows the existing and possible twenty year sewered area
in the region.
Management Recommendations;
To accomplish the construction of the major projects
listed above, approximately twenty million dollars will be
needed. The existing local agencies should continue their
current roles as grantees to DEP, EPA and some cases FmHA.
These include the Augusta Sanitary District, the City of
Gardiner, the towns of Randolph and parmingdale, the Hal-
lowell water District and the Richmond Utilities District.
The order of priority for major wastewater facilities
construction is recommended as follows:
1.	Gardiner, Farmingdale, Randolph
2.	Augusta Sanitary District and Hallowell
Water District
3.	Richmond Utilities District
The Gardiner area treatment facility is given highest pri-
ority because there is currently no treatment in that
subregion. Augusta is presently a primary treatment plant
and Hallowell has no treatment at present. it is proposed
to tie Hallowell to the Augusta system. Richmond is the
third priority because of its small service area and limited
impact on the Kennebec River.
The V.A. should begin to study its wastewater manage-
ment situation as soon as possible as their present facility
has operational problems and is suspected of degrading its
-100-

-------
receiving water quality and also the quality of Togus Stream.
The v.A. should not consider connecting to the ASD system,
as such a connection would not be economically feasible or
environmentally sound.
The issue of sewer and water line extensions and capital
planning is a major land use issue which needs to be better
coordinated by the existing special districts, municipal
governments and regional agencies with assistance from the
State and Federal governments. Agencies such as the Public
Utilities Commission and the DEP should work toward improv-
ing the water and sewer district's abilities to better co-
ordinate with the other institutions. This will be dis-
cussed in detail in the LAND USE PLANNING section.
It is further recommended that the existing entities
utilizing or planning to use the Augusta Sanitary District
facilities, (Hallowell Water District, Manchester Sanitary
District, Winthrop Water District and Monmouth Sanitary
District) should consider forming a regional treatment au-
thority. The board of directors of such an agency should
have representation proportioned to flow with periodic re-
visions. The regional treatment authority would coordinate
actions at the State and local level which affect waste
generation, pretreatment, sludge disposal, etc. it would
not, however, set policies or plan for sewer extensions -
this would remain a local function.
It is also recommended that the four communities in
the proposed Gardiner-Randolph-Farmingdale-pittston waste-
water system consider formal regional management. This
consideration should in no way impede the current construc-
tion grant process but should occur concurrent with the
present activities for possible development by the comple-
tion of the proposed facilities in 1978-80.
There are no changes recommended in the NPDES program.
2. Stormwater and combined Sewer Overflows
With the exception of the communities of Augusta, Hal-
lowell, Gardiner, Randolph and Richmond along the Kennebec
River and winthrop to the west, there are very few areas
in the planning region with extensive storm drin or sewer
systems. The most predominant stormwater facilities are
roadside ditches and culverts, mostly maintained by the
Maine Department of Transportation or the municipal road
or highway departments. The urban and suburban areas of
the above six (6) communities, however, do contain either
storm drains or a combination or storm drains and combined
sewers. The management of these drains and sewers is the
responsibility of either the city or town government or the
-101-

-------
water and sewer district, depending upon the individual spec-
ial district charter.
The topic of stormwater management is important for
several reasons. Poorly managed stormwater can severely
degrade water quality, cause downstream flooding, and in-
crease facilities costs (both capital and maintenance) as
old systems become inadequate to handle ever increasing run-
off. In this planning region the most critical of these is
the effects on water quality - particularly the effects of
urban-suburban stormwater runoff on sensitive streams and lakes.
This was discussed in detail in the LAND USE PLANNING section.
Stormwater from suburban development has not been con-
sidered a source of pollution until recently. In the over-
all planning program it has been found that stormwater run-
off from all developed areas contains sufficient phosphorus
to warrant special consideration in the future and in some
existing situations along the area's lakes (mainly in the
Winthrop Village area). It has always been known that urban
runoff contains solids, organic matter and bacteria in addition
to heavy metals, particularly where there are combined storm
and sanitary systems.
The combined sewer problem is another important as-
pect of the stormwater runoff problem, particularly in
Augusta, Hallowell, Gardiner and Richmond. Combined sewers
are systems in which both storm and sanitary wastes are
collected in the same network of drains. In certain storms,
the quantity of the wastes and runoff collected by the drains
exceeds the capacity of the interceptor systems and/or
treatment plant. The drains then overflow into a bypass
system which discharges the combined sanitary wastes and
stormwater, untreated, to a nearby stream or the Kennebec
River itself.
Thus the issues associated with combined sewers include
the impact of the stormwater on the operation of existing
and proposed wastewater treatment facilities, and the water
quality impact caused by combined overflows during certain
rain events.
The Publicly Owned Facilities report of March, 1977,
discusses the systems of the region. The following is a
summary of the situation in terms of the type of systems
and problems.
Mostly Combined Sewers
Augusta Sanitary District
Hallowell Water District
Richmond Utilities District
Separate or Mostly Separate Sewers
Towns of Winthrop, Farmingdale and Randolph
City of Gardiner
-102-

-------
Limited Systems
Towns of Mt. Vernon, Fayette, Readfield, Wayne, Ltich-
field, West Gardiner, Pittston, Chelsea, Windsor,
Whitefield
Manchester Sanitary District, Monmouth Sanitary District
Outlying areas of the communities and districts in the
other categories
The following recommendations, coupled with the land
use recommendations dealing with runoff from developed areas,
combine to better manage an important water quality control
element.
Recommended Policies and Standards;
Stormwater from urban-suburban developed areas, includ-
ing combined sewage, is a pollutant and should be considered
as such.
However, separation of combined systems or treatment
of collected stormwater prior to discharge is extremely ex-
pensive and should first be applied to areas of sensitive
waters and then only after a significant improvement can be
shown to be expected.
New land development should not be allowed to create
stormwater disposal or downstream flooding problems. New
stormwater generated should be handled on-site via storage,
detention or infiltration. This is particularly important
for sensitive and erodible lands.
Monitoring should be continued to adequately quantify
the extent and magnitude of the effects of storm and com-
bined discharges to the area's waterways. This should be
done in coordination with other 208 agencies, the DEP and
EPA. (See also the WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT section.)
Management Recommendations:
The following combined sewer systems should be separ-
ated as per their respective Infiltration/Inflow (I/I)
studies. These separation projects will allow better
operation of the proposed secondary treatment projects
associated with the district or community. As stated
previously, this planning program concurred with the pre-
viously submitted and on-going secondary treatment and
interceptor planning of which I/I studies is a part.
HaHowe11 Water District
Richmond Utilities District
City of Gardiner
-103-

-------
The costs for this work is reflected in the figures pre-
sented in Table 14. For further detailed information see the
208 SEA report on Gardiner, Farmingdale, Randolph available
at the SKVRPC.
The Augusta Sanitary District combined sewer system
should be continually improved via a combination of separa-
tion, storage, detention and treatment after an in-depth
study of the entire system is performed taking into account
its recent Bypass/Overflow study, urban development trends,
water quality impacts and economic feasibility. The Bypass/
Overflow recommendations are contained in the Whitman and
Howard 20 8 report on the City of Augusta, pages 43-57. High
priority remedial actions are noted in the recommendations.
The Town of Winthrop storm sewer system should only
be extended after a thorough environmental assessment on
its impact to Maranacook and Annabessacook Lakes due to
the possible adverse secondary effects of development.
The towns with limited storm sewer systems, Randolph,
Monmouth, Manchester and Farmingdale, and all the other
communities with only State (DOT) managed systems should de-
velop the necessary ordinances to require the new develop-
ments to retain the generated storm water to the maximum
extent feasible, for both economic and environmental pur-
poses . This holds true for the outlying areas of the urban
and suburban communities. This was discussed in the LAND
USE PLANNING section.
After completion of major dry weather point-source
facilities the DEP should initiate a program of treating
storm sewer and drain discharges as pollutants with a formal
licensing and abatement program on a worst-first basis.
This is particularly important for discharges to lakes and
other sensitive receiving waters.
If a regional treatment authority is formed as part
of the five district system from Monmouth to Augusta, it
should also have the powers to manage stormwater systems.
This would entail the town of Winthrop giving up the mana-
gement of its stormwater system to this regional authority.
The stormwater systems in the Gardiner subregion should
also be managed by a regional agency if one is formed for
Gardiner-Randolph-Farmingdale-Pittston.
These regional authorities could also possibly manage
the cluster systems for the outlying portions of their com-
munities. The cluster or small-scale treatment concept
is discussed in detail in the following section on "non-
Sewered and Remote Areas".
-104-

-------
3. Non-Sewered and Remote Areas
For a number of reasons, it is not always economically
feasible or environmentally sound to correct critical sub-
surface wastewater disposal problems throughout the region
with conventional wastewater collection and treatment faci-
lities. First, because of the relatively sparse nature of
population centers in the Southern Kennebec Valley, it is
not always economically feasible to extend or build new
sewer lines to the more remote areas of the region.
Secondly, it appears that new sewer lines along lake-
shores could, in some situations, cause a secondary growth
impact which could be more harmful than the septic problems
they were intended to eliminate. A detailed analysis of
several of the area's lakes undertaken during the planning
period by the Cobbossee Watershed District has shown that
while individual septic systems may present a health problem,
they do not as a whole contribute significantly to eutrophi-
cation. Phosphorus is the nutrient which causes eutrophica-
tion, and septic systems contribute generally less than 2% of
the total phosphorus loading to the lakes in the region
Cthe highest percent loading from septic systems was on
Togus Pond - 18%). Runoff from development spurred by
sewer line extensions could become a major source of phos-
phorus loading, however, since it contains about 30 times
the phosphorus content of runoff from natural forest systems.
This was discussed in the LAND USE PLANNING section under
"Stormwater Runoff from Developed Areas" and "The Secondary
Effects of Sewer and Water Line Extensions".
Finally, many remote areas drain directly or indirect-
ly into lakes, and it is unlikely that the DEP would allow
construction of a small-scale complex treatment facility
with a discharge to a lake system, even if it was to be
an advanced wastewater or tertiary treatment plan. Even
if it did the costs would probably be prohibitive.
For these reasons, the study concluded that alter-
native means of handling wastewater disposal in remote
areas must be investigated. A three phase study was under-
taken entitled Non-Sewered Areas Wastewater Disposal Prob-
lems with the first phase completed in June, 1976, the
second in December, 1976, and the third in January, 1977.
These reports are available at the Southern Kennebec Valley
Regional Planning Commission and the Cobbossee Watershed
District. The Sanitary Survey conducted by the Cobbossee
Watershed District for the Commission was utilized in deter-
mining where existing and potential sub-surface wastewater
disposal problems existed. This was presented in the 1st phase.
The second phase study was conducted by a consultant engin-
eer, a.e. Hodsdon. Using the results of the first phase
study which outlined various physical, institutional and
financial options available for solving remote area waste
disposal problems, the consultant studied six areas having
-105-

-------
typical problems. This phase developed actual designs and
cost estimates. The last phase extrapolated the results
of the second phase to the other problem areas, recommend-
ing appropriate actions for each.
Map 13 enclosed in the pocket shows the areas through-
out the region that were suspected of having or have sub-
surface wastewater disposal problems. These were identi-
fied chiefly through the Sanitary Survey conducted by the
Cobbossee watershed District. This information, when match-
ed up with twenty year sewer service area projections,
shows which of the areas experiencing problems were not
likely to be served by public sewers.
The results of the second phase report pointed out
that the small-scale or cluster subsurface disposal system
approach was not only environmentally sound, but cost
effective, particularly when the State and Federal con-
struction grant program was applied to the proposed systems.
The highest cost system looked at, Mount Vernon Village,
which had 34 initial users, had a total project cost of
about $182,000. With grants-in-aid at the 90% level from
DEP and EPA, the annual user costs were between $85 and
$140, depending upon the amount of the capital cost to be
bonded. These annual costs are very reasonable when com-
pared to user charges in other larger communities such as
Monmouth and Manchester which recently constructed sewer
systems. The other five areas studied in detail - Togus
Pond, Litchfield comers, Torsey Shores, west Acre woods
and Pleasant Pond - all had similarly low user charges. A
typical cluster system is shown on Figure 9 (page 107).
Tables 15 and 16, which were taken from the third
phase report, list the tentative recommendations on which
areas may be suitable for the cluster solution and/or
other solutions. The information is only a guide as a de-
tailed study of each area is needed prior to any solution
application. Even the approach of sewering the problem
area and connecting it to an existing or proposed system
should not be ruled out until such analysis has occurred.
The following recommendations are the result of the
three phase study and subsequent review and comment on
the subject.
Recommended Policies and Standards;
The first priority for correcting malfunctioning sep-
tic tank systems should be the on-site, individual effort.
In many cases a new system, such as that depicted in Fig-
ure 10 may solve the problem. When this is not feasible,
due to lot size, soils or other topographic limitations,
the cluster or small-scale system is recommended where pos-
sible. A cluster system is simply a large septic tank and
leach field used commonly by a number of homes. A typical
cluster system is shown on Figure 9. Only as the last
resort should long interceptor lines or complex wastewater
treatment facilities be considered.
-106-

-------
FIGURE 9
¦<»mmwiutt lscmioi
fMNHP IIWlMi SWT**
• KomtMWMIU
	 Fmr»S«> 64 »swrrY »^>r»
	 f*OfOS«E> a-* «*«¦ *m<
n iiwut stem*
l I >MS«R8kc6 PisraaM.0»
¦ Same T3WK
A TYPICAL CLUSTER SYSTEM
n
*
A

-------
Table 15
CLUSTER ALTERNATIVES FOR NON-SEWERED PROBLEM AREAS
High Priority
Androscoggin Lake*
Wayne-West Acre Woods
Annabessacook Lake
Monmouth map 3 8 * *
Winthrop map 13
map 16
Cobbossee Lake
Litchfield,
map U-2 8
Manchester map U-2
Monmouth map 40
Winthrop map 40
map 41
Cochnewagon Lake
Monmouth map 18
Litchfield Corners*
Lower Narrows Pond
Winthrop map 25
Maranacook Lake
Readfield
maps 23 & 25
map 27
Mt. Vernon Village*
Pleasant Pond*
Ri chmond-Sunset Cove
Richmond-Spring Cove
Pocasset Lake
Wayne - PondRd.
Togus Pond*
Pullen Road
Tasker Rd.
Low Priority
Androscoggin Lake
Wayne - Lincoln Pt.
Cobbossee Lake
Monmouth map 33
Winthrop map 15
Cochnewagon Lake
Monmouth map 17
Woodbury Pond
Litchfield map U-14
Medium Priority
Annabessacook Lake
Monmouth map 27
map 28
ir.ap 41
Winthrop map 17
Cobbossee Lake
Manchester Map U-9
Monmouth map 7
map 30
map 32
Winthrop map 9
map 18
Lower Narrows Pond
Winthrop map 22
Maranacook Lake
Readfield map 20
map 26
Winthrop map 11
map 56
Sand Pond
Litchfield
maps U-10 & U—11
map U-12 (1-12)
Togus Pond
Hayden Road*
Woodbury Pond
Litchfield
map U-13 (3-12)
map U-17 (1-9)
(10-23)
map U-18 (7-15)
* Areas studied in detail or discussed in
the phase II of Non-Sewered Areas Waste-
water Disposal problems report.
Torsey Lake*	** Refers to community tax map number.
Readfield-Torsey Shores
Wayne Village
-108-

-------
Table 16
NON-CLUSTER ALTERNATIVES FOR PROBLEM AREAS
INDIVIDUAL(2)
APPROACH
Annnabessacook Lake
NON-DISCHARGE(3)
Cobbossee Lake
Monmouth map 28 - M(1)* * Monmouth map 36 - H
Winthrop map 17 - M Winthrop map 9 - M
Cobbossee Lake
Manchester map U-l-M
Monmouth map 32 - M
Cochnewagon Lake
Monmouth map 17 - M
Lower Narrows Pond
Winthrop map 21 -M
Maranacook Lake
Readfield map 17 - M
map 22 - L
Pleasant Pond*
Litchfield maps 1-7-L
Richmond KOA-Peacock Beach
area - M
Sand Pond
Monmouth map 36 - M
Toqus Pond*
Albee Road - M
Winthrop map 18 - H
Jimmy Pond
Litchfield map U-8-M
Lower Narrows Pond
Winthrop map 29 - M
Maranacook Lake
FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT(4)
Annabessacook Lake
Monmouth map 41
Cobbossee Lake
Manchester map U-3
Monmouth map 33
Monmouth map 37
Lovejoy Pond
Fayette maps U1&U2
Maranacook Lake
Winthrop map 11 - H Readfield map 20
Toqus Pond*
S. Belfast Ave. - H
Woodbury Pond
Litchfield map U-23 -
M
(1)	Priority rating; H - High; M - Medium; L - Low.
(2)	Situations probably best solved by individual efforts rather than
clus'koir
(3)	Soils not suitable for subsurface discharge; other disposal
methods recommended. ^
(4)	Problems may arise in the future; warrants attention.
* Areas studied in detail or discussed in the Phase II of Non-Sewered
Areas Wastewater Disposal Problems report.		—	•—
** Refers to community tax map number.
-109-

-------
FIGURE 10
SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS
GROUND V.EVEU
^ COVER
Kv»	* •*. :rv«	I
NLET


SCOH

LIQUID LEVEL


^-OUTLET
5ourc» "Ota*i*
-------
Areas experiencing malfunctions on a large scale, but
which may at some later date be sewered as part of a larger
system should consider a collection system with subsurface
disposal treatment with the flexibility of a later phasing
out the treatment portion.
The State Plumbing Code should be further revised to
include the following provisions and/or requirements:
a. A requirement that all toilet installations occur-
ring after a prescribed future date be of a low
volume type (3% gallons per flush or less).
*b. Revision of the 300 gallons/day sewage volume
estimate for "single family dwellings" (Section
5), to better reflect true water consumption
volumes. This would include dividing the pres-
ent family dwelling category (presently 1-5
bedrooms) standard into 1-3, 4, and 5 bedroom
categories, with appropriate volume reduction
for each. Provision for a reduction in water-
use estimates for homeowners who install water
saving devices such as aerators, and showerhead
flow reducers.
c.	Leach field sizing requirements modification to
correspond with the revised water consumption
estimates.
d.	Establishment of a model ordinance which munici-
palities could adopt that would provide for
mandatory inspection and maintenance of private
septic systems.
e.	Establishment of a review procedure of existing
waste disposal systems serving seasonal dwellings
to be converted to year-round use to insure that
they can adequately treat the additional wastes.
f.	Limitations on installation of leaching fields
during winter months when frozen ground can
severely hamper proper construction.
*Being implemented by Maine Department of Human Services
An education program consisting of the distribution
of informational literature by LPI's to homeowners regard-
ing proper functioning and maintenance of their waste dis-
posal systems should be established.
Management Recommendations:
Small-scale or cluster systems should be managed by
the local government or the special district if one exists
in the community as the first priority. The Cobbossee
Watershed District should also be considered for cluster
-111-

-------
management. If a new special district has to be formed,
it should encompass an area large enough to be able to ob-
tain the financial resources and expertise necessary for
proper operation and maintenance.
The Maine Department of Enviornmental Protection
should adopt the concept of a separate small-scale priority
list for grant assistance to cluster septic systems. Pres-
ently these are of such a low priority that projects must
wait more than 3 years for funding. The DEP should re-
solve this inequity by earmarking no less than 5% of its
annual Environmental Protection Agency grant allotment
for small scale systems. Priorities for small-scale sys-
tems grant assistance should be based upon the same system
used for large scale system grant assistance (projects are
assigned a certain number of points if they will add to
water supply protection, solve a severe enviornmental nui-
sance, solve a violation of a water quality standard, etc.).
Eligibility for the list should be based upon the following:
a.	15,000gpd or less design average daily flow and,
b.	total project cost of $200,000 or less
The consolidation of the subsurface disposal function
of the Division of Health Engineering of the Department of
Human Services into the Department of Environmental Protection
is recommended as this would assist Maine in dealing con-
sistently and fairly with all rural wastewater management
problems. The DEP can now grant variances in the October 1,
1976 deadline to certain low-income families. No similar
measures were proposed for families with malfunctioning
septic systems which fall under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Human Services, despite the fact that they must
correct their problems immediately by law. Consolidation of
various agencies regulating individual waste disposal systems
would ensure equitable treatment of all individuals needing
financial assistance to meet wastewater regulations.
Some form of assistance, whether it be State grants
and/or loans, or a program of municipally-backed loans,
should be provided to rural individuals who presently re-
ceive no direct benefits in the waste abatement programs
of the State, yet contribute their share of tax dollars
towards these programs. Any assistance program, whether
State or municipally-backed should be tied to a mandatory
inspection program. In the interim, municipalities should,
either individually or regionally.adopt a program to pre-
vent malfunctions from occurring or reoccurring with a
financial backing from the State and/or Federal governments.
The Division of Health Engineering, in cooperation
with regional agencies, should promote an education and
information program. The Regional Planning Commission
and agencies such as the Cobbossee Watershed District
should also provide technical assistance to LPI's in all
phases of their work.
-112-

-------
4 Industrial Pretreatment
Since Statler Tissue in Augusta and the Lipman Poultry
Company are the only major wastewater generating firms in
the region not connected or proposed to be connected to a
publicly-owned treatment facility, the issue of pretreatment
is critical. Inadequate pretreatment of industrial wastewater
can impair treatment processes, harm and destroy collection
and transport facilities, create dangerous and/or hazardous
conditions and impair water quality. Map 13 also shows the
location of the various industrial firms which generate
wastewater in the region.
Two interim reports, Publicly Owned Facilities,
March, 1977 and Industrial Waste Overview, January, 197 6,
presented the magnitude of the situation. Table 17
summarizes the regional industrial wastewater pretreat-
ment situation.
The following recommendations are made relative to
the region's industrial pretreatment needs.
Technical and Management Recommendations:
Industrial pretreatment, being a key wastewater treat-
ment issue in the region, must be effectively managed by
the local governing body. This includes the Augusta Sani-
tary District and the City of Gardiner, as all but two of
the major industrial wastewater generators will be tied
to those facilities.
The ASD and the City of Gardiner should establish
effecive pretreatment ordinances and closely monitor the
pretreated effluents in their areas with technical back-
ing from the DEP in terms of laboratory support, legal
support and other necessary activities. The ASD ordinance
was recently revised to improve its pretreatment controls.
5. Monmouth-Winthrop-Manchester-Hallowell-Aucfustfi
Regional Trunkline	~
The Monmouth to Augusta Trunkline is a key element
in the water quality improvements and protection of the
Cobbossee Lakes. Since January 1972 when the Augusta Sani-
tary District began operation of its Winthrop to Augusta
facility, vast quantities of domestic and industrial waste-
waters were treated at the ASD primary treatment plant with
its Kennebec River discharge. Formerly these were only
-113-

-------
Table 17
REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT SITUATION
Existing
Pretreatment
Waste Flew
(gpd)
BOD5(ppd)
SS(ppd)
' Remarks
Augusta Sanitary District:




Edwards Mfg.
screens
90,000
1100
400
improvements
needed
Kirschners
Meat Pack-
ing
dissolved-air
floatation
100,000
220
150
100mg/l grease
& oil limit
*Lipman
Poultry
dissolved-air
floatation
750,000
4000
4700
100mg/l grease
& oil limit
Carleton
Woolen
equalization-
neutralization
600,000
1000
500
2.0mg/l D.O.
minimum
Globe
Albany
equalization-
neutralization
200,000
300
75
2.0mg/l D.O.
minimum
Subtotal

1,740,000
6620
5825

Proposed
Proposed
Pretreatment
Waste(gpd)
Flew
BOD(ppd)
SS(ppd)
Remarks
Brewer's
Dairy
biological
-
-
-
under study;
present sub-
surface system
malfunctioning
TOTAL ASD
-
1,740,000
6620
5825

Proposed
Proposed
Pretreatment
Waste(gpd)
Flow
BOD(qpd)
SS(ppd)
Remarks
Gardiner:
Yorktowne
Paper
savealls
350,000
1050
1300
pretreatment
in operation
TOTAL REGION:	-	2,090,000	7670	7125
*Lipman Poultry will begin treatment and direct discharge to the Kennebec River
in February 1978.
-114-

-------
receiving primary treatment and discharged into Annabessa-
cook Lake. In the fall of 1976, the town of Monmouth and
the Globe Albany textile mill in North Monmouth were con-
nected to the system further reducing the wastewater
sources entering Annabessacook. Also, Manchester's con-
nection of the fall and spring of 1976-1977 still further
reduced the amounts of pollutants entering Cobbossee Lake.
The integrity of the line is obviously critical since
so many communities and industries now rely upon it for
wastewater disposal. In 1974-75, a serious bio-chemical
corrosive problem occurred due to inadequate pretreatment
at Carleton Woolen Mills in Winthrop. Fortunately, the
damage, although extensive, did not impair the structural
strength of the line. Since that time, the ASD improved
its pretreatment ordinance and monitoring and Carleton
upgraded its pretreatment operation. Other problems, how-
ever, exist.
A study was undertaken for the Commission and the
Inter-Community Group, the five (5) districts connected
to the line and Carleton Woolen. The study, prepared
by Whitman and Howard, Inc., the ASD consultant engineer,
recommended a series of actions for improving the daily
and emergency operating procedures of the line, including
storage, alarm systems, detention systems and other items.
The following recommendations are made relative to
the Whitman and Howard report.
Recommended Policies and Standards:
The improvements recommended in the Whitman and
Howard report to the Inter-Community Group and the SKVRPC
should be considered for funding as soon as possible.
These include: storage at the Winthrop Water District
site, improved and added valving at the pump stations at
Winthrop and Manchester, improved alarm systems, improve-
ments in flood protection at E. Winthrop and other items.
Also, a possible alternate bypass route including a new
pump station should be studied for the Manchester-East
Winthrop area around Cobbossee Lake.
Mangement Recommendations:
The ASD and the Inter-Comraunity Group should pursue
an EPA and DEP construction grant to correct the deficien
cies in the trunk line. The Group is presently seeking
a planning grant from the two agencies to further study
the alternatives available. This is highly commendable.
As previously recommended under the discussion of
-115-

-------
needed facilities, the inter-community Group should for-
malize into a regional authority with jurisdiction over
the regional facilities including all'major interceptors,
pump stations and the treatment plant, including the sludge
disposal operation. The local sewer extension policies,
including financing, should be kept a local issue under
the control of the existing districts or municipalities.
These local bodies could contract with the regional au-
thority for management of stormwater systems and cluster
septic systems. Such items as billing, minor construction
activities, and operation and maintenance could be per-
formed through interlocal or enabling agreements.
-116-

-------
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
STANDARDS, RESTORATION AND MONITORING

-------
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
STANDARDS, RESTORATION AND MONITORING
1. Standards and Goals for Lakes and Their Tributaries
A regional goal for the Southern Kennebec valley is to
protect and maintain acceptable water quality in lakes, rivers
streams. To translate the goal of acceptable water quality
into a management strategy, it is first necessary to define
what is an acceptable level of water quality.
Scientists have found that there is a strong relation-
ship between the amount of phosphorus and the amount of plant
growth in lakes. The amount of phosphorus in a lake deter-
mines its productivity (plant growth) and hence its water
quality. The specific relationship for the Southern Kenne-
bec Valley lakes between phosphorus and productivity was
defined in an interim report entitled Water Quality Over-
view (April 1977).
In the Southern Kennebec region, the lakes currently
show a range of water quality as shown in Map 8. Some are
extremely clear, with only sparse algae growth. Others are
choked with algae and weeds, and summer algae blooms are an
annual event. The majority of the lakes in the region have
water quality intermediate to these two extremes; they are
neither exceptionally pristine nor exceptionally degraded.
Table 18 lists most of the lakes in the region in order of
their current water quality. Figure 11 indicates the
percent or relative phosphorus loadings from various land
use activities in these lakesheds. The Non-Point Sources of
Pollution to Lakes report discusses these findings in greater
detail.
The relationship of phosphorus and productivity is a
powerful tool; permissible algae levels can be translated
into permissible phosphorus levels. The question of 'how
clean is clean enough' can be asked in terms understood by
lake users: 'how much algae growth is acceptable'. Techni-
cal water quality managers are then able to translate that
level of productivity into a permissible level of phosphorus.
The level of productivity chosen as a regional goal should
not degrade a lake for its current or prospective uses.
Most of the region's lakes support multiple uses at this
time; water supply, recreation and wildlife habitat.
-117

-------
Table 18
SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY LAKES
CURRENT WATER QUALITY
High Quality Lakes
Carlton Pond
Parker Pond
Sand Pond
Woodbury Pond
Echo Lake
Minnehonk Lake
Moderate Quality Lakes
Lower Narrows pond
Flying pond
Lovejoy Pond
Pocasset Lake
Upper Narrows Pond
South Basin Maranacook Lake
Wilson Pond
Torsey Lake
Androscoggin Lake
Jamies Pond
North Basin Maranacook Lake
Berry pond
Dexter pond
Cochnewagon Pond
Buker Pond
Hutchinson Pond
Threecornered Pond
Togus Pond
Low Quality Lakes
Cobbossee Lake
Pleasant Pond
Little cobbossee Lake
Annabessacook Lake
Note: Lakes are listed in order of decreasing water quality
as indicated by DEP Trophic Status Index (based on visibility,
chlorophyll "a" and total phosphorus),
-118-

-------
Figure n- PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS TO SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY
LAKES BY SOURCE {fo)	1976-77
1 OOr
5>0"
0-
A
U
BS
iF P S
•ss-Annabe s s a c ook
P
PJ*S U, Apg-
P 3 U
D P p
U

A


U
—a

D p P S
"1		

Berry	Buker	ttCarlton	|#Cobbossee J
1 OOr
5o-
o-
ft.
D



F P S
v—U
Coohnewagon
U
A D
P P S
Dexter
U
rTrn? s
D
his u
'¦			
D
* p S
~=x£
u
•ss-Hut chins on * Jamie s
^Little
Cobb03366
1 OOr
5o-
o.
n wiu
u
iiLLin n-pdi
¦H-Lower Narrows Maranacook Maranacook
upper basin lower basin
U
D —	A D p p q
^Pleasant
Sand
10C-
5o-
0-
F p
.U
Torsey

D



P s u
U
r~F£t»]
^Upper Narrows Wilson Woodbury
D
A
a
P s
|U
^Togus
100j-
5o-
o.
U

¦frPocasset
U
A D
•stLove joy
A = Agriculture P
D = Development S
P = Forests	u
BS = Bottom sediments
Precipitation
Septic:tanks
Upstream lakes
¦a = Detailed study lakes
I Problem lakes
-119-

-------
Recommended Policies and Standards:
Water quality standards for lakes in terms of trophic
state have been proposed by the State Department of Environ-
mental Protection. Map 11 shows the existing and proposed
classifications in the region. There are two proposed
standards:
Class GP-A. Great Ponds with low-moderate levels
of productivity. (High-moderate water quality).
In Table 18, high quality and moderate quality
lakes meet this standard.
Class GP-B. Great ponds with high levels of
productivity. (Low water quality). in Table 18,
the four low quality lakes are Class GP-B.
The recommendation for a regional water quality goal
is to meet Class GP-A standards. Criteria for this stand-
ard include, among others:
Total phosphorus concentration not to exceed 15
parts per billion (ppb).
Secchi disk visibility greater than 2 meters (m).
Chlorophyll a concentration not to exceed 8 parts
per billion (ppb).
The recommended water quality standards set a limit on
the phosphorus concentration in lakes. The lake phosphorus
concentration depends on the input of phosphorus from the
drainage basin, so managing lake productivity must focus on
managing phosphorus runoff, from the watershed. The morpho-
metry of a lake, its depth and flushing rate, determines
what phosphorus concentration will result from a phosphorus
load. Because each lake differs in size and flushing rate
each lake also differs in the phosphorus load permissible '
to achieve the target phosphorus standards. Water quality
management must, therefore, focus on adequately protecting
lakes from phosphorus loading that will effect a concentra-
tion in excess of the proposed standards.
Just as the lakes in the region show a range of water
quality, they show a range of assimilative capacity; the
ability of a water body to absorb pollutants without degra-
dation. Some of the lakes are extremely vulnerable to
degradation from phosphorus loading as shown in Map 9.
These are lakes that are slow flushing and/or shallow! in
these lakes, a slight increase in phosphorus load will effect
an increase in the lake's phosphorus concentration. Other
lakes (deep and/or fast flushing) have a higher tolerance
for phosphorus loading; they are less vulnerable to water
quality degradation from an increase in load. Figures 12 and
13 illustrate the relationship between phosphorus load and
resulting lake concentration. The lakes with the steeply
-120-

-------
Figure 12-PHOSPHORUS LOAD:CONCENTRATION RELATIONSHIP
Southern Kennebec Valley Lakes (after -
Vollenweider, 1969, Dillon and Rigler, 1974)
*	current loading
•	maximum permissible loading
See Figure 13 for
expanded scale
650	1300 1^50 2600 5^35 sfcs 4550
5150
645C
7100
7750
8400
¦mo-
Phosphorus Load, kg/yr

-------
Figure 13: Phosphorus Load: Concentration Relationship
Expanded Scale
maximum parmtulbla
loading
# currant loading
aftar Vollanwaldar ,1969
Oil Ion and Rlglar ,19741
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Phosphorus Load, kg/yd
-122-

-------
Concentration reflects upstream water quality
as there is minimal contribution from land use
in the intermediate drainage.
b. .025 ppm total phosphorus on all tributaries
to lakes with small percentage of water budget
entering from upstream lakes with flow variable,
generally 20 to 55 cfs, including tributaries to:
Cobbossee Watershed Lakes
Torsey	Tacoma
Maranacook	Wilson/Berry/Dexter
Carlton	Cochnewagon
Narrows	Jamies/Hutchinson
Pleasant
Thirty Mile River Watershed Lakes
Parker
Flying
Togus Stream Watershed Lakes
Togus
Threecornered
According to our calculations, this concentration
will keep phosphorus loading below a limit that
will support eutrophic conditions in the receiving
body.
c. .040 ppm total phosphorus for all other tributaries
to those lakes receiving major water budget from
upstream. Tributaries to:
Cobbossee Watershed
Annabessacook (except Mill Stream)
Cobbossee (except Jug Stream)
Thirty Mile River Watershed (except connectors)
Echo	Lovejoy
Taylor	Androscoggin
Pocasset	Minnehonk
Monitoring phosphorus concentrations in streams is a
costly and complex procedure, involving frequent sampling
and gaging during periods of various streamflow. The advis-
ory standards are included as a means of assessing the
effectiveness of the proposed land use controls; it is
recommended that the mean tributary phosphorus concentra-
tion be recalculated in 7 to 10 years for such an evaluation.
An alternate means to assess phosphorus loading and
thus the effectiveness of the proposed land use controls is
to monitor the receiving waters, the lakes. Parameters
indicating a lake's productivity - secchi disk visibility,
-123-

-------
sloped lines are most vulnerable to phosphorus input, the
low assimilative capacity lakes. The highest assimilative
capacity lakes have less steeply sloped lines of phosphorus
load and concentration; a large change in load is needed to
change the concentration. Map 10 depicts the various needs
for protection in the region's lakes.
To protect the region's lakes from excessive phosphorus
loading, this plan recommends increased land use control.
The fact that land use and water quality is related is well
established. Activities in the lakeshed that generate phos-
phorus, increase erosion, or increase stormwater runoff can
be minimized, thus reducing the amount of phosphorus enter-
ing the lake. Best management practices, as defined in the
non-point source section, will result in the least adverse
impact on water quality.
The ability to predict the exact water quality conse-
quence of a specific land use in terms of quantifying the
amount of phosphorus generated is limited by a lack of
scientific information. Therefore, land use controls must
be accompanied by water quality monitoring. That is, to in-
sure that the suggested land use controls are adequate, it
is necessary to check phosphorus levels in lakes and streams
periodically. By monitoring stream phosphorus concentra-
tions, it is possible to detect levels that will degrade the
receiving waters.
To define stream phosphorus levels that will protect
the receiving water, a calculation of maximum permissible
loading was performed on several lakes. (See 7 lakeshed
studies by CWD for 208 study.) Guidelines for stream
phosphorus levels are in excess of the proposed guidelines,
land uses in the lakeshed should be examined, for controls
are inadequate or are being violated.
Proposed advisory lake tributary standards:
a. .015 parts per million (ppm) total phosphorus
on major connecting streams between lakes with
flow > 55 cubic feet per second (cfs, mean daily
for year). Includes:
Cobbossee Watershed
Mill Stream
Jug Stream
Thirty Mile River Watershed
Hopkins Stream
stream segments between:
Echo-Lovejoy
Lovejoy-Pocasset
Pocasset-Androscoggin
-124-

-------
chlorophyll "a" concentration and total phosphorus concentra-
tion - can be used to indicate phosphorus loading. Changes
in these parameters will indicate declining water quality
due to an increase in phosphorus load.
Just as in the tributary guidelines, it is necessary
to suggest an upper limit for the three lake parameters.
When any of the parameters approach the upper limit, land
uses in the lakeshed should be examined for adequacy and/or
violations of controls. Generally, phosphorus concentrations
in excess of 15 parts per billion are likely to trigger nui-
sance algae blooms. For the majority of lakes in the region,
a phosphorus concentration of fifteen parts per billion
should therefore be considered critical. Because most of
the region's lakes respond rapidly to changes in phosphorus
loading, an upper limit of 15 ppb will afford adequate
protection. Efforts to reduce the phosphorus loading will
be reflected quickly in improved water quality. A phosphorus
concentration of 15.0 parts per billion (ppb) will support
average chlorophyll "a" concentration of 5.5 ppb, and average
secchi disk visibility of 4.1 meters and a minimum secchi
disk of 3 meters.
For the slow flushing lakes in the region: Torsey,
Parker, Carlton, Cochnewagon, Togus and Lower Narrows, a
phosphorus concentration of ten parts per billion should be
considered critical. The delay in response to phosphorus
loading necessitates the more conservative approach. These
lakes are slow to replace their existing water volume with
a water volume reflecting the changed phosphorus load. Pro-
longed excessive loading may occur before it is apparent in
lake quality. If management agencies delay action to re-
duce inputs to these lakes until phosphorus concentrations
reach 15 ppb, it may be too lake. A phosphorus concentra-
tion of 10 ppb will support average chlorophyll "a" concentra-
tions of 3.6 ppb, average summer secchi disk of 5.1 m, and
minimum summer secchi disk visibility of 4.1 m.
Management Recommendations:
Recommendations for implementation of best management
practices for land use are addressed in the non-point source
issues section. These recommendations will address imple-
mentation of the proposed water quality standards.
Phosphorus monitoring is crucial to implementation of
the standards. The Maine Department of Environmental Pro-
tection - Division of Laboratory and Fields Services has the
capability for this analysis. Responsibility for continued
phosphorus monitoring (this could include both sample col-
lection and analysis) should be assigned to this agency.
In-lake water quality monitoring is an integral part
of implementation of the proposed water quality standards.
-125-

-------
Long-range data needs for lake monitoring, management
alternatives and impacts of the alternatives are discussed
later in this section.
2. Standards and Goals for the
Kennebec River and Urban Tributaries
The water quality of the Kennebec River as it flows
through the Southern Kennebec Valley is severely degraded.
During low flow periods, the degradation is evidenced in
visible solids, high bacteria levels, and complete oxygen
depletion resulting in anaerobic decomposition and the as-
sociated odors. Although its water quality does not meet
its Class C designation at this time, it is expected to in
the future with the current construction program taking
place in the region and upstream. The national 1983 water
quality goal is for Class B-2 (swimmable, fishable) water
quality where attainable. Whether or not the 1983 water
quality goal is attainable is an important issue in this
region. Many of the river corridor communities rely or
will rely upon the Kennebec as a major recreational water
resource since they do not have the lakes and ponds associated
with the Cobbossee Lakes towns. These include Pittston,
Richmond, Chelsea, Randolph, Gardiner, Parmingdale, Hallowell
and Augusta.
The largest single source of wastewater in the entire
Kennebec River Basin is the Scott Paper pulp and paper mill
complex at Winslow. This complex, which will soon be re-
duced to just a paper mill, accounts for a population equiva-
lent of over two million people in terms of both organic and
solids loading to the River. The Scott Paper effluent,
coupled with other municipal and industrial discharges in
the Waterville-Winslow area, causes the rapid downstream
deterioration of the Kennebec River. Scott has constructed
a new pulp mill in Hinkley. The water quality degrada-
tion from these sources is most severe in the Augusta-
Gardiner area. More detailed information on the wastewater
sources and the water quality of the Kennebec River can be
found in the following references:
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (January
1976) Kennebec River basin water quality management
plan. Augusta, Maine.
E.C. Jordan (June ]975) Water quality surveys of the
Kennebec and Sebasticook rivers, 1973-74# prepared
for the Maine DEP. Portland, Maine.
Southern Kennebec valley Regional Planning Commission
(January ]976) Industrial waste overview. Augusta,
Maine.
-126-

-------
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission
(March 1977) Publicly owned facilities. Augusta,
Maine.
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission
(April 1977) water quality overview, and
data appendix. Augusta, Maine.
There are a number of wastewater treatment facilities
under construction in the Watervilie-Winslow area which will
reduce a great deal of the organic, bacteriological, and
solids load to the River. The water quality of the Kennebec
will improve significantly once these point sources are
abated. However, there will still be wastewater discharges
degrading the Kennebec's water quality during certain storm
conditions as will be discussed later in this section.
The Southern Kennebec area also has a number of waste-
water sources degrading the Kennebec, although to a lesser
extent than from upstream sources. The largest source of
degradation in the Augusta area is Statler Tissue; this
industry recently began operating its secondary treatment
facility. Municipal wastes from Augusta, winthrop, Man-
chester, Monmouth and Richmond are discharged to the River
after primary treatment, wastewaters from Gardiner, Hallo-
well, Farmingdale and Randolph are presently discharged to
the River without treatment. Three publicly-owned second-
ary treatment facilities will be built for the region in the
near future as was discussed in the previous part of this
report. Although the effect of the present wastewater
sources in the region on the Kennebec's water quality is
masked by the severe degradation from upstream discharges,
the predicted water quality for the River will be vastly
improved once these sources of wastewater are adequately
treated.
The problem of wet-weather discharges, however, still
remains a problem. These wet-weather discharges refer to
possible non-point sources eminating from the agricultural
activity in vassalboro and Sidney between the Augusta and
Waterville urban areas as well as the urban runoff and com-
bined sewer overflows from the two urban areas.
In Augusta alone, there are approximately 45 overflow
points. These overflows could add enough bacteria to de-
grade the River below a C classification even after the
point sources are abated. A 1974 report prepared for the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection by Dale E.
Caruthers entitled Combined Sewer Overflow Needs Survey.
Southern Maine estimated $90 million to separate the Augusta
Sanitary District system in combination with storage facili-
ties where separation was not feasible. This figure of
$90 million, however, does not reflect the pollution from
the separate storm sewer discharges. Storm runoff from
urban areas without combined sewers can be as important to
water quality as combined sewers, and in some cases more so.
-127-

-------
It is the Planning Commission's estimate that $200 million
could be necessary to treat the major storm and combined over-
flow discharges in terms of bacteria and solids along.
The effects of urban runoff in Augusta was documented
in a report prepared by Whitman and Howard for the Commis-
sion as part of this planning program entitled Water Quality
Management Plan Augusta Sector. December 1976. The Whitman
and Howard study was also prepared to satisfy the ASD's
Overflow/Bypass Report requirement of their EPA and DEP
discharge licenses. Certain tributaries to the Kennebec
River were sampled above and below known combined sewer
discharge points and storm sewer outfalls. Sampling before
and during a storm event disclosed that the tributaries
were polluted by the separate storm discharges as much as
by the combined sewer overflows. This would make the pro-
ject of separating the sewers not only costly, but fruitless
in terms of water quality improvements. In fact, the com-
bined overflow discharges may be less polluting since the
"first flush" may make its way into the interceptor sewer.
This "first flush" contains a great deal of pollutants
deposited in the sewers from the tail end of the previous
storm as well as the initial runoff from the urban area. A
separate storm sewer discharges all this polluted material
directly into the receiving waters without any chance of it
entering an interceptor sewer.
The urban streams in the planning region where urban
runoff could be significantly are Riggs, Whitney, Kennedy
and Bond Brooks in Augusta, Vaughan Brook in Hallowell and
Cobbossee Stream in Gardiner. These streams were examined
by consultants reports for Augusta, Hallowell, Gardiner,
Farmingdale and Randolph. Others may exist, but were not
studied as part of the planning program.
Therefore, upgrading the Kennebec River and certain
urban tributaries from a C classification to a B-2 in
accordance with the national 1983 goals could have far-
reaching implications. The Augusta Sanitary District foight
be required to treat certain combined sewers and urban
storm runoff at enormous expense. Other communities in
the River corridor could be required to treat storm drain-
age as well. The other combined systems in the region,
Gardiner, Hallowell and Richmond, will be separated prior
to their secondary treatment construction programs. This
separation was shown to be cost-effective for all three
communities. The urban runoff problem may, however, have
to be dealt with in the future depending upon the classi-
fication of the receiving waters.
A major problem also exists in quantifying the extent
of the problem of these wet-weather discharges on the Kenne-
bec and its tributaries. Although it can be shown today
that the small streams are impaired by urban runoff and
coi(ibin6d discharges, the Kennebec wxll be more dxffxcult.
The process cannot really be started until the dry weather
-128-

-------
discharges are fully treated. This is not expected for
three years or more due to the inadequate level of EPA
construction grant monies that Maine receives.
Recommended Policies and Standards;
The Kennebec River and its urban tributaries should
remain Class C waters within the Southern Kennebec Region
until the effects of the wet-weather discharges vs dry
weather discharges can be determined. It is likely that
a B-2 Kennebec River water quality can be met during most
conditions except certain storm events. Once it is deter-
mined what abatement measures are needed in terms of the
urban runoff/combined sewer discharges in this region, as
well as above the region, a timetable should be established
to reach a B-2 for the Kennebec River. The B-2 should be
established by at least 1983 for the River below urban
Gardiner. The B-2 segment should be extended up the River
towards Augusta on a reasonable time schedule if shown to
be economically feasible.
The urban streams should also be upgraded as economic
feasibility permits. They should be not further degraded,
particularly those in drainages used as public water sup-
plies such as Cobbossee Stream. Many urban streams are
presently no more than storm drains in the summer months.
It is not clear whether the costs associated with their
upgrading will be justified in many cases.
The Recommended Policies and Standards associated with
the Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows discussion under
STRUCTURAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES also hold true for this
section on the urban tributaries and the Kennebec River,
particularly as it relates to proposed licensing and abate-
ment programs.
Management Recommendations;
The Maine Board of Environmental Protection has retained
the Class C standard for the Kennebec River within the 208
Planning Area. This is recommended by this Plan.
The Board of Environmental Protection should upgrade
the Kennebec below urban Gardiner to a B-2 by 1983. This
will entail detailed sampling of the River after the point
sources are treated, particularly during certain rain events.
The DEP should quantify the extent of needed treatment and
develop the abatement schedule accordingly. The DEP-EPA con-
struction grant program should be used in treating the wet-
weather pollution sources. The total costs could run as high
as $250 million for the region according to RPC estimates
($200 million for Augusta and $50 million for the remainder
of the urban corridor).
-129-

-------
The urban tributaries should not be allowed to be
further degraded. This can be accomplished by following
the Recommendations and Standards of the Stormwater and
Combined Sewer Overflows section referenced above. The
upgrading of these streams to B-2 should only be considered
when a significant benefit can be shown. Water supply
streams, however, should be considered priorities such as
Bond Brook and Cobbossee Stream.
3. Lake Restoration
Currently, four lakes in the Southern Kennebec Valley
region have poor water quality as shown on Map 8. These
lakes - Annabessacook, Cobbossee, Pleasant Pond and Little
Cobbossee - are eutrophic; they have high levels of plant
fertilizers expecially phosphorus and suffer from the resul-
tant dense algae populations. Eutrophication, the enrich-
ment of lakes with nutrients, is the major lake water quality
problem in the Southern Kennebec Region.
The high level of algae and weeds in these eutrophic
lakes is considered a water quality problem, for the lakes
are degraded both aesthetically and ecologically. Potential
use of the water by area residents for recreation and water
supply is diminished. The habitat for much of the wildlife
is eliminated as the lakes become choked with algae and weeds.
To improve the degraded water quality of these eutro-
phic lakes, we must identify the sources of the pollution and
devise a strategy for reducing or eliminating those sources.
A number of interim reports: Water Quality Overview (April
1977); Non-Point Sources of Pollutignto Lakes (April 1977)
and a series of individual lakeshed studies (April 1977)
discuss the relationship between phosphorus and water quality,
detailing the sources of phosphorus and strategies for
water quality management.
Recommended Policies and Standards:
To restore the four degraded lakes, the sources of phos-
phorus must be reduced; phosphorus controls the amount of
algal growth sustained by the lakes.
The study places a major emphasis on identifying and
quantifying the sources of phosphorus to the region's lakes.
A combination of land use estimation and lake and stream
monitoring was utilized. Table 19 identifies the sources of
phosphorus to the four stressed lakes and indicates the amount
of reduction needed to restore acceptable water quality.
-130-

-------
Table 19
LfiKE RESTORATION:
NEEDED REDUCTION IN PHOSPHORUS LOADING
Lake
Current
Load
kg/yr
Sources (%)
Permissible
Load
(kg)
Needed
Reduction
(%)
Annabessa- 3600 Lake Bottom
cook Sediments	36%
Agriculture	24%
Upstream
Lakes	24%
Development	11%
other	5%
3000*
17%
Cobbossee	9400	Annabessa-
cook Lake	56%
Agriculture	30%
other	14%
7500
20%
Pleasant
87 0 Agriculture 80%
other 20%
770
Little
Cobbossee
250	Agriculture 75%
other 25%
140
44%
*This is the estimated phosphorus load that will restore Annabessacook
Lake water quality over a period of years. Water quality will not
improve rapidly without an additional effort to improve the lake's
diminished assimilative capacity. For further discussion, see Anna-
bessacook Lake Study (April, 1977).
-131 -

-------
Efforts to restore water quality in the region's
eutrophic lakes must focus on the two sources: agricul-
ture and Annabessacook Lake bottom sediments, control
of phosphorus loading from agricultural runoff is dis-
cussed under the LAND USE PLANNING section. Control of
phosphorus loading from Annabessacook Lake bottom sediments
can most feasibly be accomplished through an in-lake
restoration technique, addition of alum to the bottom
waters of the lake. The alum will act to permanently bind
the phosphorus in the sediments and prevent its release to
the lake water. A project to control phosphorus from
these sources has been designed and is described below.
Management Recommendations:
The Cobbossee watershed District has been awarded
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Section 314 grant for
funding to implement the technical recommendations for con-
trolling both sources of phosphorus. Funding for the pro-
ject comes through the cooperation of many agencies: the
SCS, Kennebec County Soil and Water conservation District,
ASCS, Cobbossee watershed District, Maine Department of
Environmental Protection, individual farmers and lake associ-
ations. Funding for the project is on a 50-50 local/Federal
formula. Total project cost is approximately $500,000,
including personnel.
4. Long Range water Resource Monitoring
An ongoing monitoring program in the region's water-
ways will provide a valuable function in water quality
management. The response of the waterways to changes in
land use activities or wastewater treatment will be docu-
mented? and preliminary signs of water quality degradation
will be detected. Monitoring of streams also helps identi-
fy the sources of phosphorus and the extent of urban run-
off degradation.
Recommended policies and Standards:
The plan has designed a long-range monitoring program
to detect the responses of the lakes and streams to changes
in land use patterns. These are as follows for lakes,
tributaries to lakes and the Kennebec River and urban streams.
Lakes
a. secchi disk visibility - yearly during summer
season. (End of June - end of September)
every 2 weeks, all lakes.
-132-

-------
b.	total phosphorus - yearly at spring overturn
on all stressed lakes, water supply lakes,
and lakes of low assimilative capacity. in-
cludes: Annabessacook, Cobbossee, Pleasant,
Little Cobbossee, Upper and Lower Narrows,
Carlton, jamies, Torsey, Cochnewagon, Togus
and Parker.
On all other lakes, spring overturn phosphorus
every 2 to 3 years. If phosphorus concentrations
reach 15 ppb, and/or secchi disk visibility
declines more than lm/yr, phosphorus monitoring
frequency should be increased to yearly on these
lakes as well.
c.	chlorophyll "a" - every 2 to 3 years, during
summer season (end of June - end of September),
every 2 weeks, all lakes.
d.	dissolved oxygen profile - yearly, at end of August,
stressed lakes.
Tributaries to Lakes
a.	Total phosphorus concentration in streams in
7 to 10 years for a nutrient budget analysis.
This is to assess effectiveness of proposed
land use controls.
b.	in response to suspected high phosphorus load-
ing to lake. High loadings may be suspected if
lake water quality declines significantly. Pro-
posed advisory tributary to lake standards
should be used as a guideline to significance
of tributary phosphorus levels.
Additionally, the staff has formulated recommenda-
tions for monitoring that will refine an under-
standing of specific critical streams or land uses.
These are as follows:
a.	Mill Stream, Winthrop. To characterize storm
water runoff from Winthrop Village, and to
assess possibility of unknown point source.
Monitor: flow, bacteria, phosphorus, and sus-
pended solids
b.	Wilson Stream, Monmouth. Further investigation
is needed to assess impact of diversion of
municipal and industrial waste. Monitor:
bacteria, phosphorus concentration, and flow
gaging
c.	Jug Stream, Monmouth. Further investigation
is needed to assess the amount of phosphorus
-133-

-------
leaving Annabessacook Lake. This is crucial
towards understanding how the lake is respond-
ing to diversions, and understanding the role
of the sediments in determining phosphorus
availability. Monitor: phosphorus, flow
d. Agriculture - need to refine our understanding
of phosphorus export from manured fields. Sug-
gest concentrating on Potters Brook, Litchfield.
Monitor: phosphorus (total and soluble), flow,
and nitrogen
Sampling must concentrate on storm events.
Kennebec River and Urban Streams
a.	Kennebec River. The River should be sampled
after the major point sources of wastewater are
abated to their required levels to determine
the base line, dry weather low flow water qual-
ity conditions. This will help determine if
a Class B-2 is feasible without additional dry
weather abatement. Monitor: flow, BOD, sus-
pended solids and bacteria (fecal coliform)
Sampling should also be undertaken after the
point source abatement completion during wet-
weather, summer and/or high runoff periods.
This should be done to determine what wet-
weather runoff (urban runoff and/or combined
sewer overflows) abatement measures need to be
implemented for a B-2 Kennebec classification
by 1983. The same items should be monitored.
b.	Urban Tributaries of Kennebec. The region's
urban tributaries (Kennedy, Riggs, Whitney and
Bond Brooks in Augusta, Vaughn Brook in Hallo-
well and Cobbossee Stream in Gardiner should
also be monitored to better assess the impact
of urban runoff on their water quality and to
determine the feasibility of classification
upgrading. This could be tied to the pro-
posed Mill Stream sampling program in Winthrop,
only BOD should be added.
Management Recommendations;
Recommend that the following agencies assume these
responsibilities:
a. Cobbossee Watershed District - Regional Coordinator
to assess priorities for monitoring of lakes and
streams, coordinate efforts of involved agencies.
-134-

-------
Data analyses to determine when lake water
quality is approaching a critical level; and
consequently when land uses in the watersheds
must be examined.
Coordination of lay monitors for secchi disk
visibility.
Collection of spring phosphorus lake samples.
b.	Maine State Department of Environmental pro-
tection - Laboratory and Field Division -
analyses of water chemistry. Sampling of
streams and Kennebec River.
Lakes Division - training of lay monitors for
secchi disk visibility. Analyses of chlorophyll
a samples. Technical advisory staff.
c.	Regional Planning Commission - arrange for
lakesheds outside of Cobbossee watershed Dis-
trict jurisdiction to be studied through con-
tract or arrangement.
d.	The recommendations for monitoring of critical
streams and land uses have been included as
guidance for a future monitoring effort. Pres-
ently, no agency is committed to implementing
the program. The proposed Cobbossee Watershed
District Lakes Restoration Project includes a
"post project evaluation" that will focus on
these identified problem streams or land uses.
5. Other Water Resource Data Needs
Because eutrophication of surface waters is the major
water quality problem in the Southern Kennebec Region, much
of the effort in the planning project was devoted to identi-
fying and quantifying the sources of eutrophication. Other
water resource concerns which are presently inadequately
understood include:
a. The quality of the region's groundwater. The
quality of the region's groundwater is present-
ly not considered a problem. However, there
are limited data on groundwater quality to
test this assumption. Groundwater is a major
source of water supply in the region, and its
quality is an important consideration.
-135-

-------
b.	The impact of solid waste disposal on ground-
water. Movement of groundwater through dis-
posal sites and the impact on water quality
must be assessed.
c.	The quantity and location of the groundwater.
This has implications on future water sup-
plies. Potential areas of high yield wells
have been mapped for the Southern Kennebec
Region, but this information must be refined
before it will indicate the extent of the
region's groundwater resource.
d.	The existence and extent of pollution of
surface waters from contaminants other than
nutrients. In the Southern Kennebec Region
there are limited base line data for levels
of: pesticides, chlorides, and PCB's.
Recommended Policies and Standards;
The significant water resource date deficiencies have
been prioritized for the region, and a monitoring program
for their evaluation is being proposed for the Maine Bureau
of Geology, the U.S. Geological Survey and others.
Groundwater Quality. Among the above deficiencies,
highest priority shouldbe given to an assessment of base
line groundwater quality and the effects on this base line
of solid waste, manure and sludge disposal sites; as well
as septic tank effluent. The following parameters should
be evaluated:
conductivity
total and fecal coliform bacteria
nitrogen: nitrate, TKN, ammonia
phosphorus: orthophosphate
sodium
metals: Fe, Mg, Pb, Zn, Cu, Ni, As,
Cr, Se, Hg, Cd
Temperature
alkalinity
chlorides
Monitoring groundwater quality is expensive, due to
the costs of drilling and lining test wells. According to
USGS and Maine Deoartment of Conservation Bureau of Geology
estimates, well costs of $10-$12 per foot may be incurred.
With personnel and equipment, cost per test site may be as
high as $500-$l,000.
Costs of a base line groundwater assessment can be
somewhat reduced by utilizing existing wells for test sites.
An accurate estimation of the costs involved is difficult
without a detailed appraisals A similar study, which in—
-136-

-------
eluded mapping of surficial geology, was done in Androscog-
gin County by the USGS, at a cost of approximately $35,000.
For evaluating the effects of groundwater quality of
a disposal site, a minimum of 6 to 12 test sites are recom-
mended by the USGS. Total project costs, including well
digging, chemical analyses, and data interpretation can
range between $15,000 and $20,000.
Groundwater Supplies and Flow Systems. Priority
should also be given to an assessment of potential ground-
water supplies (high yield aquifers). The water districts
in the region should continue to work with the USGS in this
endeavor. A regional map of potential high yield well areas
was prepared for the study by the Bureau of Geology. Ground
checking the identified sites is necessary to assess the
depth to water table and actual yield of groundwater. Ground
checking a potential aquifer may cost up to $500 - $1,000
per site, according to Bureau of Geology estimates. Further
refinement of this information is not recommended on a
regional scale, but should be considered on a site specific
basis.
Development of depth to water table and groundwater
flow maps for the region as a whole is also a high priority
but is prohibitively expensive. To some extent, existing
wells, springs and kettle hole depressions could be used to
ascertain depth to water table information, but the number
of holes remaining to be dug limits the feasibility of ac-
quiring this information on other than a site specific basis.
Pollution from Other Contaminants. A third area of
concern is the existence of pollution from other contami-
nants such as pesticides, chlorides and PCB's. it should
be determined whether these pollutants present a water quality
problem. There is a need to establish a better base line of
information for the comtaminants. Collection of these data
has lower priority than the preceding two issues.
a. The existence and extent of water contamina-
tion by pesticides has not been assessed in
this region. Streams flowing through orchards
should be monitored for pesticide concentra-
tions, and the biota of receiving waters
should be analyzed for pesticides.
c. Chloride contamination of surface waters was
assessed during 3 975-76, and was found to be
negligible. Chloride levels in groundwater
and surface water around salt storage piles
should be assessed. Recommendations are more
fully described in Non-point Sources and Land
Use Issue.
-137-

-------
c. PCB levels in the Kennebec River tributaries
should be monitored for base line information.
Monitoring should be repeated at intervals,
especially if new electronics industries
locate on the River, or if existing salvage
operations prove to be a potential source of
PCB's.
Management Recommendations;
It is recommended that assessment of groundwater qual-
ity and movement and existence of surface water pollution
by exotic chemicals be prioritized by all concerned agencies:
the U.S. Geological Survey, the State DEP Solid Waste
Division and/or the State Public Health Laborartory, and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-138-

-------
PART II
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
AND THEIR IMPACTS

-------
IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY
1. Management Framework
Implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan
for the region as previously presented involves a concerted
and coordinated effort by local units of government, State
and Federal agencies, and private interest groups. The
overriding philosophy of the project has been that water
quality improvement and protection in the region will be
most efficiently and effectively handled by existing State
and local agencies, with Federal involvement limited pri-
marily to funding and technical assistance.
One of the most significant aspects of the plan is
emphasis placed on upgrading local capabilities to assume
a major responsibility. Another is the reliance placed
upon existing regulations and programs, with as few new
or expanded programs as possible.
In the past, municipalities and special districts
have failed to adequately manage the water resources of
the region primarily for two reasons: a lack of technical
expertise and lack of coordination among land use and
water quality management agencies. The Plan therefore
places a heavy emphasis upon provision of teehnical assis-
tance to local agencies through regional, State and Federal
agencies, and upon improved coordination among water
quality management agencies aided principally by the Re-
gional Planning Commission. This entails an increased
level of funding, particularly at the municipal and Fed-
eral level.
Table 20 summarizes the responsibilities assigned to
the various agencies to be designated for implementation
of the Plan. With one exception, each function listed
(Planning, Regulation and Enforcement, Coordination, Tech-
nical Assistance, etc.) involved activities by a multipli-
city of agencies. This reflects the present complexity
of the already existing local-regional-state-Federal water
quality management framework. Coordination is obviously
a key component of the Plan. The table also demonstrates
the heavy reliance local units of government have on tech-
nical asistance from regional, State and Federal agencies.
-139-

-------
Table 20
SU"MAKY CF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIES AND RESPOSISIBILITIES

JUNCTION
208
IMPDEME27EATICN
AGENCY
HJ/foQ
Planning
Regulation &
Enforcement
Coordination
Tech.
Assist.
Funding
Educa-
tion
Facilities
Management
208
Plan
Update
Lake
Restoration
Municipalities of
the Region
High*
High*
High*

Low*

High


Special Districts
or Municipal Depts.
responsible for
Wastewater Facili-
ties

High*
High*

Low

High


Southern Kennebec
Valley Regional
Planning Cennrissioai
High*

High
High*

High*

High*

Cdbbossee Watershed
tiJJi strict
Medium*

Medium
Medium*

High*


High*
gSoil and Water Ccn-
i servation District & SCS


Medium
High*

High*



Department of Etavi-
rcrroental Prot-
tection
Medium
Medium*
Medium
High*
Mediuxi
: Mediu
ii*

Medium*
Ebvixonaental Pro-
tection Agency
Low
Low
Low
Low*
High*
Low



Agriculture Stabi-
lization and Con-
servation Service




High*



Low*
ftnaii Business Admin-
istration




High*




Fanners Heme Actain-
istration


Low*

High*




U.S. Geological
Survey



Medium
High




State Bureau of
Geology

•

Medium

Low



Division of Health
Eiiqineerinq



Medium*

Mediu
n


*New or Expanded Function
High, Medium and Low - indicates level of responsibility relative to other agencies.

-------
2. implementation Strategy
The previous section of the Plan described in detail
a number of specific recommendations for land use and non-
point source controls, facilities management, and water
quality monitoring. Table 21 lists the key issues in order
of priority and describes for each the implementation
feasibility and expected time frame for this achievement of
recommended policies and standards. in almost every case,
feasibility is high given adequate Federal funding and
improved technical assistance. The time frame, given ade-
quate funding, indicates achievement of most recommenda-
tions within 3 to 5 years.
Part II of the plan presents a summary of the activi-
ties that are recommended for action at the local, State,
Federal, and regional levels as well as the private sector.
It describes the impacts that could result for either the
recommended facilities or the alternative of no action.
-141-

-------
Table 21
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Implementation
.Assessment
Implementation
Priorities
LAND USE-NONPOINT
SOURCE ISSUES
Agricultural
Runoff
Runoff from
Development
STRUCTURAL WASTE-
WATER FACILITIES
Implementation
Feasibility
Time Frame
High: dependent upon
increased Federal fund-
ing from EPA (Lake
Restoration) and/or ASCS
High: depends upon en-
actment and enforcement
of local ordinances
Moderate-High: depend-
ent upon upgraded tech-
nical assistance and
local willingness
Within 2 years of lake
restoration funding
for 1/3 systems needed.
Remainder within 10 yrs,
Variable by community.
Should be well estab-
lished within 3 to 5 yrs,
Ongoing process - con-
tinual improvement
expected.
Public Treat-
upon
ment and Inter
Federal funding from
ceptor Systems
3.
Stormwater
Systems
Non-sewered
waste disposal
systems
T. IndustriaJ
Pretreatment
High: requires new
State-level program
(DEP) for sampling,
licensing/ enforcement
High: dependent on
EPA funding to DEP,
and adoption of small-
scale facilities
priorities list
High: presently being
implemented; additional
technical assistance
desirable
Completion of all sec-
ondary treatment sys-
tems within 3 years
following funding,
Qa~»¦ —
			*. U41UJL.UM •
Beginning immediately
and increasing to full
scale effort within 5
years.	
Beginning 1978, one or
two systems per year
in this region.
Ongoing
WATER QUALITY
High: dependent upon
EPA lake restoration
funding and coopera-
tion of farmers
Two years following
funding.
-142-

-------
ACTION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

-------
ACTION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
The primary needs identified for the local role in
water quality management are strengthened control of the
non-point sources of pollution and improved capabilities
for the management of structural facilities. Meeting these
needs within each community will entail the concerted ef-
forts of Councils and Selectmen, planning Boards, conserva-
tion Commissions, special utility districts, code enforcers
and interlocal bodies including the cobbossee watershed
District, the County Soil and Water Conservation District
and the inter-community Trunkline Group. The first part of
this section describes the general responsibilities that
should be undertaken by these participants. These activi-
ties are summarized in Table 22. The last part of this
section relates these responsibilities to the specific needs
of each community and special district, presenting sug-
gestions for the strengthening of local programs to protect
water quality. It also discusses the major impacts to be
anticipated from acting or not acting on these recommenda-
tions.
1. Land Use and Open Space
Since municipal and industrial wastewater sources have
been diverted from the lakes, the primary source of nutrients
entering the lakes is derived from agricultural activities
in our region. As explained previously in Part I, plan
Recommendations, because of the stress placed upon several of
the lakes by past municipal and industrial wastewaters,
their capacity to receive phosphorus from other sources such
as agriculture has been impaired. While agriculture once
has little effect on the lakes, it now has a significant
impact which must be reduced if the lakes are to be ade-
quately restored to good water quality or maintained at a
high level of purity. Plan recommendations to control this
source of pollution are non-regulatory and will require the
action of farmers, the Soil and water Conservation District
and cobbossee watershed District in its jurisdiction.
The Soil and water Conservation District should continue
to serve as the lead agency in dealing with farmers in the
resolution of water quality related matters, other State,
regional and local agencies should channel their concerns
with farmers through the conservation District which should
also approve, file and make available to other agencies
erosion control plans for land clearing activities relating
to farming and forestry in the region.
-143-

-------
TABLE 22
LOCAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Agency
isponsibility
Selectmen or Council
Land use &
Open Space
Planning Board
Conservation
Commission
¦support and direct
local activities
Coordination
Code Enforcement
-support and direct
local activities
-land use review
-sensitive areas
protection
-comprehensive plan-
ning (growth man-
agement)
Code Enforcement
Officer
-sensitive areas
protection
-open space program
•coordinate long-
range plans of
other bodies with
comprehensive plan
-establish effect-
ive enforcement
program
-support code
enforcement
officer
Education
Water & Wastewater
-support and direct
local activities
-awareness of sensi
tive areas and ordi-
nance procedures and
requirements
-stormwater runoff
-support and direct
local activities
-cooperate with
districts in land
use and open space
planning
¦coordinate open
space planning withj
planning Board and
special districts
-water resources and
sensitive areas
-liaison to State
Cobbossee Watershed
District
-technical assist-
ance in the review
of Stormwater and
sedimentation and
erosion plans
Sanitary District
or Sewer Depart-
ment
Water District
Soil & Water
Conservation District
•Coordinate long-
range plans with
Planning Board,
Conservation Com-
mission, Water
District, other
town bodies and
regional plans.
-Review all Storm-
water Runoff Plans
and Sanitary Sewage
wastes Disposal
Plans
-Consider regional
authority for
regional systems
-Coordinate long-
range plans with
other local bodies
-Plumbing Code
-Building Code
-Street Acceptance
-Subdivision
-Zoning s. Shore-
land
-other ordinances
-technical assist-
ance to local
plumbing inspec-
tors
-code enforcement
assistance to
municipalities
-septic system
maintenance and
water conservation
-water conservation,
stormwater manage-
ment, water
resources
•cooperate with
districts in sensi-
tive areas pro-
tection
-Sewer Regula-
tions
-continue to collect
and analyze data to
identify water
quality trends and
problems
improve long-range
plana for exten-
sions
-develop capital
improvement pro-
grams
-develop equitable
cost-sharing pro-
grams
-implement storm-
water recommenda-
tions
-manage cluster
systems
-water conserva-
tion
-review stormwater
and sedimentation
and erosion plans
for municipalities
who have no Sani-
tary Districts
-cooperate with othe
agencies in animal
waste management
-develop financial
and other incent-
ives to encourage
proper management
-approve and file
erosion control
plans for farming
and forestry
-continue as lead
agency in dealing
with fanners.
-Continue programs
with particular
emphasis on water
pollution.
•improve long-range
plans
-develop capital
improvement pro-
grams
-144-

-------
Cobbossee Watershed District should continue to be the
lead agency working with the Soil and Water conservation
District and the USDA Soil conservation Service and Agri-
cultural Stabilization and conservation Service in develop-
ing a cost-sharing program for animal waste management sys-
tems .
Improper agricultural practices are presently the pri-
mary sources of non-point pollution in the region; however,
development in general is the fastest growing land use and
threatens even greater future water quality impacts in the
form of stormwater runoff and the degradation of sensitive
areas. The plan recommends primarily local control of devel-
opment activities generating water quality problems. This
will require the following actions by local officials.
Each municipality should: (1) decide upon the manage-
ment techniques that are most suited to insure the adequate
protection of its water resources, and (2) set up a program
of action to implement their approach. As indicated in
part I, this program should provide a strategy for guiding
growth to protect water resources, although other concerns
are equally valid and should be incorporated into'a town's
comprehensive planning process. The program should include:
(1) a review process for regulating land use activities
affecting water quality, (2) a program for the protection
of sensitive areas relating to water quality, (3) the
improvement of existing ordinances or the development of
new ones necessary to carry out (1) and (2), and (4) a
procedure for coordinating the long-range plans of all local
bodies involved with land use change.
Considering that development is the fastest growing land
use in the region, it is of utmost importance that Planning
Boards be given the authority to review new construction
activities that affect water quality, in the development of
a land use review process, the Planning Board should require
that stormwater and erosion and sedimentation plans be sub-
mitted with all development proposals warranting such. The
Board should encourage the management of stormwater on site
whenever possible to avoid costly expenses to the town for
the construction of storm sewers.
Since most local Planning Boards do not have the exper-
tise to technically review stormwater and sedimentation and
erosion control plans, the Soil and water Conservation
District, and Cobbossee Watershed District in its area,
should provide review services to municipalities requiring
assistance. This holds true for special utility districts
with stormwater management functions.
in submitting their applications, developers should be
required to show the locations of sensitive areas. The Plan-
ning Board should also have the authority to request at
their discretion that the applicant state the potential im-
pacts that a proposal may have on sensitive areas. This is
-145-

-------
particularly important in the lakesheds of sensitive lakes
or water supplies. Some sensitive areas such as wetlands
should be restricted from development.
It is extremely important to have a local committee
charged with the responsibility of planning for and managing
open space in the community. Each community should estab-
lish, if it doesn't already have a comparable body, a con-
servation Commission. This commission should be encouraged
to help the Planning Board devise a program for the pro-
tection of sensitive areas that, if properly protected, can
be a valuable open space asset for the community.
2. Coordination
One of the most serious weaknesses of current local
control, particularly in municipalities with one or two
special utilities districts, is the lack of coordination
among the various governmental bodies. For instance, the
two most effective tools that a town can use to direct the
future pattern of growth are land use regulations and poli-
cies regarding the extension of sewer and water lines, yet
the two groups charged respectively with these functions,
planning boards and usually special districts, often do
not take the objectives and needs of one another into con-
sideration in formulating their own plans and policies,
problems that water districts have in capital budgeting
with the PUC have been discussed and improvements have been
recommended in part I. Clearly, to insure effective land
use planning, it is essential to better coordinate groups
not only involved in making decisions affecting growth, but
also those affected by land use policies such as school
districts.
In developing a land use program for the community,
the Planning Board should solicit assistance and input from
local citizens, officials, special districts and the Regional
Planning Commission. In fact, in communities where special
districts make policy concerning sewer and water extensions,
it is advisable for the Selectmen or council to establish a
special advisory committee as recommended in Part I, con-
sisting of representatives from each board, district
or department as well as the town or city manager and code
enforcement officer. This committee would review the long-
range plans of each group, and make recommendations for
coordinating these plans and resolving any conflicts.
-146-

-------
3. Enforcement
Improved regulations and coordination cannot in and of
themselves insure proper land use practices. Regulations
adopted by townspeople should receive full support from
Selectmen or council in regards to enforcement. in addition,
each community needs the capability to inspect construction
activities to make sure that development is occurring ac-
cording to the standards set by the community. Each munici-
pality should enlist the services of either a full time
or part-time professional code enforcement officer, charged
with the responsibility of inspecting projects whose per-
mits have been approved as well as notifying the appropriate
parties of activities in violation of local ordinances.
This process should compliment the DEP program under its
State land use regulations.
To help provide for the needs of smaller towns, the
Cobbossee Watershed District should continue to offer code
enforcement assistance in its jurisdiction. The District
should also provide technical assistance to local plumbing
code inspectors in all phases of their work.
4. Education
A frequent occurrence in many communities is the con-
struction of a new road, foundation or camp in violation of
the Shoreland Zoning Act or other ordinances of a municipality.
Such an action is often not willfully done; the person is
just not aware of local ordinances or State law. What is
worse, local officials as well are often not familiar with
the requirements of local ordinances. A telephone call to
many town offices in the region will not be successful in
obtaining information concerning what ordinances have been
adopted and what the basic requirements are. if control is
to be adequately maintained at the local level, the officials
must effectively administer and the public must be made
aware of local ordinances and requirements. The Selectmen
or council should develop or have developed an information
program to acquaint townspeople, contractors and others
with local procedures and requirements. Ordinances should
be compiled and made readily available to the public.
The educational resources of interlocal agencies will
also be required in implementing this water Quality Manage-
ment plan. In particular, the Soil and Water Conservation
District should continue to encourage proper agricultural
management programs through its education and incentive pro-
grams. Likewise, the Cobbossee Watershed District should
increase its efforts to reach farmers, developers, lake
-147-

-------
associations, homeowners, and local officials through its
education programs in its area.
5. Water and wastewater
The formal two-year water quality planning process is
at an end, but there is a need to continue monitoring and
analyzing the status of the region's water quality. Local
action in this regard will involve the cobbossee watershed
District whose responsibilities will be to continue to co-
ordinate the collection and analysis of water quality data
for the Cobbossee watershed, thus identifying water quality
trends and causative activities in the region. The State
Department of Environmental protection should perform this
responsibility in areas outside of the watershed. Towns
should work closely with both agencies. Local water dis-
tricts should work closely with the municipalities in the
drainage areas of their water supplies in developing pro-
tection programs for surface and groundwater supplies.
They should also continue to cooperate with the U. S. Geo-
logical Survey and the State Bureau of Geology in identi-
fying groundwater aquifers and their recharge areas.
Both water and sanitary districts, or municipalities
in some cases, should continue to improve their long-range
plans for the extension of service areas. These plans
should be coordinated with local and regional plans, in
addition, they should develop capital improvement programs
to accompany the long-range plans as well as more equitable
cost-sharing arrangements with developers.
Sanitary districts connected to regional treatment
facilities should consider forming regional treatment
authorities in order to coordinate such matters of regional
concern as waste allocations, pretreatment and slude dis-
posal. The Inter-community Trunkline Group, in particular,
may function more effectively as a regional authority.
Sewer extension policies, financing and other matters of
local concern should be kept a local issue, however. When
appropriate and economically feasible, the regional
authorities could also: implement the recommendations
concerning stormwater facilities, manage cluster subsurface
disposal systems, and develop the capability to effectively
manage and monitor industrial pretreatment throughout
their affected area. If the regional authority is not
formed, the existing districts or local government which-
ever the case, shouH do this.
-148-

-------
6. interlocal Agreements
The smaller communities in the region do not have the
financial resources to hire staff persons to implement some
of the actions called for at the local level. Further-
more, a few of these communities do not have the intensity
of growth pressures that others are experiencing. For such
communities, interlocal agreements to share technical
capabilities with other towns or districts may be advan-
tageous. interlocal agreements will be particularly useful
in the sharing of code enforcers, land use planners and, in
the case of utilities or cluster systems, operation and
maintenance capabilities.
7. Specific Recommendations For Each Town
As indicated in Table 22 local government is being asked
to take a major role in the protection of the region's land
and water resources. This emphasis does not vary from the
past focus of responsibility, the Maine tradition of home
rule. What is contrary to the old approach, however, is the
expectations implicit in the recommendations of this Plan.
Maine is at a critical point in land use control; the trend
has been for the State to take away local responsibility in
order to fill the void created by the lack of local initi-
ative. The Site Location, Great Ponds, and Shoreland Zoning
Acts are examples. In order to maintain control, local
government must accept not just the authority for land use
control, but must demonstrate performance as well. This
Plan and its successful implementation will represent a
positive step in this direction.
Implementation will require action to varying degrees
in each community. Several towns and cities have evolved
intricate programs for land use planning and regulation. How-
ever, these programs are often geared to objectives other
than water quality protection. Some communities have only
begun to develop the tools necessary to guide growth. A few
have demonstrated little desire to do so. Tables 23,* 24, and
25 summarize the extent to which communities have considered
water quality in their land use planning programs.
No matter how sophisticated, every municipality in the
region needs to improve its capabilities to effectively
manage water quality for the benefit of the community and
the region. This will require within each community the
development of a comprehensive process that will insure the
consideration of water quality in the local day to day and
long-range land use decision making processes. The following
-149-

-------
EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONTROLS ON DEVELOPMENT

TABLE 23
Prohibited
within
400-of
weB ate*
1
Prohibited
thanii*}
Prohibited on
frnhwun wet-
lands (I.F.&W
types l-«
Prohibited wi-
thin 7Mt of all
waterbodies 4
wetlands
Limited on nott-
disclurtir sods
(state plumbing
rode) with
psUk h*w
KeguUted
within the
IOO vr flood
zone consis-
tent with
National
Flood liB-
Regulated
on ground-
Ketui*ted in
public water
supply lake-
sheds
Regulated in
takesheds with
"high needs
of protection"
Require criiwin con-
trol plans tor all
development
speeial per-
formance
standards
ble soils
Require run-off
management
plan
Restrict clear-
ing of vegeta-
tion along
shorelines
Other
H-1
U1
o
AUGUSTA

SZ-RP
«g|k bmtt
haawi permit-
led h« ftc*p-
ttoa
SZ-RP
mafi* family
homes pmnit-
ted by nrrp-
SZ traier-
bodies
only

YES

N/A

Standards in shoreland
zoning only


SZ
Structures not to cover more
than 20% site in SZ
CHELSEA
N/A
SZrRP
SZ- RP
only
SZ water-
bodies
only

YES

N/A
N/A
Standards in shoreland
zoning only


SZ
Structures not to cover more
than 20^ site in SZ
FARMiNGDALE
N/A
S&RP
SZ-RP


YES

Yes
N/A



SZ
Structure not lo cover more
than 20% site in SZ
FAYETTE
N/A
SMF
only
SZ-RP
onlv
SZ water-
bodies
only

NO

N/A

Standards in shoreland
zoning only


SZ
Structure not to cover more
than 20<* site in SZ
GARDINER

SZrUf
only
SZ-RP
ORiv
SZ WIMI-
bodies
only

YES



Only for muung exca-
vations over 100 cubic
yards per year.


SZ
only

HALLOWELL
N/A
Open Spw*
ZoWMly
Open Space
ZoorOnty
25'setback
on Kennebec
river only

YES


N/A





LITCHFIELD
N/A
SZ-RP
o»jr
SZ-RP
only
100' setback
SZ, wiierbo-
diesonly

YES



Standards m shoreland
/.ontzag only


SZ
only

MANCHESTER
N/A
SZ-RP
Olkly
SZ-BP
SZ«it»
bodies
only

YES

Only

Yes


SZ

MONMOUTH

sz-ar
aalr
SZ-RP
bodies
only

YES



Standards is shoreland
coning only


SZ
only
Structure not to cover more
than 20* site in SZ
MT. VERNON
N/A
SZ-BP
oab'
SZ-RP
SZ water-
bodies
oat*

YES

N/A

Standards in shoreland
zoning only


SZ
Structure not to cover more
than 1 S'r site in SZ
PITTSTON
N/A
SZ- BP
onfv
SZ- RP
oajy
SZ water-
bodies

YES

N/A
N/A
Standards in shoreland
zontng only


SZ
Structure not to cover more
than 20"c site in SZ
RANDOLPH 3/
N/A
SZrRP
tubdhiaoa
nedtuev
SZ- RP
subdivi-
SIMItCli-
laUoiu
SZ water-
bodies only
subdivision
regulations
SubAvmon
NtntilioBs
YES
Subdivtson
Regulations
N/A
N/A
subdivision
regulations

Subdivision
Regulations
SZ

READFIELD 3/
N/A
SZ-RP
Maine
permit
IKuwduw
SZ-RP
SZ water-
bot&es

YES
Zoning
permit
procedure
Zoning
permit
procedure
procedure
procedure


SZ

RICHMOND
N/A
SZ-ftl*
SZ- RP
100' Setback
SZ

YES tf



Only (or mmrtg exca-
vations over 100 cubic
vards per year


Yes

VIENNA
n/a



Utt sml i iinn ¦ i. ¦ 1 i 11 ii
severe cUtaTKilmot
YES 2/

N/A

Erosion control standards
for filling, ending, dredg-
ing and iagooning.

Planing board may
require for
subdivision review
SZ

WAYNE
N/A

SZ-RP
with
exceptions


YES 2/

N/A
N/A
Erosion control standards
for filling, grading, dredc-
ing and Ugooning.


SZ

WEST GARDINER
N/A
Sl-HP
SZ-^RP


YES



Standards in shoreland


SZ
only
Structure not to cover more
than 20t in SZ

WHITEFIELD 3/
N/A
sr. ¦ kr
over IV..
rttrpljnm
penmlteft
SZ-KP
ritrflinm
imwilird
200* setback
bom watch
N<> fillm* »r droniat
allowed under subcU-
vkUOB mdiSMM
NO

N/A
N/A
Standards in shoreland
zoning only;:

Site plan review:
except of dwellings
SZ
Structure not to cover more
than 20% site in SZ

WINDSOR
N/A
SZ - KC
«H»i\
S/.-KP
»nlv


YES ti

N/A
N/A
Erosion control standards
fa* filling, grading, dredg-
ing and Iagooning.



Structure not to cover more
than 20* site in SZ
WINTHROP
N/A
SZ' KP
SZ - HP


YRS 11

Yes
Carttoa Pond
and Upper
Narrows
Pond only
Standards in shoreland
xontag oniy.


SZ
only
Structure not to cover more
than 20% site in SZ
SZ - "*tl I m liinrt	f ootaolttt ] / f* hmt tun drtMUaa of dMiidt Md ttwir tppttotioii to looinn ntps in not cooditMl: i.e. net iB Keep dop«t my b« t»Md "mourn proMction" itthou|h Um oriintaw prondn fra th«i
__ _ — .	aichuMamtkat'OM. 7f imt T-rnrtslrrrt in nr'nf"'*TT~~ •*"* '"-"f mmI nnMipkiii	3/ Tknr town rnw« ptoctduiti tor development either through inaim
KEY ™ " RCSOBTCe ttOwiwOII	w „.fc^^iow which bt (acton la be conadered for permit i|)^i«ation hdudiai strep dope*, etwiibk soUs. etc. Development mav be allowed conditionally or prohibited through the
NA - Not Applicable	p™ii

-------
EXISTING AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS ON AGRICULTURE. SILVICULTURE AND SAND AND GRAVEL MINING

TABLE 24
Require vegetative buffer *
between tillage and water
bodies
Prohibits manure spreading with- *
in 100 It of piling within 300 ft
ol Kvells. spr,,19S, lakes, ponds, &
tributaries to lakes, ponds
Require erosion control *
(dans for clearing of new
land within certain distan-
ce of water
Require vegetative buffer
between water bodies and
exposed soil from timber
harvest operations
Require reclamation of
ail gravel pits
Other
i
I-1
Ln
—j
i
AUGUSTA
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
50* to 250' SZ per
slope condition


CHELSEA
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
25' to 165' SZ per
slope condition


FARMINGDALE






FAYETTE
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
25' to 165'SZ per
slope condition


GARDINER
50' 110'SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries




HALLOWELL






LITCHFIELD
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries




MANCHESTER
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
25' to 165' SZ per
slope condition


MONMOUTH
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
25' to 165' SZ per
slope condition


MT. VERNON
50'SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
25' to 165' SZ per
slope condition


PITTSTON
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
25' to 165' SZ per
slope condition


RANDOLPH
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
25' to 165' SZ per
slope condition



READF1ELD
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
25' to 165' SZ
per slope condition



RICHMOND
50' 110 feet
SZ: does not include
tributaries





VIENNA
50' 110'SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries

Prohibits road construction
for timber harvest only



WAYNE
50' 110'SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
Prohibits road construction
for timber harvest only

No housing of live-
stock in SZ

WEST GARDINER
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
SZ



WHITEFiELD
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
50' to 165' SZ per
slope condition

Pei mdi>em cca er requ'iect on i illed land
i*et 10" sloce Nm th-n Apni Timber
harvesi limned 1C"vpei 40 yf period m
50 buffet strip from vvater bodies

WINDSOR
50" 110'SZ
SZ does not include
tributaries

Requires selective cut
ting but no buffer



WINTHROP
50' SZ
SZ: does not include
tributaries
SZ
SZ


NOTES SZ - Shore'and zone (250' of Aaterbodies) Does not include all tributaries	' Although these provisions are included in part or in whole in many shoreland ordinances,
except m Randolph and Richmond Applies only to new uses since adoption	the 208 does not recommend townwide ordinances unless tied to financial capabilities,
of ordinance.

-------
EXISTING AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SEWERAGE DISPOSAL

TABLE 25
Extension of Sewers con as
tent with a growth manage-
ment plan.
Prohibit construction of
septic leachfields within
certain distance of water-
body.
Regulate density of septic
systems according to soils.
*
Regulate seasonal conver-
sions.
Require regular inspection
and maintenance of all
systems.
Limit installation of leach-
fields in winter months in
frozen soils
Other
1
h*
i/i
Ki
1
AUGUSTA

100 feet





CHELSEA

100 feet




SZ: minimum si2e leachfield
1000 square feet
FARMINGDALE

100 feet





FAYETTE
NA
100 feet




Min. size leachfield 1000 sq.
ft. max. 10% slope 5' bed-
rock and seasonal high water
GARDINER

100 feet





HALLOWELL

100 feet





LITCHFIELD
NA
100 feet





MANCHESTER

100 feet




SZ: minimum size leachfield
1000 square feet
MONMOUTH

100 feet




Minimum size leachfield
1000 square feet
MT. VERNON
NA
100 feet





PITTSTON

100 feet





RANDOLPH

100 feet




SZ: minimum size leachfield
1000 square feet
READFIELD
NA
100 feet




SZ: minimum size leachfield
1000 square feet
RICHMOND

100 feet





VIENNA
NA
100 feet






WAYNE
NA
100 feet






WEST GARDINER
NA
100 feet




SZ: minimum size leachfield
1000 square feet

WHITEF1ELD
NA
200 feet




SZ: minimum size leachfield
1000 square feet

WINDSOR
NA
100 feet






WINTHROP

100 feet




SZ: minimum size leachfield
1000 square feet
NOTES: SZ = Shoreland zoning (does not include all tributaries except in Randolph	NA = Not applicable	* ~ Municipalities have regulated density on the basis of an arbitrary minimum lot
and Richmond) Applies only to new uses since adoption of ordinance.	size which does not reflect soils (See table 12b-

-------
discussion presents suggestions for each community for the
improvement of water quality management. A brief des-
cription of the current setting and water quality conditions
is presented for each municipality, followed by a summary
of the major recommendations for the improvement of the short
and long-range land use decision making processes of the
community. And lastly, the discussion identifies the major
impacts to be anticipated from acting or not acting on these
recommendations. The recommendations primarily represent
water quality considerations; each community should assume
the responsibility of weighing the benefits of water quality
management against other local and regional needs and con-
cerns .
-153-

-------
AUGUSTA
The Setting
The capital city had the largest population in the
Southern Kennebec valley region in 197 5, numbering 21,029
individuals. Although there was a slight increase in the
sixties, the population trend appears to be decreasing at
a rate of about three percent. However, new industry such
as Digital may reverse this trend. In fact, even though
population has decreased, growth has occurred primarily in
the form of commercial and industrial development. The
largest land area in the region with 55.8 square miles,
Augusta has the greatest amount of land in development of
any community. Urban and suburban land uses each comprise
over 2,000 acres of land or 16% of the total land area.
Between 1966 and 1974, 1,412 acres were developed, more
than any other community in the region. However, there is
much undeveloped land, primarily in forest, but also in
agricultural use and wetlands. In fact, Augusta has over
2,000 acres of wetland, seven percent of the total land area.
Although the visually dominant water resource in Aug-
usta is the Kennebec River, the city does not generally reco-
nize it as a valuable recreational asset, used primarily as
a receptacle for municipal and industrial wastes, the River
has been degraded for so long that people have all but for-
gotten about it — except during times of flooding.
However, as the Kennebec is allowed to recover from the
major point sources of pollution, recreational opportuni-
ties will become more apparent. Future studies must be con-
ducted to determine whether water quality sufficient to sup-
port contact recreation will be economically achievable in
Augusta, however, in any case, it is certain to improve to
a high quality fishing and boating resource and could also
become more of a visual asset through improved urban design.
It could be visually linked to the downtown shopping area,
enhancing the shopping atmosphere. On the eastern bank to
the south, the land is less developed and could be utilized
as a park. In fact, a proposal by Senator Bennett Katz
suggests that an urban "greenway" could be created linking
Fort western to the more southerly open space areas.
Tributaries to the Kennebec River include Whitney Brook,
Bond Brook, Kennedy Brook, Togus Stream and Riggs Brook. All
but one of these tributaries are heavily polluted by both
urban runoff and combined storm and sanitary sewer overflows.
Togus Stream is polluted primarily by the v. A. Hospital.
The 208 plan recommends that the v. A. Hospital upgrade its
existing treatment facility, solving its problems on-site
rather than connecting to the Augusta sewage treatment
facility. Because separation of combined sewers and/or de-
-154-

-------
tention and treatment of urban runoff is highly expensive,
further studies are needed before any recommendations beyond
the Whitman & Howard reports can be made to improve the water
quality of other Augusta streams.
Augusta has three ponds, all located east of the Kenne-
bec: Togus pond, Greeley Pond, and Three cornered Pond.
The water quality status of Greeley pond has not been deter-
mined by this study. Togus pond is currently of moderate
to low quality, while Three cornered Pond has moderate water
quality. Both are naturally productive. The major source
of phosphorus in Togus Pond is from stormwater runoff from
development, which is estimated to contribute 50% of the
load. Septic system effluent is believed to be responsible
for 18% of the phosphorus loading, representing the highest
percentage from this source for any lake in the region. This
is due to the fact that Togus pond is heavily developed and
there are few other sources.
Currently, Togus Pond is at a critical point in water
quality. The Pond has a low capacity to absorb phosphorus
due to its shallowness and slow flushing rate. Slight in-
creases in phosphorus loading could turn the Pond green with
algae. To protect the Pond, current sources of phosphorus
should be reduced to the extent feasible. Faulty septic
systems should be replaced not only for water quality pro-
tection but also for health reasons (see discussion below).
The phosphorus contribution from all subsurface waste dis-
posal systems could be reduced by two-thirds simply by using
non-phosphate detergents and conserving water. in addition,
lakeshore property owners could reduce phosphorus runoff
from lawns and driveways by conservative use of lawn ferti-
lizers (applied according to need as determined by a soils
test), and by composting rather than burning leaves and
brush.
Protection of all three of Augusta's ponds from future
degradation will entail instituting strict controls on new
development. Development can greatly increase both phosphorus
loading and sedimentation of lakes. Increased phosphorus
loading results from lawn fertilization, leaf burning, pet
wastes, etc. and increased runoff created by impervious sur-
faces to transport the phosphorus to the lakes. Erosion and
sedimentation can be increased by improper construction pro-
cedures and the increased erosive force created by increased
runoff.
A number of areas could create severe erosion or runoff
problems if developed, and should be appropriately protected.
They have been collectively termed "sensitive" areas, and
include wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, highly erodible
soils, non-discharge soils, and shallow soils. Because the
displacement of agriculture from prime soils to marginal
soils often creates erosion and runoff problems, prime agri-
cultural lands are considered by this study to be "sensitive"
and deserving protection also.
-155-

-------
Avoidance of erosion and stormwater runoff problems is
as significant to the protection of Augusta's streams and
river resources as it is to lake water quality protection.
As mentioned above, Augusta's smaller streams are already
heavily polluted with urban runoff, and this will only be
aggravated by improperly planned new development. Besides
degrading water quality, new development can increase flash
flooding as impervious surfaces increase, and cause repeated
and costly repairs and improvements to existing storm sewers
and drainage systems.
Another water quality issue of concern to Augusta is
the protection of existing and potential municipal water
supplies. Augusta presently has two primary sources —
Carlton Pond in Winthrop and three groundwater wells in the
Bond Brook watershed. Cobbossee Lake is a secondary source.
The Augusta Water District owns much of the land in the
Carlton Pond drainage which is thus fairly well protected.
For improvement and protection of Cobbossee Lake, Augusta
must depend upon the actions of the Cobbossee Watershed Dist-
rict and its member communities, particularly Manchester,
Monmouth and Winthrop. The CWD has recently applied for a
Federal lake restoration grant which could significantly
improve Cobbossee Lake.
The Augusta Water District also owns a small amount of
land around its wells. To adequately protect this latter
supply, development within the recharge area of these wells
should be required to meet stringent performance standards
to avoid a significant increase in impervious surface or
activities which could add pollutants to the groundwater
(solid waste disposal, sludge or septage disposal, etc.).
This same protection should be afforded to areas identified
as potential high yield groundwater areas. At least four
such areas were identified by a recent Bureau of Geology
study conducted for the 208 study (see Map 7, Part I).
Yet another water quality issue which concerns Augusta
is the management of the Augusta sewage treatment facility.
This facility also receives industrial and municipal wastes
from Manchester, winthrop and Monmouth through a trunkline
interceptor sewer. Presently the wastes receive primary
treatment before discharge to the Kennebec; the facility will
be upgraded to secondary treatment as funds become available.
Despite its regional nature, management of the facility
is solely the responsibility of the Augusta Sanitary District.
An Inter-community Trunkline Group exists only on an advisory
basis. The 208 Plan recommends that all entities utilizing
or planning to utilize the Augusta facility (Hallowell will
connect when funds for construction of a collector become
available) consider forming a regional treatment authority.
The authority could coordinate actions at the State and
local level which affect waste generation,pretreatment and
sludge disposal. A key issue which the authority could
-156-

-------
investigate is improvements needed on the trunkline to pre-
vent breakdowns and direct discharges to Annabessacook Lake
and Cobbossee Lake. As mentioned above, cobbossee Lake is
Augusta's secondary water supply. A preliminary study has
already been conducted by the firm of Whitman and Howard,
Inc. which made several recommendations for improvement to
the ASD, some of which are already implemented. Additional
study on an alternate bypass route is needed, however.
The authority could also assume responsibility for manage-
ment of cluster septic systems in the remote areas of the
member towns , and even stormwater management facilities.
There are three areas in Augusta which are experiencing
severe subsurface waste disposal problems which should not
be solved by a sewer extension, for both economic and envi-
ronmental reasons. These areas are on Togus Pond — Pullen
Road, Tasker Road and Hayden Road — and were studied intens-
ively by the 208 study. Cluster septic systems were recom-
mended as the most cost effective and environmentally sound
solution. Extending a sewer would trigger intensive growth
pressures around the pond and would create more water quality
problems than the failing septic systems it would eliminate,
according to a detailed study of the Pond by the cobbossee
Watershed District.
In summary, the significant water quality issues in
Augusta focus on the wastewater facilities construction pro-
gram, including management of the trunkline interceptor?
stormwater and erosion controls? improvement and protection
of Togus pond, Three cornered Pond and Greeley Pond, includ-
ing the development of two cluster septic systems on Togus
Pond? protection of significant groundwater resources; im-
provement of water quality in the Kennebec River and its
tributaries; and improved land use and code enforcement.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Augusta's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality recom-
mendations for the city. For a summary of the specific land
use recommendations of this plan and the extent to which
Augusta has already implemented them, see Tables 23, 24, 25.
Land Use and Open Space - Augusta's program for guiding
growth is not an aggressive one. There are several ordinances
as shown below, but the city has few tools with the exception
of utilities extensions with which to influence the pattern
of land use.
-157-

-------
June 1975	June 1977
Comprehensive Plan
Open Space Plan
Shoreland zoning
Areawide Zoning
Minimum Lot Size
Site Plan Review
Subdivision Review
Building Code
Street construction
Flood Hazard
Viobile Home
Srowth Management
X = Adopted	* Resource Prot. = la. sewered, 5a. unsewered
IP = In progress Residential = 3/4acre unsewered
One of the most significant weaknesses of Augusta's land
use program is the lack of a guiding mechanism to insure that
new development occurs in a manner that does not disrupt water
quality and other natural resources while considering such
social and economic factors as the character of established
neighborhoods and the costs of public services. To improve
the situation, the planning Board has been investigating the
possibility of a site plan review procedure. This effort
should be continued; in a developing community it is import-
ant to have the capability to review land use proposals.
In developing a site plan review procedure, the city
should consider the control of stormwater runoff, sedimenta-
tion and erosion, and the protection of sensitive areas, as
suggested below:
1. In regard to stormwater, with the exception of the
urban areas already on or near a storm sewer system, new land
development should not be allowed to create stormwater dis-
posal problems, erosion and sedimentation, or downstream
flooding. The following criteria should be used as a basis
for the review of proposals: additional stormwater generated
in the outlying areas where no storm drainage facilities
exist should be handled on site via storage, detention or
infiltration. This will not only avoid downstream flooding
X	x
x	x
state minimum except shore-•
land*

IP
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-158-

-------
and water quality degradation, but will reduce the high costs
of facilities construction and maintenance. This is partic-
ularly important for the Togus pond and Three cornered Pond
drainage areas. Storrawater management in the already sewered
areas is discussed in the "water and wastewater" section
below.
Developers should be required to submit plans for the
control of stormwater, erosion and sedimentation. The Plan-
ning Board should make arrangements for the review of these
plans by either the Sanitary District or the Kennebec County
Soil and water Conservation District. Trust account fees
could also be used for this purpose.
2.	The city should also consider measures which will
protect sensitive areas, especially groundwater aquifers and
recharge areas in the Bond Brook watershed, wetlands and
steep slopes. The sensitivity of Togus Pond warrants a
strong program of protection, while Three Cornered Pond is
less vulnerable and needs only moderate protection.
The filling of wetlands, floodplains and other wet soils
should be prohibited in order to preserve the natural storm-
water drainage system and thus avoid future costly expendi-
tures to expand the existing storm drain system. These nat-
ural areas serve not only to store the excess stormwaters,
but to filter out pollutants as well.
Municipal well sites should also be protected; an area of
at least a 400 foot radius around each well should be re-
stricted from development. Their recharge areas should be
identified and also subject to restrictions.
Developers should be required to show the locations of
sensitive areas on a location map and the site plan for a
new development.
3.	in order to simplify the review procedure, the plan-
ning Board should consider incorporating existing provisions
for subdivision review into the site plan ordinance.
Among the other performance standards related to water
quality discussed above, the site plan review procedure
should also include provisions for the mining and reclama-
tion of sand and gravel. As an alternative, these provis-
ions could be included in a separate ordinance specifically
addressing sand and gravel operations.
4.	probably the most important consideration in develop-
ing a site plan review procedure is that the ordinance be
administered in accordance with a comprehensive or future
land use plan so that sound decisions are made concerning a
specific proposal as well as the overall effects of incre-
mental growth. The city should consider updating its compre-
hensive plan so that it reflects water quality considerations,
-159-

-------
land capability and the future objectives of citizens and
their hopes for the future image of their city.
5. Lastly, in strengthening the land use planning pro-
gram, the Conservation Commission should be encouraged to
undertake an open space planning effort to assist in the
protection of sensitive areas and in the planning for the
future open space needs of the community.
Coordination - The coordination of land use planning
and utilities extension planning should be a high priority
for the City of Augusta. The Council should consider estab-
lishing a coordinating body as suggested in the "Secondary
Effects of Sewer and Water Line Extension" section of this
Plan. It is extremely important that the twenty year sewer
extension plan be integrated with a comprehensive plan for
the city.
Enforcement - Augusta should consider upgrading its code
enforcement capabilities. in addition to plumbing and build-
ing inspection, other local ordinances should also be more
strongly supported through enforcement. Presently, Augusta
has a plumbing inspector who is paid on a fee basis for each
inspection and an unsalaried code enforcement officer.
Water and Wastewater - The Augusta Sanitary District
should continue its program to upgrade its facilities to
secondary treatment as required by State and Federal law.
It should consider forming a regional treatment authority with
the communities that utilize the Augusta system in order to
jointly decide matters of regional concern including waste-
water generation, pretreatment and sludge disposal. Joining
a regional authority would take the burden of sole responsi-
bility off the City of Augusta in matters that could have
serious consequences.
In regard to the trunkline, the District should continue
to work towards implementing the improvements recommended by
the whitman and Howard report to the Inter-Community Group
and the Regional planning Commission. These includes stor-
age at the winthrop Water District site, improved and added
valving at the pump stations at Winthrop and Manchester, im-
proved alarm systems, improvements in flood protection at
East winthrop and other items. Also a possible alternate by-
pass route including a new pump station should be studied for
the Manchester-East Winthrop area near Cobbossee Lake.
The District's combined sewer and stormwater system
should be continually improved by means of a combination of
separation, storage, detention, and treatment after an in-
depth study of the entire system is performed. The study
should consider the recent Bypass/Overflow study, urban
development trends, water quality, impacts and economic feasi-
bility. if the Maine Board of Environmental Protection up-
grades the Kennebec to a class b-2 by 1983, as recommended
—160—

-------
by this plan for the River below Gardiner, the ASD may be
required to step up its wet-weather abatement program. The
DEP should determine what is required of the ASD and use
the construction grant program to aid in implementation;
again, if it is determined to be economically feasible.
The District should also assist the Planning Board in
the review of stormwater plans for new development. Regard-
ing utilities extensions, both the water and Sanitary Dist-
ricts should continue to develop long-range utilities ex-
tension plans as well as capital improvements programs.
Utilities should only be extended after a thorough environ-
mental assessment of their impacts on water quality and land
use.
The Augusta Sanitary District should also continue to
monitor the pretreated effluents from industries with techni-
cal backing from the Department of Environmental Protection
in terms of laboratory support, legal support and other
necessary activities.
The Augusta Water District should work with other city
officials such as the Planning Board in further strengthening
its program to protect the municipal water supplies. The
District should continue to investigate other potential
groundwater sources to meet future needs. it should also
work with the U. S. Geological Survey or State Bureau of Ge-
ology in the development of a program to assess groundwater
quality, quantity and movement, particularly in areas identi-
fied as potential high yield areas in Map 7.
There are several wastewater problem areas where cluster
septic systems should be considered as an alternative to
sewers. The Augusta Sanitary District should continue to
investigate the construction and maintenance of cluster sys-
tems in the following locations on Togus Pond.
High Priority;	Medium Priority:
Pullen Road	Hayden Road
Tasker Road
Other problem areas on Togus Pond do not appear suitable
for cluster systems. These areas should be investigated for
treatment as recommended in the report entitled, Non-Sewered
Areas Wastewater Disposal problems Phase III. They include
Albee Road and South Belfast Avenue.
It is also recommended that the sewer system not be
extended to the Togus veteran's Administration facility.
The Hospital should study alternatives for connecting and
upgrading its treatment facility at its current location.
Education - The City Plumbing inspector should distribute
informational literature to homeowners regarding reduced water
-161-

-------
consumption and the proper functioning and maintenance of
their waste disposal systems.
Road Salting - The city should consider implementing
the road salting recommendations included in this plan
in Part I.
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
outlined above, land use activities in the City of Augusta
could result in the rapid decline of Togus pond and degra-
dation of its other lakes, Three cornered pond and Greeley
Pond. Erosion and increased runoff from new development
could cause sedimentation and increased flash flooding in
the smaller streams — Whitney Brook, Bond Brook, Kennedy
Brook, Riggs Brook and Togus Stream, leading to repeated and
expensive revisions and improvements to the drainage systems
in the city (more frequent road ditching and replacement of
culverts in the unsewered areas of the city; more frequent
cleaning of sewers and unnecessary enlargements to the sys-
tem in the sewered areas).
In addition, large acreages of wetlands could be lost
(up to 2,000 acres) with a resulting loss of waterfowl and
wildlife habitat, flood storage capacity, and scenic resources.
In the Togus and Three Cornered Pond areas, filling or drain-
ing of wetlands would result in dramatic increases in phos-
phorus loading to these ponds, with resultant increases in
nuisance algae blooms.
Lacking controls to guide development in areas overlying
existing or potential groundwater supplies, this resource
could become contaminated, necessitating costly pretreatment
or development of new supplies.
Similarly, unless a backup system is developed for the
inter-community trunkline, water quality in Annabessacook and
Cobbossee Lakes will be continually threatened by a possible
breakdown in the system, and the efforts of the cobbossee
Watershed communities to improve and protect water quality
could be negated. in addition, Augusta would lose its secon-
day water supply. This single issue may have the most seri-
ous consequences for water quality management in the Region.
Lacking any initiative to correct the subsurface waste
disposal problems on Togus Pond, individual property owners
may be faced with expensive individual holding tanks (instal-
lation costs up to $1,000 with annual pumping costs ranging
from less than $100 to over $3,000 depending on the number
of occupants and duration of occupancy). The high costs of
this alternative may force property owners to sell their
homes.
-162-

-------
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the plan
recommendations are also difficult to assess with any speci-
ficity. The city is being asked to hire a full-time or
part-time code enforcement officer. Costs could range from
$5,000 to $13,000 per year, minimum, including salary and
overhead (travel, etc.).
In addition, it is recommended that Augusta revise its
present ordinances to require erosion and sedimentation con-
trol plans as well as stormwater runoff control plans of all
developers, costs to the city for review of these plans
should be minimized if the developer is charged a fee for
review processes. Undoubtedly this fee will be passed on
to prospective property owners, but shouldn't escalate unit
prices significantly. This is an equitable way of distribut-
ing review costs since the review is for the protection of
prospective property owners as much as the city in general.
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to the City of Augusta through its membership in the South-
ern Kennebec valley Regional Planning Commission. No
additional costs for these revisions need be incurred as
a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be mini-
mal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few property
owners whose property consists largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at some eco-
nomic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and should be
compensated by reduced property tax rates.
Establishment of a regional treatment authority would
facilitate operation and maintenance of the Augusta facility.
Some legal and management consultant fees may be incurred
in the process of establishing the authority. Augusta's
share would probably be less than $5,000. This cost would
be recovered by the city through user fees to the residents
served by the sewer for this level of treatment.
The cost of upgrading the Augusta sewage treatment
facility to secondary treatment is estimated at $6,000,000.
State and Federal grants will cover 90% of this, with the
remainder to be covered by user fees which average in the
range of $100 to $150 per year.
Similarly, the costs of developing cluster septic sys-
tems in the problem areas of Togus pond, estimated at
-163-

-------
$500,000, could be covered up to 90% by State-Federal grants,
leaving $50,000 to be recovered by user fees also ranging
from $100 to $150 per year. These fees would cover opera-
tion and maintenance costs incurred by the Augusta Sanitary
District as well.
It is difficult to project what it could cost the City
of Augusta to separate combined storm and sanitary sewers
and/or treat urban runoff as necessary to upgrade the Kenne-
bec River to a class B. The Southern Kennebec valley
Regional planning Commission has estimated that costs could
run as high as $200,000,000 for total separation and treat-
ment, but it is unlikely that this would be necessary.
Obviously, even with 90% cost sharing, this would be pro-
hibitively expensive, perhaps only a few selected overflow
points need be treated or only partial separation and treat-
ment to achieve the desired B Classification. If this were
the case, it may be economically feasible to meet Class B
for the Kennebec in Augusta, given 90% cost sharing by State
and Federal grants. Until the River has responded fully to
the reduction of large scale polluters in Waterville and
Augusta, however, and detailed studies on the matter are
completed, there is no way to predict the scale of effort
needed to meet Class B, and to project costs.
Finally, ground checking areas identified as potential
high yield aquifers could cost $500 to $1,000 per site,
according to Maine Bureau of Geology estimates.
-164-

-------
CHELSEA
The Setting
Chelsea is a rural community flanking the east shore of
the Kennebec River. Not one of the fastest growing towns in
the region, Chelsea's population increased just over twenty
one percent between 1960 and 197 5, rising from 1,893 to 2,287.
Development on poor soils and resultantly low property values
have acted to slow growth. However, growth pressures will
probably increase in the future as Chelsea offers convenient
access to Augusta.
Encompassing 19.5 square miles, Chelsea currently bears
the distinction of being the only municipality in the region
with a density greater than 100 people per square mile with-
out any high density development. Nine percent of Chelsea's
land area was in low density development in 1974. Agri-
cultural land accounted for 10%, while approximately 70% of
the town was forested.
The land in the western half of town drains directly in-
to the Kennebec while that in the east drains first into
Togus Stream which joins the Kennebec at the Pittston/Rand-
olph border. Other water resources include Stoney Meadow
Brook, Tinkham Pond and approximately 446 acres of wetland.
Chelsea's stretch of the Kennebec River is quite un-
developed and provides a visual contrast to the urban area
on the Hallowell/Augusta side of the River. At one time
eagles and heron nested in this area. Recently the town pur-
chased 17 acres on the River including those deserted nesting
sites; it is currently considering potential recreational
uses of the land. Presently the River is quite polluted as
it passes through Chelsea, but as industrial and municipal
treatment facilities are constructed in Augusta and Water-
ville, its quality will show drastic improvement. However,
it is difficult to predict whether water quality sufficient
to support contact recreation will be economically feasible
without further study of the River following its initial
improvement.
Togus Stream is also polluted as it passes through
Chelsea. High coliform levels are attributed to problems
with the veterans Administration Hospital treatment facility.
Nonetheless, the Stream still supports an Atlantic Salmon run.
Improvement of water quality in Chelsea thus depends
upon facilities improvements in adjacent towns and in the
V. A. Hospital treatment system. Protection of its water
resources from future degradation will depend upon the con-
trol of development to ensure against erosion and sedimenta-
tion and increased storiwater runoff which could cause in-
creased flash flooding and streambank erosion. This is
-165-

-------
particularly important for the protection of Chelsea's small
streams which are sensitive to these types of disturbances.
A number of areas could create severe erosion or runoff
problems if developed, and should be appropriately protected.
These areas have been collectively termed "sensitive" areas,
and include wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, highly erod-
ible soils, non-discharge soils, and shallow soils, wetlands
and wet soils are extensive in Chelsea, and development oc-
curring on them has already created severe drainage problems.
Because the displacement of agriculture from prime soils
to marginal soils often creates erosion and runoff problems,
the prime agricultural lands are considered by this study to
be "sensitive" and also deserving protection.
Protection of groundwater is another water quality issue
of concern to Chelsea as its residents rely on individual
well systems for water supply. There are no areas in Chelsea
where significant quantities of groundwater are currently
thought to exist which would be sufficient to support a
municipal system. Hence, the need for protection of individ-
ual systems through strict enforcement of the State Plumbing
Code and avoidance of activities which could potentially con-
taminate groundwater is substantial. The capability of the
groundwater resource to support intensive development should
be investigated. This could be achieved by either hiring a
consultant or organizing a local group to collect data from
homeowners about wells. USGS would then be willing to help
analyze the data.
In summary, the significant water quality issues affect-
ing Chelsea include improvement of the Kennebec River water
quality; improvement of Togus Stream water quality? protect-
ion of small streams, sensitive areas and groundwater; eros-
ion and stormwater controls; and improve land use planning
and enforcement.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Chelsea's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality recom-
mendations for the town. For a summary of the specific land
use recommendations of this Plan and the extent to which
Chelsea has already implemented them, see Tables 23, 24, 25.
Land Use and Open Space - Although Chelsea currently
has few land use controls as shown below, the town is con-
sidering what further regulations it will need in order to
guide future growth.
166-

-------
June 197 5	June 1977
Comprehensive plan

UC
Dpen Space Plan


Shoreland Zoning

X
\reawide Zoning


minimum Lot Size
State minimum

Site Plan Review


Subdivision Review

X
Building Code


Street Construction

X
Flood Hazard
X
X
Mobile Home
X
X
Growth Management

UC
X = Adopted
UC - Under consideration


The Planning Board is currently preparing a comprehensive plan
for the town. With the help of the Regional Planning Commis-
sion, the Board is analyzing land capability, the impacts of
growth on services, and the present ability of local ordinances
to protect resources and guide growth. Through this process
of identifying problems and opportunities, the Board plans
to present to townspeople several options for the future man-
agement of growth in the community. By presenting the
alternatives to townspeople before recommending a given course
of action, the Planning Board is receiving input into and is
developing support for the direction that is finally decided
upon.
In developing a comprehensive planning program, the town
should consider the criteria outlined in Part I. in partic-
ular, Chelsea should consider the following suggestions as
a minimum effort to strengthen the town's regulatory program
to protect water and other natural resources.
1. The town should establish a procedure for the review
of new development that is not covered by the subdivision
ordinance (a shopping center may not be, for instance) so
that the community will have the opportunity to insure proper-
ly planned development. For this purpose, Chelsea should
consider adopting a site plan review procedure with perform-
-167-

-------
ance standards. This ordinance should be administered in
combination with a future land use plan for the town.
Provisions for the review of subdivisions could be in-
cluded in this ordinance, as could a building permit pro-
cedure. in this manner certain local ordinances could be
combined into a single land use regulation, thus making it
easier for developers and citizens to know what is required
of them.
2.	in regard to stormwater and erosion control,
Chelsea should consider adopting the following policy for
the review of subdivision and other development proposals:
new land development should not be allowed to cause drainage
problems, erosion or downstream flooding; new stormwater
generated should be handled on site via storage, detention
or infiltration. This is particularly important in the
drainage area of Togus Stream which still supports an
Atlantic Salmon run.
Developers should be required to submit stormwater and
erosion control plans for review. The existing subdivision
regulations do not require such plans to be submitted. The
Planning Board should consider enlisting the technical
assistance of the SKVRPC for the development of plan require-
ments and the Kennebec county Soil and water Conservation
District for the review of these plans. Trust account fees
could also be used to hire professional help for review pur-
poses in order to avoid public expenditures.
3.	Growth should be encouraged to occur according to
the capability of the land to accept development. Development
on steep slopes, highly erodible soils, shallow soils and
wet soils can cause severe erosion or drainage problems.
Slopes greater than 25% should be entirely restricted from
development as should wetlands. There should be no develop-
ment within 75 feet of all ponds, streams and wetlands. The
filling of wetlands, floodplains, and other wet soils should
be prohibited in order to protect the natural stormwater
drainage system. (See also part I, Sensitive Areas protect-
ion.) Presently, Chelsea's Shoreland zoning provides some
protection to sensitive areas.
Developers should be required to show the location of
sensitive areas on a site location map as well as the sub-
division or development plan.
4.	in regards to road construction requirements, the
town should consider implementing the recommendations included
in this Plan in part I.
5.	Finally, Chelsea should consider establishing a
Conservation commission. Currently, the planning Board is
being asked to perform the responsibilities that in some
-168-

-------
other towns fall to the Conservation Commission. A Conser-
vation Commission could assist the planning Board in its
responsibilities, helping to prepare a plan for the use of
town-owned land and developing an open space and recreation
program to meet the future needs of the community.
Enforcement - Chelsea, which has an unsalaried code
enforcement officer and a plumbing inspector who is paid on
a fee basis, has experienced several enforcement problems
during the last few months. The town is extremely interested
in an interlocal agreement with contiguous communities in the
sharing of a code enforcement officer. in fact, it has in
the past made inquiries to other towns in this regard. The
208 Plan recommends tla t this concept be again pursued as it
appears to be a mutual concern of most towns in the region.
Randolph, Pittston and Whitefield are possibilities.
Education - Local officials recognize a need to organize
and make available to townspeople copies of local ordinances.
They should also increase efforts to more directly inform
citizens regarding local land use regulations and policies.
The Plumbing inspector should distribute informational liter-
ature to homeowners regarding reduced water consumption and
the proper functioning and maintenance of their waste disposal
systems to avoid future septic system failures.
Water and Wastewater - Chelsea should consider adopting
a local plumbing code to incorporate provisions suggested in
this Plan (Part I) unless the State amends the State Plumbing
Code in a similar manner.
And finally, given Chelsea's dependence on groundwater
for water supply, it is important that the town support and
encourage research in this area. For example, a recent
Bureau of Geology study of groundwater in the Southern Kenne-
bec valley under 208 funding was thwarted by a lack of co-
operation from area well drillers. Town officials should en-
courage local well drillers to cooperate in future research
programs.
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, land use activities in Chelsea could cause
erosion and sedimentation of its small streams impairing its
value for fish habitat, particularly on Togus Stream which
still supports a salmon run. Ill-planned development could
also create stormwater runoff problems, increasing flash
flooding and causing streambank erosion. This could lead
to the construction of an expensive storm sewer system, or
repeated and expensive replacement of road culverts and more
frequent road ditching.
-169-

-------
In addition, groundwater could be severely polluted,
forcing Chelsea to seek a public water supply in adjacent
communities at considerable expense.
Without proper controls, up to 450 acres of wetlands
could be lost, with a resulting loss in waterfowl and wild-
life habitat, flood storage capacity and scenic resources.
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the
plan recommendations are also difficult to assess with any
specificity. The town is being asked to hire a full-time
or part-time code enforcement officer. Costs could range
from $3,000 to $5,000 per year, including salary and over-
head (travel, etc.).
In addition, it is recommended that Chelsea revise its
present ordinances to require erosion and sedimentation con-
trol plans as well as stormwater runoff control plans of all
developers, costs to the town for review of these plans
should be minimized if the developer is charged a fee for
review processes, undoubtedly this fee will be passed on
to prospective property owners, but shouldn't escalate unit
prices significantly. This is an equitable way of distribut-
ing review costs since the review is for the protection of
prospective property owners as much as the town in general.
Assistance in the revision of existing codes is available
to the town of Chelsea through its membership in the Southern
Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission. No additional
costs for these revisions need be incurred as a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be mini-
mal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few property
owners whose property consists largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at some eco-
nomic disadvantage? but this is unavoidable and should be
compensated by reduced property tax rates.
-170-

-------
FARMINGDALE
The Setting
Located in the Kennebec River corridor, the population
of Farmingdale increased twenty eight percent between 1960
and 1975, rising from 1,941 to 2,492. its position between
Augusta and Gardiner makes the town an attractive target
for development. Much commercial development has occurred
along Maine Avenue and there has also been considerable
residential growth, particularly in the Hayford Heights area,
presently these heavily developed areas are on sewers with
three raw sewage outfalls into the Kennebec River. These
will connect to the regional treatment facility to be built
in Gardiner, which is now pending funds. As sewer extensions
become possible, the town is expected to experience intense
growth pressures.
The land area of Farmingdale is small, comprising 11.1
square miles, in 1974, 5% of the community, the area along
the Kennebec, was in dense urban development. Suburban
development characterized the rural western portion of town,
comprising about 6% of the land area. Agricultural land
accounted for 12%, while 68% of the land area was forested.
Maine Avenue which has been considerably developed, and the
railroad, flank the Kennebec River in Farmingdale. conse-
quently, there is not much opportunity for public access to
the River. However, residents of the community are not far
from a public access point in Hallowell, and look forward to
improved water quality on the River.
As to water supply, presently the Gardiner water Dist-
rict (and the Hallowell water District to a limited extent)
service most of the high density areas of town. However,
residents in the remote areas use private well systems.
Aside from the Kennebec River, Farmingdale does not
possess an abundance of water resources. There are no areas
where high yielding groundwater supplies are thought to
exist. The total surface waters in town amount to only 256
acres. The town's tributaries are small and include the
headwaters of Vaughn Brook and Cold Stream which drains into
Cobbossee Stream, the water supply for the Gardiner Water
District, also serving Farmingdale. Prevention of erosion
and sedimentation in the cold Stream drainage is therefore
critical.
Wetlands are few (less than 150 acres) and located mainly
in the Jamies-Hutchinson pond drainage and Vaughn Brook drain-
age. However, there are three areas which have been classi-
fied as valuable waterfowl habitat by the Maine Department
of inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
-171-

-------
There are two ponds, jamies and Hutchinson, which are
shared physically by Manchester and virtually restricted in
use due to their role as the water supply for the Hallowell
Water District. Jamies and Hutchinson Ponds are rated low
in their sensitivity to nutrient loading, although their
status as water supplies warrants careful protection.
The significant water quality issues in Farmingdale in-
clude construction of the sewer system and the Gardiner
treatment facilities? sewer extension planning? stormwater
management? and improved land use planning and code enforce-
ment.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Farmingdale1s land
use planning program and presents the major water quality
recommendations for the town. For a summary of the specific
land use recommendation of this Plan, see Tables 23, 24, 25.
Land Use and Open Space - Although Farmingdale has
several land use regulations as shown below, it does not have
a comprehensive program for guiding growth.
June 1975 June 1977
Comprehensive plan
X
UC
Dpen Space Plan


Shoreland Zoning
X
X
Areawide Zoning


Minimum Lot Size

(3/4 acre)
Site Plan Review


Subdivision Review
X
X
Building Code


Mobile Home
X
R
Street Construction
X
X
Flood Hazard
X
X
Growth Management


X = Adopted
UC = Under consideration
R = Has been revised


-172-

-------
The planning Board is currently preparing to upgrade
the existing comprehensive plan with the assistance of the
Regional Planning Commission. This effort will include
analyses of land capability in Farmingdale, the impacts of
growth on public services; the impacts of sewer extensions
on future land use; and the ability of present ordinances
to protect resources and guide growth.
In updating the comprehensive plan, the Planning Board
should refer to the criteria suggested for a comprehensive
planning program, discussed in Part I.
in strengthening its regulatory program to protect
water quality, the Board should consider the following sug-
gestions :
1.	The town should establish a procedure for the review
of new development that is not covered by the subdivision
ordinance (a shopping center may not be, for instance) so
that the community will have the opportunity to insure prop-
erly planned development. For this purpose, Farmingdale
should consider adopting a site plan review procedure with
performance standards. This ordinance should be administered
in combination with a future land use plan for the community.
Provision for the review of subdivision applications
could be incorporated into this ordinance, as could a
building permit procedure.
2.	in regard to stormwater and erosion control, Farm-
ingdale should consider adopting the following policy for the
review of proposals: new land development should not be
allowed to cause drainage problems, erosion or downstream
flooding; new stormwater generated should be handled on site
via storage, detention or infiltration. This is particularly
important in the jamies/Hutchinson watershed area. (See
also Part I.
Developers should be required to submit stormwater and
erosion control plans for review. The existing subdivsion
regulations do not require such plans to be submitted. The
Planning Board should consider enlisting the technical assist-
ance of the SKVRPC for development of plan requirements and
the Kennebec County Soil and water Conservation District for
review of the plans. Trust account fees could also be used
to hire professional help for review purposes in order to
avoid public expenditures.
3.	Growth should be encouraged to occur according to
the capability of the land to accept development. Develop-
ment on steep slopes, highly erodible soils, shallow soils
and wet soils can cause severe erosion or drainage problems.
Development should not be allowed to disturb these areas in
a manner that will cause problems. Slopes greater than 25%
should be restricted from development as should wetlands.
-173-

-------
There should be no development within 75 feet of all ponds,
streams or wetlands. The filling of wetlands, floodplains
and other wet soils should be prohibited in order to protect
the natural stormwater drainage system. Presently Farming-
dale's Shoreland Zoning Ordinance affords this protection to
the shorelands of Jamies and Hutchinson Ponds. Protection
should be extended to include their entire drainages and
other sensitive areas in the town, such as the Vaughan Brook
and Cold Stream headwaters. See also Part I.
Developers should be required to show the locations of
sensitive areas on a site location map as well as the sub-
division or development plan.
4.	In regard to the regulation of road construction
activities, the town should consider the recommendations
stated in Part I.
5.	Lastly, Farmingdale should consider establishing a
Conservation Commission to help plan for the future open
space and recreation needs of the community.
Coordination - Coordination of facilities planning and
land use planning is seen as a high priority for the town
which is particularly vulnerable to becoming "urban" like
the other built-up sections of the Kennebec River Corridor.
In developing its twenty year facilities extension plan, the
Sewer Committee should work closely with the Planning Board
in the development of a future land use plan for the town.
Enforcement - Farmingdale also recognizes a high priority
for upgrading its code enforcement capabilities. The town
recently adopted an increased plumbing fee structure. How-
ever, it also should consider joining with other communities,
particularly those in the coastal zone, in sharing a code
enforcement officer. Other towns that have indicated an
interest in forming an interlocal agreement are Hallowell,
Richmond, Randolph, Chelsea and Pittston. The SKVRPC is will-
ing to assist towns in the formation of interlocal agreements.
Water and Wastewater - Once the Gardiner treatment
facility is on line, the Farmingdale Selectmen and Planning
Board see a high priority for establishing a regional author-
ity for the system in regard to policy, capital budgeting
and maintenance. The 208 Plan recommends that the feasibility
of regional management be explored. The town intends to pre-
pare regulations governing the use of public sewers.
Since the community's existing stormwater system is
separate from the sewer system, there are no major problems
in this regard. However, new development should be encour-
aged through regulation to handle stormwater on site so as
to avoid future costly expenditures for expansions to the
stormwater system.
Farmingdale is primarily supplied with water by the
Gardiner Water District. The District obtains its water from
-174-

-------
Pleasant Pond, one of the poorest quality ponds in the region.
The town should support efforts to improve the water quality
of Pleasant Pond.
Education - Copies of local ordinances are readily avail-
able at the Town Office. The town should continue its efforts
to directly inform citizens and affected groups regarding
local land use regulations and policies. The Plumbing Inspec-
tor should distribute informational literature to homeowners
regarding reduced water consumption and the proper functioning
and maintenance of their waste disposal systems to avoid
future septic system failures.
Road Salting - Farmingdale should consider implementing
the road salting recommendations of this Plan as outlined in
Part I.
Environmental. Social and Economic impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, land use activities in the town of Farming-
dale could degrade water quality in two water supply systems:
the Hallowell system including Jamies and Hutchinson Ponds;
and the Gardiner system, Cobbossee Stream, through pollution
of the Cold Stream headwaters. The latter services Gardiner,
Farmingdale, Randolph and Pittston. This could cause in-
creased pretreatment costs and higher user rates to residents
in these six communities.
In addition,without proper controls on development, valu-
able wetlands could be destroyed including three areas of
state-wide significance, with a resultant loss of waterfowl
and wildlife habitat, flood storage capacity, and aesthetic
values.
The stormwater runoff problems created by poorly planned
development will increase flash flooding and could impose
unnecessary costs on the town for repeated revisions and
improvements in its storm sewer system, and increased road
ditching and replacement of culverts in the non-sewered areas
of town.
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of un-
controlled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the plan
recommendations are also difficult to assess with any speci-
ficity. The town is being asked to hire a full-time or part-
time code enforcement officer. Costs could range from $3,000
to $5,000 per year, including salary and overhead (travel,
etc.).
-175-

-------
In addition, it is recommended that Farmingdale revise
its present ordinances to require erosion and sedimentation
control plans as well as stormwater runoff control plans of
all developers. Costs to the town for review of these plans
should be minimized if the developer is charged a fee for
review processes. Undoubtedly this fee will be passed on
to prospective property owners, but shouldn't escalate unit
prices significantly. This is an equitable way of distribut-
ing review costs since the review is for the protection of
prospective property owners as much as the town in general.
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to the town of Farmingdale through its membership in the
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission. No
additional costs for these revisions need be incurred as a
result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be
minimal if the rationale for the revisions relates to re-
source protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few
property owners whose property consists largely of marginal
or "sensitive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at
some economic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and should
be compensated by reduced property tax rates.
Establishment of a regional treatment authority would
facilitate operation and maintenance of the proposed regional
facility in South Gardiner, and would not in any way hinder
the funding and construction of that project. Some legal and
management consultant fees may be incurred in the process of
establishing the authority. Farmingdale's share would prob-
ably be less than $500. This cost would be recovered through
user fees to the residents served by the sewer.
For its share of the costs for construction of the
regional treatment authority in South Gardiner, Farmingdale
will pay about $100,000 or 10% of its total share of
$1,000,000 — the remaining 90% to be paid by State-Federal
grants. The cost of collector systems projected over the
next 20 years is estimated at $3,000,000. One-third of this
is for the Hayford Heights collection system, of which FmHA
is expected to pay 50%. Cost sharing arrangements on future
collectors have not been worked out as yet.
Farmingdale's share of costs for construction of the
South Gardiner facility and collectors will be recovered
through annual user fees which are expected to range from
$100 to $150 per year.
-176-

-------
FAYETTE
The Setting
A rural community located on the western fringe of the
Southern Kennebec valley region, Fayette is still sparsely
developed. In 1975 the population was estimated to number
518, a 58% increase over that of 1960. The population is
thought to more than double during the summer.
Eighty three percent of Fayette's 28.9 square miles is
forested; development and farmland each accounted for 6%
of the total land area in 1974. in fact, there were about
1,000 acres each of agricultural and developed land. Between
1966 and 1974, developed land increased 113%. For its size,
Fayette is growing rapidly.
The community has approximately 4,000 acres of surface
water; in the region only Winthrop and Wayne have more.
Three of Fayette's ponds have been investigated by the 208
water quality planning program: Echo Lake, Lovejoy pond,
and Parker Pond, all in the Thirty Mile River drainage area.
Their water quality conditions are indicated below. Hales,
David, Basin, Tilton and Mosher Ponds are also located in
Fayette. The primary uses of these surface waters are for
recreation and wildlife habitat.
Lake
Current Water
quality
Current Major
sources of
phosphorus1
Assimilative
Capacity^
Need for
Pro-
tection
Echo
Lake
High
Undetermined
High
Low
Lovejoy
Pond
Moderate
Upstream 60%
Agriculture 18%
development 14%
High
Low
Parker
Pond
High
Undetermined
Low
High
•^Phosphorus is the major source of lake pollution in
the region.
2A measure of a lake's ability to absorb phosphorus
and other nutrients without degradation.
Parker pond is extremely vulnerable to excessive phos-
phorus loading which causes algae blooms. This condition is
due to its relatively shallow depth and slow flushing rate.
In contrast, Echo Lake and Lovejoy Pond are less sensitive
-177-

-------
because water moves through them more rapidly, thus removing
the phosphorus.
Protecting the water quality of Fayette's good quality
lakes and ponds will require careful controls on new develop-
ments. Development can greatly increase both phosphorus
loading and sedimentation of lakes. Increased phosphorus
loading results from lawn fertilization, leaf burning, pet
wastes, etc., and increased runoff created by impervious sur-
faces to transport the phosphorus to the lakes. Erosion
and sedimentation can be increased by improper construction
procedures and the increased erosive force created by in-
creased runoff.
A number of areas could create severe erosion or run--
off problems if developed, and should be appropriately pro-
tected. They have been collectively termed "sensitive"
areas, and include wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes,
highly erodible soils, non-discharge soils, and shallow soils.
Because the displacement of agriculture from prime soils to
marginal soils often creates erosion and runoff problems,
the prime agricultural lands are considered by this study to
be "sensitive" and deserving protection.
Protection of groundwater is another water quality issue
of concern to Fayette as its residents rely on individual
well systems (and some lake water) for water supply. There
are three areas in Fayette which have been identified as
potentially high yielding groundwater aquifers (see Map 7,
Part I). Recharge areas to these aquifers should also be
considered "sensitive" and protected from a significant in-
crease in impervious cover or activities which could transmit
pollutants to the aquifer.
In summary, the significant water quality issues in Fay-
ette include the protection of vulnerable lakesheds and other
sensitive areas, and improved land use planning and enforce-
ment.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Fayette's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality recom-
mendations for the town. For a summary of the specific
regulatory recommendations of this Plan and the extent to
which Fayette has already implemented them, see Tables 23,
24, and 25.
Land Use and Open Space - Fayette at present is not
will prepared to deal with future growth and land use
change. As shown in the table below, the only ordinances
relating to land use are shoreland zoning, mobile home and
subdivision standards.
-178-

-------
June 1975	June 197 7
Comprehensive Plan
X
X
Dpen Space Plan
Shoreland Zoning
X
X
Areawide Zoning
Minimum Lot Size
(state minimum)
Site Plan Review
Subdivision Review
X
X
Building Code
Street construction
Flood Hazard
Mobile Home
X
X
Growth Management
X = Adopted
The Community has a well written and thoughtful compre-
hensive plan however, indicating an awareness of the need
to improve land use controls for both economic and environ-
mental reasons. A number of controls are called for in the
Plan. General zoning is suggested which would allow certain
types of activities in the village area and leave the balance
of the land area for a variety of uses in a less concentrated
form. A density control is implied by this. It is also
suggested that a watershed district be formed capable of
planning for reservoir and storage areas for a water supply.
To protect water quality, it is suggested that present sewage
disposal systems be inspected by an "impartial" inspector
to locate substandard systems and require their compliance
with the State Plumbing Code. The use of soils maps is
encouraged in "approval of any new usage of land," and regu-
lation of forest management practices suggested to prevent
erosion, and ensure reforestation.
Consistent with the goals discussed in the comprehensive
plan, the town should consider incorporating the specific
recommendations summarized in Tables 23, 24, and 2 5 into its
land use planning program. As a minimum to establish an
effective program, the community should undertake the fol-
lowing actions:
-179-

-------
1.	The town should establish a procedure for the review
of new development that is not covered by the subdivision
ordinance (a shopping center may not be, for instance) so
that the community will have the opportunity to insure proper-
ly planned development. For this purpose, Fayette should
consider adopting a site plan review procedure with perform-
ance standards. Existing or improved provisions for the re-
view of subdivisions could be incorporated into this ordinance
as could a building permit procedure.
2.	In regard to stormwater, the community should con-
sider adopting the following policy for the review of proposals:
new land development should not be allowed to cause drainage
problems, erosion or downstream flooding. New stormwater
generated should be handled on site via storage, detention or
infiltration. This is particularly important in the sensi-
tive Parker Pond drainage area and possibly others as well.
Developers should be required to submit stormwater and
sedimentation and erosion control plans for review. Presently
the shoreland zoning ordinance contains erosion and sedimenta-
tion control standards but requires no plans from developers.
The Planning Board should consider enlisting the technical
assistance of the Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning
Commission for the development of plan requirements and the
Kennebec County Soil and water conservation District for the
review of these plans. Trust account fees could also be used
to hire professional help for this purpose in order to avoid
public expenditures.
3.	Growth should be encouraged to occur according to
the capability of the land to accept development. Develop-
ment on steep slopes, highly erodible soils, shallow soils
and wet soils can cause severe erosion or drainage problems.
Development should not be allowed to disturb these areas in
a manner that will cause problems. Slopes greater than 25%
should be entirely restricted from development as should wet-
lands; and a 75 foot setback from all ponds, streams and wet-
lands. Fayette's Shoreland Zoning Ordinance presently con-
tains a 75 foot setback requirement for waterbodies but not
wetlands. The filling of wetlands and other wet soils should
be prohibited in order to protect the natural stormwater
drainage system. These policies and standards should be
applied to development occurring throughout the town by means
of the site plan review ordinance. However, the shoreland
zoning ordinance, in particular, should be revised so that
appropriate sensitive areas are included in the resource
protection zone.
4.	Fayette should consider establishing a Conservation
Commission to be responsible for developing an open space
program to meet the future needs of the town, and identifying
sensitive areas in the town.
-180-

-------
Enforcement - The town should consider improving the
code enforcement capabilities. Presently the town has an
unsalaried code enforcement officer and a plumbing inspec-
tor. Fayette should consider sharing a part-time salaried
code enforcement officer with one or more adjoining towns.
Mount Vernon, for instance, has indicated a willingness to
enter into such an arrangement. The SKVRPC is willing to
assist towns in the formation of interlocal agreements.
Water and Wastewater - Fayette should consider adopting
a local plumbing code to incorporate provisions suggested in
this Plan, unless the State amends the State Plumbing Code
in a similar manner.
Fayette should also keep an eye on the future develop-
ment of Lovejoy Pond (tax maps Ul and U2) where due to small
lots, subsurface disposal problems could develop unless sys-
tems are installed in strict compliance to the State Plumb-
ing Code.
Finally, given Fayette's dependence on groundwater sup-
plies, town officials should support and encourage research
in groundwater quality, quantity and movement. For example,
a recent Bureau of Geology study of groundwater in the SKVRPC
was thwarted in its data collection efforts by a lack of
cooperation from area will drillers. Town officials should
encourage local well drillers to cooperate in future research
programs.
Road Salting - Fayette should consider implementing the
road salting recommendations of this Plan, Part I.
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
of this plan, land use activities in the town of Fayette
could degrade water quality in Parker Pond and the smaller
ponds such as Hales Pond, David Pond, Basin Pond, Tilton Pond,
and Mosher Pond. In addition, valuable wetlands could be
lost (up to 650 acres) with a resultant loss in waterfowl
and wildlife habitat, flood storage capacity, and scenic
resources. Without proper controls on new development, flash
flooding and other drainage problems will increase, and the
town will be faced with more frequent road ditching, and
replacement of culverts.
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
-181-

-------
The social and economic impacts of implementing the
plan recommendations are also difficult to assess with any
specificity. The town is being asked to hire a part-time
code enforcement officer. Costs could range from $2,000
to $4,000 per year, including salary and overhead (travel,
etc.).
In addition, it is recommended that Fayette revise its
present ordinances to require erosion and sedimentation
control plans as well as stormwater runoff control plans
of all developers. Costs to the town for review of these
plans should be minimized if the developer is charged a fee
for review processes. Undoubtedly this fee will be passed
on to prospective property owners, but shouldn't escalate
unit prices significantly. This is an equitable way of
distributing review costs since the review is for the pro-
tection of prospective property owners as much as the town
in general.
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to the town of Fayette through its membership in the South-
ern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission. No
additional costs for these revisions need be incurred as a
result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be mini-
mal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few property
owners whose property consists largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at some eco-
nomic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and should be
compensated by reduced property tax rates.
-182-

-------
GARDINER
The Setting
Located at the confluence of the Kennebec River and
Cobbossee Stream, Gardiner is the second largest urban area
in the region. Nine percent of the city's 15.8 square miles
is in dense development and eleven percent in suburban
development. During the sixties, the population declined
three percent, dropping from 6,897 to 6,68 5. The city has
begun a rehabilitation program to upgrade deteriorated
buildings in order to reverse this trend. In fact, the
trend has turned slightly, with the population increasing
less than one percent between 1970 and 1975 according to
estimates.
In addition to the Kennebec, water resources include
Pleasant Pond, Cobbossee Stream, approximately 80 acres of
wetlands, and at least two areas where high-yield ground-
water sources are thought to exist (see Map 7, Part I).
Pleasant Pond flows into Cobbossee Stream about 4 miles
above the intake system of the Gardiner water District which
uses the stream as its primary water supply. The current
water quality of Pleasant pond is poor, although the pond
has a relatively high tolerance for nutrient loading because
water moves through it quickly. However, because of its cur-
rent low quality, there is a high need to improve and protect
this water body. The pond has been severely impacted by
agricultural runoff, particularly during spring runoff when
manure piled or spread on frozen fields during the winter
runs off into the pond and its tributaries. A proposed
Cobbossee Watershed District lake restoration project will
concentrate on working with farmers in the construction of
winter manure storage pits which will control agricultural
runoff in the drainage areas of three problem lakes, includ-
ing pleasant pond, Cobbossee Lake and Annabessacook Lake.
Gardiner has a vested interest in this restoration project
as all three severely degraded lakes drain into the city's
water supply.
Below the city's water supply intake on Cobbossee
Stream there are a number of sewage outfalls from a combined
sanitary and storm sewer system which degrade the stream and
subsequently the Kennebec River with raw sewage. This
section of the stream is also degraded at present by partially
treated discharges from the Yorktowne Paper Company. All of
these wastes are soon to be connected to a regional treatment
facility in South Gardiner scheduled for construction pending
funding. This will radically improve water quality in
Cobbossee Stream as it flows through Gardiner.
-183-

-------
The proposed restoration program for the cobbossee Stream
lakes which focuses on reduction of non-point source pollutants,
together with the anticipated construction of a sewage treat-
ment facility for the treatment of point sources should restore
the water quality of Cobbossee Stream and Pleasant Pond to
acceptable levels. To protect these waterbodies from degra-
dation in the future, it is important that Gardiner guide
new development to avoid erosion and sedimentation from land
disturbance and increased stormwater runoff. This is particu-
larly important given the already urban nature of much of
the city and its dependence on surface water supplies in
close proximity to those urban areas. Thus development should
be guided to avoid areas particularly "sensitive" to disturb-
ance including wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, highly
erodible soils, non-discharge and shallow soils.
The Kennebec River, which forms Gardiner's eastern bor-
der, is perhaps the city's most prominent water resource.
It is intimately linked to the city's history and economy,
and today remains a visual and recreational asset to the resi-
dents. Unfortunately, the water quality of the River is
severely impaired due to upstream industrial and municipal
discharges, most of which are scheduled for abatement and
treatment in the near future. Gardiner itself currently dis-
charges raw waste to the Kennebec, but is scheduled for con-
struction of a secondary sewage treatment facility in the near
future. Despite the degraded condition of the River, it
provides numerous wildlife and waterfowl feeding and nesting
areas to the enjoyment of Gardiner residents. As the River
continues to improve in response to additional treatment
facilities, the Kennebec could be restored to serve a fuller
range of recreational needs including contact recreation.
To summarize, the significant water quality issues in
Gardiner focus on restoration of the region's degraded lakes
and the protection of municipal water supplies; improvement
of the Kennebec River; the wastewater facilities construction
program; and improved land use planning, coordination and
enforcement.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Gardiner's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality manage-
ment recommendations for the city. For a summary of the
extent that Gardiner has already implemented the recommenda-
tions of this Plan, see Tables 23, 24, and 25.
Land use and Open Space - Gardiner has a fairly complex
land use regulation program including the following:
-184-

-------
June 197 5	1977
Comprehensive Plan

X
X
Open Space Plan



Shoreland Zoning

X
X
Areawide Zoning

X
X
Minimum Lot Size

X*
X*
Site Plan Review



Subdivision Review

X
X
Building Code

X
X
Street Construction

X
X
Flood Hazard

X
X
Mobile Home

X
X
Growth Management
X = Adopted
*Unsewered
Sewered =
= h to 1 acre per zoning
h to h + acres per zoning

The zoning ordinance establishes seven districts based
upon use restrictions and lot requirements including density,
setbacks and lot coverage. "The ordinance establishes an
excellent procedure for the review of uses which must apply
for a permit. The review considers some sensitive areas and
stipulates that technical assistance may be requested of the
Soil and Water Conservation District among others. A major
drawback of the ordinance, however, is the absence of a
similar review procedure for uses not requiring a permit which
may also impact water quality. Additional performance stand-
ards are required of certain uses and intensities of uses.
However, performance standards regarding stormwater runoff,
sedimentation and erosion are lacking with the exception of
sand and gravel mining, and other operations which remove
more than 50 cubic yards of material per year (excepting that
associated with construction). The reclamation of sand and
gravel pits, unfortunately, is not a requirement.
in addition, the establishment of districts seems to be
concerned primarily with considerations other than land
capability and the protection of water quality. There is
a provision which permits planned unit and cluster develop-
ment. However, no increased density allowances are offered
as an incentive to developers to cluster their developments
in order to provide open space, thus enhancing visual char-
acter, protecting sensitive areas and cutting costs to both
the developer and city.
-185-

-------
The Council and Planning Board should reevaluate the
zoning ordinance in light of the above discussion and the
recommendations found in Part I in order to strengthen its
ability to protect water quality. Technical assistance in
the revision of the zoning ordinance should be obtained from
a qualified land use planner, either through the Southern
Kennebec Valley Regional Planning commission or contract
with an individual.
The city's subdivision and street construction ordinances
also establish good review procedures. However, the criteria
for review in regards to stormwater, sedimentation and erosion
control and the protection of sensitive areas are not clearly
spelled out. in the case of stormwater, the street ordinance
suggests "adequate drainage" shall be required. But what is
adequate? The Planning Board should consider adopting a
policy that new land development should not be allowed to
create stormwater disposal problems, erosion or downstream
flooding. New stormwater generated should be handled on-site
via storage, detention or infiltration. This is particularly
important in the Pleasant pond and Cobbossee Stream drainage
areas. The planning Board should seek assistance in revis-
ing the drainage provisions of the street ordinance from the
SKVRPC or a qualified land use planner. it should also fol-
low through on its policy to enlist technical assistance for
the review of subdivision proposals, particularly stormwater
and sedimentation and erosion control plans.
To protect available groundwater supplies (two emergency
wells in South Gardiner and areas of potential high yield
identified in Map 7, Part I, Gardiner should e^act spec-
ial controls. Specifically, Gardiner should prohibit devel-
opment within 400 feet of its emergency municipal wells in
South Gardiner. Areas identified as potentially high yield-
ing groundwater aquifers should also be protected by stringent
performance standards, after groundchecking for verification.
Finally, the Gardiner conservation Commission should be
encouraged to develop an open space program for the community.
Coordination - Since the city determines policy in regard
to sewer extensions, it should coordinate this process with
the land use planning programs of the planning Board which
also requires comment by the Water District in the case of
subdivision review. The city should continue to strengthen
and formalize this coordinating procedure, particularly in
regard to long-range utilities extensions, water supply and
land use regulation.
Enforcement - The city should consider upgrading its
code enforcement capabilities, it should consider either
hiring a full-time or part-time code enforcement officer.
Alternatively, it should investigate sharing a code enforce-
ment officer with adjoining communities or those in the
coastal zone (towns bordering the Kennebec River to Augusta
which may be receiving Federal assistance in code enforcement
under the coastal Zone Management program).
186-

-------
Education - The city has codified local ordinances
and makes them readily available to residents. In addition
to this, the Plumbing Inspector should distribute information
when applicable to homeowners concerning public water con-
sumption reduction and septic system maintenance.
Water and Wastewater - As previously mentioned, the
city is served by the Gardiner Water District via cobbossee
Stream. The GWD also supplies water to Randolph, Farming-
dale and Pittston. The GWD operates a filtration facility
due to the relatively low quality of the stream. The system
is relatively old and in need of major rehabilitation through-
out the city.
The raw wastewater discharges will soon be intercepted
as part of a three community interceptor and treatment
program. The plans call for a regional secondary treatment
facility in South Gardiner to serve Gardiner, Farmingdale,
Randolph, SAD #11 Elementary School in Pittston and York-
towne paper in Gardiner. The $10 million program is await-
ing EPA-DEP construction grants to the three municipalities.
The grants are presently held up due to Congressional in-
action. Part of the grant will go towards separating the
combined sewers in Gardiner.
The Plan recommends that the three communities consider
the concept of a regional treatment authority instead of
the inter-local agreement approach presently in effect.
This authority would contract with the individual communi-
ties for operation and maintenance, construction manage-
ment, and possibly stormwater management. Cluster septic
systems could also be maintained by the authority for the
three local governments.
Road Salting - Gardiner should consider implementing
the road salting recommendations included in this Plan in
part i.
Environmental, Social, and Economic impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, land use activities in the City of Gardiner
could cause increased pretreatment needs for the Gardiner
Water District with the result of increasing costs to con-
sumers in Gardiner, Pittston, Randolph and Farmingdale. m
addition, valuable wetlands may be lost (up to 80 acres)
with a resulting loss of waterfowl and wildlife habitat,
flood storage capacity and scenic resources. Without storm-
water runoff controls on new developments, flash flooding
will increase and the city may be faced with repeated
expensive revisions and improvements in its storm sewer
system (more frequent road ditching and cleaning of sewers,
unnecessary enlargements in the system).
-187-

-------
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the plan
recommendations are also difficult to assess with any speci-
ficity. The city is being asked to hire a full-time or part-
time code enforcement officer. Costs could range from
$5,000 to $13,000 per year, minimum, including salary and
overhead (travel, etc.). In addition, it is recommended
that Gardiner revise its present ordinances to require eros-
ion and sedimentation control plans as well as stormwater
runoff control plans of all developers. Costs to the city
for review of these plans should be minimized if the devel-
oper is charged a fee for review processes. Undoubtedly
this fee will be passed on to prospective property owners,
but shouldn't escalate unit prices significantly. This is
an equitable way of distributing review costs since the
review is for the protection of prospective property owners
as much as the city in general.
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to the City of Gardiner through its membership in the South-
ern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission and Cobbos-
see watershed District. No additional cost for these revis-
ions need be incurred as a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be mini-
mal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few property
owners whose property consists largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at some
economic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and should be
compensated by reduced property tax rates.
Establishment of a regional treatment authority would
facilitate operation and maintenance of the proposed regional
facility in South Gardiner, and would not in any way hinder
the funding and construction of that project. Some legal and
management consultant fees may be incurred in the process of
establishing the authority. Gardiner's share would probably
be less than $5,000. This cost would be recovered by the
city through user fees to the residents served by the sewer.
For construction of the secondary treatment facility
including interceptors and separation of existing combined
systems, Gardiner users will pay about $700,000 for their
share of the proposed facilities. The initial capital cost
and annual operation and maintenance costs will be recovered
-188-

-------
over a 20-year period in user fees of $100 to $150 per user
per year. The total project cost for the system is estimated
at $8,000,000, but State and Federal grants will pay 90% of
this with the remainder paid by Gardiner, Randolph, and
Farmingdale residents. The latter two towns will contribute
about $100,000 together.
-189-

-------
HALLOWELL
The Setting
The city of Hallowell, located on the Kennebec River
between Augusta and Farmingdale, has a densely populated
water front area. The 1970 population was 2,814, an 11%
loss from 1960. in 197 5 the population dropped to an esti-
mated 2,790, an additional loss of 1% representing a slow
down in population decline. The losses during the sixties
and early seventies can be attributed to the decline of an
old section of the city where a number of buildings have
deteriorated over the years. The city is now embarking
upon a program to rehabilitate older buildings in the his-
toric district.
Only 5.3 square miles, there is not much buildable
land remaining in Hallowell. The urban area spreads from
the river to the top of the steep rise. To the west of the
turnpike, there is little development except along the roads.
However, this area in the future will attract development
because of its proximity to Augusta. Already local officials
have been informally approached by two developers whose pro-
posals together would encompass over 250 acres, if built.
The Hallowell water District manages the old combined
sewer system in addition to the water system. The collection
system presently serves much of the city east of the turn-
pike. The Augusta-winthrop trunk sewer passes through the
western portions of the city and is utilized to a limited
extent. This is expected to increase in the future.
Water resources include portions of the jamies-Hutch-
inson pond drainages, the Vaughn Brook-Cascade pond area, a
number of quarries and the Kennebec River.
The Kennebec River, which forms Hallowell's eastern
border, is a prominent water resource which is intimately
linked to the city's history and economy. Today it remains
a visual and recreational asset. A state boat launching
facility is located on the River in Hallowell. Unfortunately
the water quality of the River is severely impaired due to
upstream industrial and municipal discharges, most of which
are scheduled for abatement and treatment in the near future.
Hallowell itself currently discharges raw wastes to the
Kennebec, but it is scheduled for connection to the Augusta
sewage treatment facility, pending funding. Despite the
degraded condition of.the River, however, it provides numer-
ous wildlife and waterfowl feeding and nesting areas to the
enjoyment of passers-by. As the River continues to improve
in response to additional treatment facilities, its recre-
ational potential will be significantly improved. However,
-190

-------
it is difficult to predict whether water quality sufficient
to support contact recreation will be economically achiev-
able without future study of the River following point
source abatement.
Vaughn Brook is a sensitive watershed; unfortunately
the land in the upper reaches is zoned commercial/indust-
rial and if not adequately guided, development could result
in severe water quality problems.
A portion of the jamies-Hutchinson drainage area, the
water supply utilized by the Hallowell Water District, is
located in the south-western corner of the city. it is cur-
rently in a resource protection district. in order to
protect this water supply, Hallowell has an interest in
land use activities occurring in the other towns in this
drainage area, Manchester and Farmingdale. in fact, the
Hallowell water District owns some land in both towns. Cur-
rent water quality in both ponds is moderate, affected only
minimally by runoff from agriculture and development. Be-
cause they are used for water supply, there is a high need
to protect these ponds from water quality degradation.
Protection of Hallowell's sensitive water resources
should focus on the control of development in the jamies-
Hutchinson watersheds and Vaughn Brook-Cascade pond water-
shed. Erosion and sedimentation from improperly planned
development could necessitate expensive pretreatment of
water supplies, while poorly planned stormwater drainage sys-
tems could increase flash flooding and streambank erosion in
Vaughn Brook. To minimize these impacts, development should
be prohibited or restricted from areas particularly sensitive
to soil or hydrologic disturEances, including floodplains;
wetlands? highly erodible, shallow and non-discharge soils?
and steep slopes. Because development of prime agricultural
lands leads to more intensive use of marginal lands (often
steep, shallow to bedrock or wet) and subsequent water qual-
ity problems, protection of these lands is also warranted.
In summary, the significant water quality issues in
Hallowell focus on the construction of a pump station, force
main and interceptor sewer to connect to the Augusta Sanitary
District treatment facility; the separation of the old com-
bined sewer system,* sewer extension planning; the protection
of the city's water supply and Vaughn Brook drainage area;
and improved land use planning, coordination and enforce-
ment.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Hallowell's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality recom-
mendations for Hallowell. For a summary of the specific
recommendations of this plan and the extent to which Hallowell
-191-

-------
has already implemented them, see Tables 23, 24, and 25.
Land Use and Open Space - Although Hallowe11 has a
zoning ordinance, the city's regulatory program is not a
strong one.
June 197 5	1977
Comprehensive Plan
X
X
Open Space plan


Shoreland Zoning
X
X
Areawide Zoning
X
X
Minimum Lot Size
X *
X
Site plan Review


Subdivision Review
X
X
Building Code
X
X
Street Construction


Flood Hazard
X
X
Mobile Home
X
X
Growth Control


X = Adopted *h acre with sewers,
and subdivisions
h without

While the zoning ordinance describes which uses are
permitted in each of the five districts, it does not provide
a review procedure for permitted large-scale uses such as
commercial and industrial development. There are only two
provisions for performance standards: flood plain and his-
toric district requirements.
Although the ordinance does include a resource protect-
ion zone for the jamies-Hutchinson drainage area, the estab-
lishment of other districts does not appear to be based upon
land capability. With the exception of the commercial-
industrial zone and the urban areas of the city, all land
beyond 500 feet of roads is designated as open space. On
the eastern side of the turnpike, open space is to be kept
"forever wild"; however, the ordinance seems to allow resi-
dential development to occur in the open space to the west
which will not insure its preservation as open space. And
even if it did protect these areas from development, the
community would still appear to be "built-up" as development
-192-

-------
would concentrate along roadways, thus depriving townspeople
of both visual and physical access to these areas. Much of
this land, in fact, could be suitable for development and
thus its designation as open space could be construed to de-
prive individuals of their rights unless the city can pre-
sent a rationale case for the lands remaining undeveloped.
City Council members have indicated a need for a
growth management plan for Hallowell. In developing such
a plan, the city should evaluate the zoning ordinance in
light of the above discussion and the future objectives of
the community.
In order to be equipped to deal with the growth that
will occur when sewer extensions become possible, the city
should evaluate its subdivision and street construction
ordinances to make sure they provide adequate review pro-
cedures and standards. In particular, the city should adopt
the following criteria for land use review:
1.	Standards should be established that will require
development to perform in a manner that will not disrupt
water quality.
in regard to stormwater and erosion control, the com-
munity should consider adopting the following policy for
the review of proposals: new land development should not
be allowed to cause drainage problems, erosion or downstream
flooding? new stormwater generated should be handled on
site via storage, detention or infiltration. This is par-
ticularly important in sensitive watersheds such as Vaughn
Brook and Jamies-Hutchinson Ponds.
2.	Developers should be required to submit stormwater
and erosion control plans for review. The Planning Board
should consider enlisting the technical assistance of the
SKVRPC for development of plan requirements and the Kenne-
bec county Soil and Water Conservation District for review
of the plans. Trust account fees could also be used to hire
professional help for this purpose in order to avoid public
expenditures.
3.	Growth should be encouraged to occur according to
the capability of the land to accept development. Develop-
ment on steep slopes, highly erodible soils, shallow soils
and wet soils can cause severe erosion or drainage problems.
Development should not be allowed to disturb these areas in*
a manner that will cause problems. Slopes greater than
25% should be entirely restricted from development as should
wetlands. There should be no development within 75 feet
of all ponds, streams and wetlands. The filling of wetlands
and other wet soils should be prohibited in order to protect
the natural stormwater drainage system. (See also Part I,
Sensitive Areas Protection.)
-193-

-------
Developers should be required to show the locations of
sensitive areas on a site location map as well as the sub-
division or development plan.
4. The Conservation Commission, if reactivated, should
help to develop an open space program to meet the future
needs of the community and to protect sensitive areas.
Coordination - There should be good communications be-
tween the Council, Planning Board, Water District, City
Manager and code enforcement officer. The city should con-
tinue to strengthen and formalize this relationship, par-
ticularly in regards to long-range utilities extensions,
water supply and land use regulations. Plans should be co-
ordinated and each group should be aware of the intent
behind the plans of other goups.
Enforcement - The Hallowell Council recognizes a need
to upgrade the city's code enforcement capabilities. It
presently has an unsalaried code enforcement officer and a
plumbing inspector who is paid on a fee schedule for each
inspection. Responding to a questionnaire, most members
indicated the city should share a code enforcement officer
with adjoining towns. The city should investigate the pos-
sibility of forming an interlocal agreement with other com-
munities in the Coastal Zone {Augusta, Farmingdale, Chelsea,
Randolph, Richmond, Gardiner and Pittston), most of which
have expressed a similar desire. The SKVRPC is willing to
assist towns in the formation of interlocal agreements.
Education - Hallowell should consider improving local
awareness of local regulations and policies. The plumbing
inspector should distribute information when applicable to
homeowners concerning water consumption reduction and sep-
tic system maintenance, so as to avoid future septic system
failures.
Water and Wastewater - As previously mentioned, the
Hallowell Water Districtsupplies both waste and wastewater
services to the city. The sewers are in need of almost
complete separation due to their age and the topography of
Hallowell. The Hallowell Water District presently dis-
charges its sewers into the Kennebec River without treat-
ment. The District is awaiting an EPA-DEP construction
grant to connect to the Augusta Sanitary District treatment
facility via a pump station-force main interceptor system.
The grant will also be usedvto separate the sewer system.
Some of the old sewers that are to be retained as storm
drains, however, are still inadequate due to the steep
slopes of Hallowell's urban area.
The Hallowell Water District is a member of the Inter-
community Group, since the trunkline passes through Hallowell.
Although there are only two users to that line# it is ex-
pected to be utilized to a greater extent, since the line
passes through some prime potential commercial-industrial
-194-

-------
as well as residential land along Winthrop Street, Granite
Hill and Whitten Road.
It has been recommended that the Intercommunity Group
consider the formal regional authority concept to manage
the regional treatment and interceptor facilities within
the five communities.
The water District should continue to develop the
long-range utilities extension plans as well as capital
improvement programs. Sewer and water systems should only
be extended after a thorough investigation of their impact
on land use and water quality.
Road Salting - Hallowell should consider implementing
the road salting recommendations included in this plan in
Part I.
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, land use activities could degrade water
quality in jamies and Hutchinson Ponds, cascade Pond and
Vaughn Brook, in addition, without stormwater runoff con-
trols on new developments, particularly those not within
the service area of a storm sewer, flash flooding will in-
crease and the city may be faced with repeated and expen-
sive revisions and improvements to its storm sewer system
(more frequent road ditching, replacement of culverts,
cleaning of catchments, and unnecessary enlargements).
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the plan
recommendations are also difficult to assess with any speci-
ficity. The city is being asked to hire a part-time code
enforcement officer. Costs could range from $3,000 to $5,000
per year, including salary and overhead (travel, etc.).
In addition, it is recommended that Hallowell revise
its present ordinances to require erosion and sedimentation
control plans as well as stormwater runoff control plans
of all developers. Costs to the city for review of these
plans should be minimized if the developer is charged a fee
for review processes, undoubtedly this fee will be passed
on to prospective property owners, but shouldn't escalate
unit prices significantly. This is an equitable way of
distributing review costs since the review is for the pro-
tection of prospective property owners as much as the city
in general.
-195-

-------
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to the City of Hallowell through its membership in the
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission. No
additional costs for these revisions need be incurred as
a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be
minimal if the rationale for the revisions relates to re-
source protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few
property owners whose property consists largely of marginal
or "sensitive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at
some economic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and
should be compensated by reduced property tax rates.
For construction of the proposed interceptor line and
separation of storm and sanitary sewers, total costs are
estimated at $2,500,000. Hallowell's share of this will
be 10% (State-Federal grants will cover 90%) , which will be
recovered through user fees of $100 - $150 per year. These
fees will also cover operation and maintenance costs.
-196-

-------
LITCHFIELD
The Setting
Litchfield is a growing rural community that encom-
passes 38.4 square miles. Only 1,011 in I960, the popu-
lation increased 52% and numbered 1,540 in 1975. With
approximately 1,344 acres of water attracting summer resi-
dents, the population has been estimated to increase as
much as 280% during the summer.
Surface waters within the town are abundant. The hilly
terrain divides Litchfield into several drainage areas as
shown on Map 16 . The Tacoma Lakes included Jimmy, Buker,
Sand and Woodbury Ponds as well as Little Purgatory Pond
which drains into Woodbury and receives overflow during
times of high flow from a smaller pond, locally known as
Mud Pond. A beaver flowage forms the headwaters of the
Tacoma chain. A small area to the west and north of the
Tacomas is part of the Cobbossee Lake drainage system.
Cobbossee Stream forms the northern boundary of Litchfield,
being fed by Dennis Hill Brook, while the remainder of town
including Potters Brook, Magotly Meadow Brook and the Dead
River drain into Pleasant Pond which forms the eastern border
between Richmond.
Changing land use and management practices have had a
significant impact on two of these lakes, Pleasant Pond and
Cobbossee Lake, and future activity could affect other water
bodies as well. Agricultural practices and other land use
activities such as construction, runoff from developed areas,
the utilization of abandoned gravel pits and road salting all
can have a negative impact on water quality, if not carefully
planned. The community's popularity is in large part due to
the rural setting afforded by farmland and water resources.
There are seven operational farms in Litchfield; two on the
Stevenstown Road, two on the Hallowell Road, one on the Pond
Road, two on the Upper Pond Road, and several new residents
intend to farm their recently acquired acreage.
The town's water bodies are primarily used for recreation
and wildlife habitat; Cobbossee Lake and Stream are also
public water supplies. The water quality status of the lakes
that have been studied by this water quality program is pre-
sented in the following table.
-197-

-------
DRAINAGE AREAS HM UTCHFIO-D
LAKE
14
/
STREAM
J
PtEASAH
POND
TACOMA
LAKES

DENNIS
HILL
MOOK
JOCK
11 STREAM
&
MAOOTTY
MEADOW
LDLU

-------
Lake
Current Water
quality
Current Major
sources of,
phosphorus
Assimilative
Capacity2
Need for
Pro-
tection
Buker
Pond
Moderate
Forests 70%
Development 15%
High
Moderate
Cobbossee
Lake
Low
Upstream 56%
Agriculture 30%
Development 8%
Moderate
High
Pleasant
Pond
Low
Agriculture 80%
Development 14%
High
High
Sand
Pond
High
Upstream 60%
High
Low
Woodbury
Pond
High
Upstream 50%
Agriculture 20%
Development 15%
High
Low
^Phosphorus is the major source of lake pollution in the
region.
2a measure of a lake's ability to absorb phosphorus and
other nutrients without degradation.
Most of the phosphorus reaching Buker, Sand and Wood-
bury Ponds has been determined to be of natural origin.
These Ponds have a high ability to absorb phosphorus with-
out degradation because water moves through them relatively
quickly, thus removing the nutrients. However, Buker Pond
is naturally porductive and the pond should be closely
watched to detect increases in phosphorus and productivity
as changes in land use occur.
Although the Tacoma ponds have a high assimilative
capacity, they drain into Cobbossee Stream, a water supply,
and, therefore, have the potential to create problems down-
stream for the Gardiner Water District. Woodbury Pond and
Sand Pond have already experienced extensive first tier
development. The village area known as Purgatory drains
into the Woodbury Pond outlet and a State Park is planned
on the west shore off the Whippoorwill Road. New development
is also planned in the headwaters area of Jimmy Pond at the
Litchfield and Wales border.
Both Cobbossee Lake and Pleasant Pond have very low
water quality. The condition in Cobbossee, the secondary
water supply for the Augusta Water District, is the result
of drainage from Annabessacook Lake, directly upstream, which
until recently received municipal and industrial wastes from
the towns of Winthrop and Monmouth. Because of the stress
placed on Cobbossee Lake by these upstream sources, it has
become sensitive to other sources of phosphorus such as man-
-199-

-------
ure spreading on frozen fields in the winter. This latter
source is carried into tributaries and lakes during the
spring melt. Restoration of the lake will not entail reduc-
tion of both upstream and agricultural sources.
The condition of Pleasant Pond is attributed primarily
to agriculture. Six dairy farms in Litchfield are located
in the area that drains into the Pond, exceeding its phos-
phorus capacity. Manure is often stocked in fields that
drain into Loon Pond, Potters Brook and Pleasant Pond. De-
spite a heavy build up of cottages on the pond's perimeter,
phosphorus input from septic systems presently accounts for
less than 2% of the total loading. Even assuming all systems
discharge directly to the pond it would still be no higher
than 20%. Runoff from development (lawns, driveways) is
estimated to contribute only 14%. This source could increase
significantly, however, if the watershed continues to develop
rapidly.
The poor water quality of Cobbossee Lake and Pleasant
Pond will improve, if the current phosphorus load is reduced
to an acceptable level. The proposed Cobbossee Watershed
District Lake Restoration Project will focus on reducing the
sources of phosphorus entering the lakes. In order to make
this program successful, additional sources of phosphorus
should be minimized, particularly runoff from development.
Cobbossee Stream, the primary water supply for the
Gardiner Water District, is currently of good water quality
as it passes through Litchfield. Drainage from Pleasant
Pond adds high numbers of algae to the stream however, caus-
ing the Gardiner Water District to heavily treat the water
before distribution. This emphasizes the importance of re-
storing Pleasant Pond's water quality.
Protecting the water quality of Pleasant Pond, Cobbossee
Lake and Cobbossee Stream from sedimentation is another
water quality issue affecting Litchfield. Presently this
is not a major problem, but in the past severe sedimentation
occurred during the construction of 1-95, and future develop-
ment in the watersheds of these water bodies could result
in significant sedimentation problems again. Avoiding sedi-
mentation from land use activities in Litchfield is there-
fore critical.
Erosion and sedimentation of water bodies results from
two processes — direct distrubance of soils and exposure to
erosive winds and rain; and disturbances in the natural
hydrology of an area which result in increased runoff with
resultant streambank and gully erosion as well as flooding.
An area that is developing quickly is likely to suffer from
both of these processes, as large tracts of land are bull-
dozed and impervious surfaces are increased with a corres-
ponding increase in runoff. To avoid these effects, devel-
opment should be required to follow strict performance
-200-

-------
standards, and should be avoided or severely limited in
certain areas which are especially "sensitive" to distur-
bance, either due to erosion potential or hydrologic factors.
Sensitive areas in Litchfield include 412 acres of wetlands,
other wet soils, steep slopes (over 15%), highly erodible
soils and shallow soils. Because the displacement of agri-
culture from prime soils to marginal soils often creates
erosion and runoff problems, the prime agricultural lands
are considered by this study to be "sensitive" and deserving
protection. It is not known how much prime agricultural
land is found in Litchfield.
Protection of groundwater is another water quality issue
of concern to Litchfield as its residents rely on individual
well systems ( and some lake water) for water supply. There
are two areas in Litchfield which have been identified as
potentially high yielding groundwater aguifers (see Map 7,
Part I.) After groundchecking recharge areas to these
aquifers should also be considered "sensitive" and protected
from a significant increase in impervious cover or activities
which could transmit pollutants to the aquifer.
Abandoned gravel pits are a potential threat to ground
water quality if they are not properly reclaimed. In
particular, an extensive pit off the Hallowell Road is
closely connected to the groundwater system and could con-
taminate it if used for the disposal of waste materials.
The groundwater system is also apparent at the Sports-
man's Club Pond which is spring fed, but also receives
surface drainage from the Springer Hill area. The ground-
water is thought to move from the pond underground through
the town dump and into Dennis Hill Brook.
A final water quality issue which concerns Litchfield
is the solution of several domestic wastewater disposal
problems. Approximately eight problem areas were identified
in which individual on-site correction or connection to an
existing or proposed sewer system were not feasible solu-
tions. These were located in Litchfield Corners, and on
several lakeshore areas including Cobbossee Lake, Sand Pond,
and Woodbury Pond. Of these, Litchfield Corners was studied
in detail. The Plan concluded that cluster septic systems
are a viable alternative for these areas, and that steps be
taken to correct the problem areas accordingly. (See de-
tailed recommendations below.)
In summary, the significant water quality issues in
Litchfield include improvement and protection of Cobbossee
Lake, Cobbossee Stream, and Pleasant Pond; protection of
sensitive areas; development of cluster septic systems to
serve remote subsurface disposal problem areas; control of
stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation from new devel-
opment; and improved land use and code enforcement (discussed
below).
-201-

-------
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Litchfield's land
use planning program and presents the major water quality
management recommendations for the towns. For a summary
of the specific recommendations of the plan for local action
and the extent to which Litchfield has already implemented
them, see Tables 23, 24, and 25.
Land Use and Open Space - Until recently, Litchfield
had very few land use controls.
June 1975 June 1977
Comprehensive Plan

Open Space Plan

Shoreland Zoning
X X
Areawide Zoning

Minimum Lot Size 1 acre;
shoreland & subdivisions
Site Plan Review

Subdivision Review
UC
Building Code

Street Construction
X
Flood Hazard
X X
Mobile Home

Growth Management

X = Adopted
UC « Under Consideration

The Conservation Commission was responsible for the prepara-
tion of the town's shoreland zoning ordinance and the forma-
tion of a Planning Board. During the last year, the Planning
Board has begun to strengthen the town's position for deal-
ing with growth and land use change. One of their first
accomplishments is a street construction ordinance which
effectively considers the control of stormwater and erosion.
The Board is currently working with the Regional Planning
Commission in the preparation of a subdivision review pro-
cedure.
In considering future efforts to further strengthen
Litchfield's land use planning program, the town should con-
sider the following suggestions.
1. The community should have a comprehensive plan to
-202

-------
guide the future development of the community. The cri-
teria for establishing a comprehensive planning program
are discussed in Part I. In developing a Plan
the Planning Board should evaluate land capability, in-
cluding the identification of natural resource constraints,
sensitive areas, and those areas that are better suited
to development. Town problems and needs should be identi-
fied as well as conflicts among differing needs. The Board
should outline for townspeople what options are open to
meet these needs or to resolve conflicts and to protect
natural resources. The implications of selecting a given
alternative should be identified. The option of continuing
without adequate controls should be evaluated as well.
By presenting the alternatives to townspeople before
recommending a given course of action, the Planning Board
can receive input into and can develop support for the
program that is finally decided upon. This process will
allow an opportunity to increase public awareness of the
connection between land use activities and water quality
degradation and the need to be prepared for growth in order
to protect the town.
2.	The town should establish a procedure for the re-
view of new development that is not covered by the sub-
division ordinance (a shopping center may not be, for in-
stance) so that the community will have the opportunity to
insure properly planned development.
In regard to water quality, criteria for review should
consider the control of stormwater runoff, sedimentation
and erosion, and the protection of sensitive areas. Stand-
ards should be established that will require development to
perform in a manner that will not disrupt water quality.
For this purpose, Litchfield should consider adopting a site
plan review procedure with performance standards as discussed
below. The proposed provisions for the review of subdivision
applications could be incorporated into this ordinance, as
could a building permit procedure.
3.	In regard to stormwater and erosion control, the
community should consider adopting the following policy for
the review of proposals: new land development should not
be allowed to cause drainage problems, erosion or down-
stream flooding; new stormwater generated should be handled
on site via storage, detention or infiltration. This is
particularly important in sensitive lakesheds such as Cob-
bossee and Pleasant Pond. (See also Part I.)
Developers should be required to submit stormwater and
erosion control plans for review. Presently the shoreland
zoning ordinance requires that earth-moving activities con-
form to accepted erosion control practices, but requires
no plan. The Planning Board should consider enlisting the
technical assistance of the SKVRPC for development of plan
requirements and the Kennebec County Soil and Water Con-
-203-

-------
servation District for review of the plans. Trust account
fees could also be used to hire professional help for this
purpose in order to avoid public expenditures.
4.	Growth should be encouraged to occur according to
the capability of the land to accept development. Develop-
ment on steep slopes, highly erodible soils, shallow soils
and wet soils can cause severe erosion or drainage problems.
Development should not be allowed to disturb these areas in
a manner that will cause problems. Slopes greater than
25% should be entirely restricted from development as should
wetlands. There should be no development within 75 feet
of all ponds, streams and wetlands. The filling of wetlands
and other wet soils should be prohibited in order to protect
the natural stormwater drainage system. (See also Part. I,
Sensitive Areas Protection.)
Developers should be required to show the locations of
sensitive areas on a site location map as well as the sub-
division or development site.
Presently Litchfield's Shoreland Zoning Ordinance af-
fords some protection to sensitive areas. Steep slopes and
wetlands within areas zoned Resource Protection are protected,
and development is prohibited within 100 feet of water bod-
ies (not wetlands) regulated by the ordinance. Shoreland
zoning does not cover all tributaries, however.
5.	Land that is put back into active agricultural use
should be managed in conjunction with a conservation plan.
Town officials should encourage landowners to apply for
assistance from the Soil and Water Conservation District in
preparing such a plan.
6.	The Conservation Commission should work with the
Planning Board and develop an open space program to meet
the future needs of the town.
7.	Finally, Litchfield should consider joining the
Cobbossee Watershed District in order to have representation
in District decisions affecting the town. The District has
recently applied for a large lake restoration grant which
will benefit lake property owners and farmers in the water-
sheds of Cobbossee Lake and Pleasant Pond. The District
also provides technical assistance to member towns in re-
view of Stream Alteration Act permit applications, Great
Ponds Act permits, subdivision applications, shoreland
zoning permits, etc.
Enforcement - Litchfield should upgrade its code en-
forcement capabilities. The town should consider sharing a
part-time salaried code enforcement officer with one or
more adjoining towns. Richmond, for instance, has indicated
an interest in such an arrangement.
-204

-------
Water and Wastewater - Litchfield should consider
adopting a local plumbing code to incorporate provi-
sions suggested in this Plan (Part I) unless the State
amends the State Plumbing Code in a similar manner. Assist-
ance in developing a local plumbing code can be obtained
from the Cobbossee Watershed District (if Litchfield becomes
a District member) or the Southern Kennebec Valley Regional
Planning Commission.
There are several subsurface wastewater disposal prob-
lem areas where cluster septic systems should be considered
for construction and maintenance by the town or a newly
created special district. The town or special district
should seek Federal-State grant assistance. Ninety percent
of the construction and land costs could be covered by
such a grant.
Areas considered of high priority for action include
Litchfield Corners and an area on Cobbossee Lake shown on
tax map U-28. Litchfield Corners has been studied in detail
in Phase II of the "Non-Sewered Areas Wastewater Disposal
Problems" report.
Areas on Woodbury Pond where clusters should be also
considered include:
High priority	Low priority
Tax maps: U-3 (3-12)	Tax map U-14
U-17 (1-9; 10-23)
U-18 (7-15)
Other problem areas exist which do not appear to be
suitable for cluster systems. In most cases, the density
is too low to offset the expense of a cluster system. The
areas listed below should be investigated for treatment as
recommended in Phase II of the report sited above.
Pleasant Pond: Tax map 1-7
Jimmy Pond: Tax map U-8
Woodbury Pond: Tax map U-23
Finally, given Litchfield's dependence on groundwater
for water supply, it is important that the town support and
encourage research in this area. For example, a recent
Bureau of Geology study of groundwater in the Region con-
ducted under 208 funding was thwarted in its data collection
efforts by a lack of cooperation from area well drillers.
Town officials should encourage local well drillers to co-
operate in future research programs.
Road Salting - Litchfield should consider implementing
the road salting recommendations of this Plan as outlined
in Part I.
-205-

-------
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, land use activities in the town of Litch-
field may cause sedimentation of Cobbossee Stream/ Pleasant
Pond, Cobbossee Lake, the Tacoma Lakes and numerous streams.
Cobbossee Lake and Cobbossee Stream are public water supplies
whose degradation would cause increased pretreatment needs
and resultant increased costs to consumers in Gardiner,
Pittston, Randolph and Farmingdale (using Cobbossee Stream)
as well as Augusta, Manchester and East Winthrop (using
Cobbossee Lake as a secondary supply). Sedimentation of
the Tacoma Lakes would impair their use as water supplies
to cottage owners, forcing them to seek the expensive alter-
native of groundwater wells.
In addition, valuable wetlands may be lost (up to 400
acres) which not only provide wildlife and waterfowl habi-
tat, but also act to absorb floodwaters and remove pollutants
(as much as 50% of the phosphorus entering the streams in
the Pleasant Pond drainage is removed by wetlands prior to
reaching the Pond).
Without sotrmwater controls on new development, flash
flooding could increase and the town could face repeated and
unnecessary repairs and improvements to its drainage system
(more frequent road ditching and enlargement of culverts).
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the
plan recommendations are also difficult to assess with any
specificity. The town is being asked to hire a part-time
code enforcement officer. Costs could range from $3,000 to
$5,000 per year, including salary and overhead (travel, etc.).
In addition, it is recommended that Litchfield revise
its present ordinances to require erosion and sedimentation
control plans as well as stormwater runoff control plans of
all developers. Costs to the town for review of these
plans should be minimized if the developer is charged a
fee for review processes. Undoubtedly this fee will be
passed on to prospective property owners, but shouldn't
escalate unit prices significantly. This is an equitable
way of distributing review costs since the review is for
the protection of prospective property owners as much as
the town in general.
Assistance in revision of existing codes is avialable
to the town of Litchfield through its membership in the
-206

-------
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission. No
additional costs for these revisions need be incurred as
a result. Assistance can also be obtained from the Cobbos-
see Watershed District if Litchfield becomes a member.
Cost of membership would range from $600 to $900 per year,
based on shore frontage on Pleasant Pond and Cobbossee Lake.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be
minimal if the rationale for the revisions relates to re-
source protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few
property owners whose property consists largely of marginal
or "sensitive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at
some economic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and
should be compensated by reduced property tax rates.
Finally, the town is being asked to assume responsi-
bility for construction and maintenance of cluster septic
systems in various problem areas in the town. Total costs
for these systems could run as high as $1,400,000, but 90%
would be paid by State-Federal grants, with the remainder
paid by users on an annual basis, similar to the user fee
system utilized by the conventional sewage treatment systems.
Costs per user for construction and subsequent operation
and maintenance would range from $100 to $150 per year.
These fees would cover all costs incurred by the town, so
that no additional town monies need be expended. It would
simply necessitate an enlargement in the town's role in
sewage disposal matters. Any additional personnel would
be paid through the user fee system.
-207-

-------
MANCHESTER
The Setting
Located between Augusta and Winthrop on Route 202,
Manchester is a rapidly developing community. The 1975
population is estimated to have increased 40% over that
of 1960, growing from 1,061 to 1,490. Rural-recreational
in character, the community encompasses 21.4 square miles
which are mostly forested. Agriculture accounts for 10%
of the land area and suburban development 9%. There are
approximately 250 acres of wetlands.
Manchester includes part of the drainage areas of
Cobbossee Lake, jamies and Hutchinson Ponds, and Cobbossee
Stream. The water quality conditions and issues in the
lake and ponds are indicated below:
Lake
Current Water
quality
Current Major
sources of
phosphorus *¦
Assimilative
Capacity2
Need for
Pro-
tection
Cobbossee
Lake
Low
Opstream Lakes
56%
Agriculture 30%
Moderate
High
Hutchin-
son Pond
Moderate
Upstream Lakes 37%
Agriculture 24%
Development 20%
High
High
Jamies
Pond
Moderate
Agriculture 55%
Development 25%
High
High
^Phosphorus is the major source of lake pollution in
the region.	« .. ^	, ,
2A measGre of a lake's ability to absorb phosphorus
and other nutrients without degradation.
The Augusta Water District relies upon Cobbossee for its
secondary water supply. The Hallowell water District util-
izes jamies for primary and Hutchinson for secondary sources.
Due to their status as water supplies, all three lakes war-
rant careful consideration in regard to future land use.
The water quality of Cobbossee, however, needs to be
significantly improved. It is currently®«trophic; suffering
nuisance algae blooms each summer. The propos d Cobbossee
Watershed District lake restoration project will focus on
reducing the phosphorus input from the two most significant
sources: Annabessacook Lake and agriculture.
-208-

-------
It should be emphasized that although control of agri-
cultural runoff is necessary for restoration of high water
quality on Cobbossee Lake, it was not responsible for its
demise. Pollution entering Annabessacook Lake from munici-
pal and industrial discharges caused the degradation of
Annabessacook and then Cobbossee Lake. Because of the
stress placed upon both lakes from these point source dis-
charges, they can no longer withstand the same pollutional
loadings they could in the past, despite the fact that the
discharges have all been removed and now are diverted to
the Augusta sewage treatment facility. In fact, phosphorus
that was deposited in Annabessacook Lake in the past is now
re-entering the water from the lake bottom sediments due to
its stressed condition, and continues to cause algae blooms
in Annabessacook and then, as it flushes downstream, Cobbos-
see Lake. The restoration proposal would stop this internal
phosphorus recycling from the sediments through chemical
treatment with alum, and would reduce, to the extent feas-
ible, other phosphorus inputs from agriculture through the
construction of manure storage facilities for dairy farmers.
There are no farms affected by this proposal in Manchester,
but it is certain to be a major beneficiary of the project
if it is approved.
Once pollutional loadings from Annabessacook Lake and
agriculture are reduced, it will become important to control
other new sources of pollution such as development to avoid
degrading cobbossee Lake in the future. Controlling devel-
opment in the Jamies and Hutchinson Pond watersheds will
also be necessary. This will be particularly important in
Manchester which has one of the fastest growth rates in the
region. While uncontrolled development in the Cobbossee
Lake and jamies-Hutchinson Pond drainages may not cause
severe degradation of the lakes, it will result in higher
levels of algae production and increased turbidity from
erosion and sedimentation, possibly diminishing the value of
these resources for water supply or requiring pretreatment
in order to utilize them for supply purposes.
Development can greatly increase both phosphorus load-
ing and sedimentation of lakes. Increased phosphorus load-
ing results from lawn fertilization, leaf burning, pet
wastes, etc. and increased runoff created by impervious sur-
faces to transport the phosphorus to the lakes. Erosion
and sedimentation can be increased by improper construction
procedures and the increased erosive force created by in-
creased runoff.
A number of areas could create severe erosion or run-
off problems if developed, and should be appropriately pro-
tected. They have been collectively termed "sensitive"
areas, and include wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes,
highly erodible soils, non-discharge soils, and shallow soils.
Other "sensitive areas" which should be protected to
avoid water quality problems include prime agricultural lands
-209-

-------
and groundwater recharge areas associated with high yield
groundwater aquifers. There are at least two areas where
potential high-yielding groundwater sources may exist.
(See Map 7, Part I.) One of these is an extensive esker
(a geological formation) in north Manchester which is hydro-
logically connected to the Bond Brook drainage area where
the Augusta water District has three wells as part of its
primary water supply. The Augusta Water District serves the
village area of Manchester via its main transmission line
from Carlton Pond in Winthrop to Augusta. The remaining
areas of the town rely upon private wells.
Guiding development to minimize water quality impacts
should include protection of sensitive areas, requiring ade-
quate consideration of land use capability through perform-
ance standards, and careful consideration of sewer line
extensions which induce growth.
A final water quality issue of concern to Manchester
is the management and maintenance of the trunkline inter-
ceptor sewer which collects wastes from Monmouth, Winthrop,
and Manchester and transports these to Augusta. A break-
down in this system could severely degrade cobbossee Lake as
wastes could be discharged to the lake in an emergency.
To summarize, the significant water quality issues in
Manchester include the management and maintenance of the
intercommunity sewer trunkline; the extension of sewers;
the restoration of Cobbossee Lake; improved land use plan-
ning, coordination and enforcement; the development of
cluster septic systems to serve lakeshore areas; and the
control of stormwater from new development.
Existing and Recommended Actions
Water quality management imPle^n^4?"
Manchester are outlined below. For a summary or tne extent
to which Manchester has already implemented the recommenda-
tions of the Plan, see Tables 23, 24, and 25.
Land use and "°en Space - The
worked hard last year to prepare and get passed an interim
, naf? 1 y ^.	directed at guiding growth in
zoning ordinance, primarily airscw s
the village area. Other ordinances include:
-210-

-------
June 1975 	1977
Comprehensive Plan

X
Open Space Plan


Shoreland Zoning
X
X
Areawide Zoning

UC*
Minimum Lot Size
Site Plan Review
3$ acre sewered; 1% acre unsewered;
3/4 acre clustered

Subdivision Review
X
X
Building Code
X
X
Street Construction


Flood Hazard
X
X
Mobile Home
X
X
Growth Management

UC
X = Adopted * interim only
UC = Under Consideration

During the upcoming year, the Planning Board will be
working on the second phase of the zoning program, an investi-
gation of the rural sections of town and the refinement of
the zones based upon land capability and other considerations.
They are also exploring ways to effectively regulate the
growth rate of the community.
The interim zoning ordinance establishes four zones
(three village and one rural) on the basis of permitted land
uses. Density requirements are uniform for each district as
is a permit procedure for any new or altered building or
land use proposal. Several good performance standards re-
lating to water quality are provided, including agriculture,
erosion and sedimentation control, timber harvesting and
waste disposal. A review procedure is provided for con-
ditional uses. Many of the above provisions will provide a
strong basis for a comprehensive program to protect water
quality.
In refining the ordinance during the next year, the
town should consider the following suggestions that may help
to further strengthen the community's ability to protect
its resources.
211-

-------
1.	Wetlands, slopes greater than 2 5%, a 75 foot set-
back from the shorelands of wetlands, streams and small
ponds should be included in a resource protection zone.
Some wetlands are presently protected by the Shoreland
Zoning Ordinance. To avoid confusion, the shoreland zones
should be incorporated into the areawide ordinance.
2.	The impacts of all proposed development should be
reviewed or certain uses restricted from occurring in other
sensitive areas which are described in Part I. Certain
sensitive areas may require lower density provisions than
areas where land is more suitable for development. Wet
soils (non-discharge) should not be allowed to be filled in
thus destroying the natural stormwater drainage system of
the community.
3.	In addition to land capability, density should be
based upon the desired future image of the community and
the impact of requirements on the cost to extend public
services. The ultimate land use pattern that could result
from the present zoning which requires lots of 1 acre with
sewers and 1% without sewers may be a visually monotonous
pattern without any focus for community activities. Ample
frontage requirements also increase significantly the costs
of providing utilities.
A strong point of the ordinance is that it includes
a cluster provision for planned unit, residential and mobile
home park developments. unfortunately, the density reduc-
tions allowed beyond the lot size, frontage, and setback
requirements may not provide an effective reduction bonus.
For instance, a 24 unit traditional development on sewers
would require 1 acre per unit; the clustered version would
require three quarters of an acre per unit, still a rela-
tively large lot requirement for a cluster development where
common open space is to be provided. The reduction may
reduce costs somewhat and thus serve as an incentive; how-
ever, the rigid requirements fall short of encouraging the
utilization of the most suitable land and the optimization
of open space for the public benefit. In fact, the ordinance
states that up to 50% of the land area may be open space.
The town should stipulate instead how much land area may be
in impervious surface based on soils and other considerations.
4.	performance standards should be considered for
stormwater runoff and sand and gravel mining and reclamation.
The following policy should be used as a criteria for review:
new land development should not lie allowed to create storm-
water disposal problems, erosion or downstream flooding.
New stormwater generated should be handled on site via stor-
age, detention or infiltration. This is particularly import-
ant in sensitive lakesheds. provision for the review of
measures to control stormwater could be made in the building
permit, conditional use permit and subdivision approval
procedures.
-212-

-------
The Planning Board should consider enlisting the tech-
nical assistance of the SKVRPC for development of plan re-
quirements and the Manchester District and/or the Kennebec
County Soil and Water Conservation District for review of
the plans. Trust account fees could also be used to hire
professional help for review purposes.
5.	The town should consider amending the agricult-
ural performance standards to restrict manure spreading
from within 100 feet and piling within 300 feet of any wells,
springs, ponds, lakes or tributaries to lakes including
intermittent streams.
6.	The Conservation Commission should consider devel-
oping an open space planning program for the community.
Coordination - Manchester should continue to strengthen
and formalize a process for coordinating long-range utili-
ties extension planning, water supply, and land use plan-
ning, particularly the zoning ordinance that is currently
being developed.
Enforcement - Manchester should consider upgrading its
code enforcement capabilities. It should investigate shar-
ing a code enforcement officer with adjoining towns. A
logical arrangement would be to cooperate with other towns
in the Cobbossee Watershed District in sharing a code
enforcement officer. Readfield and Wayne presently share a
plumbing inspector. The SKVRPC is available to assist towns
in forming interlocal agreements.
Education - In order to achieve public approval of its
zoning ordinance, the Planning Board should continue its
efforts to encourage public participation and should demon-
strate to townspeople the connection between land use and
water quality problems. The towns should also consider ways
of improving local awareness of town regulations and ordi-
nances. The plumbing inspector should distribute informa-
tion to homeowners concerning water consumption and reduc-
tion and septic system maintenance.
Water and Wastewater - The Manchester Sanitary District
is presently completing construction of its collection and
interceptor system which ties into the Augusta Sanitary
District Winthrop-Augusta trunkline. The system services
the village area and a number of other areas including por-
tions of the Cobbossee Lake shoreland, Hammonds Grove and
Gardencrest, a subdivision which has a history of on-site
wastewater disposal problems.
The Manchester Sanitary District has an ambitious pro-
gram of proposed sewer extensions to their initial systems
These include areas around the village in addition to the
portion of town along 202 towards Augusta. Coordination
with the Planning Board is recommended in finalizing these
sewer extension plans.
-213-

-------
There are a number of locations in Manchester where
remote on-site subsurface disposal problems are known or are
suspected. These are primarily in the Emery's Grove -
Williamson Road area of Cobbossee Lake near the West Gardiner
town line. The cluster or small scale collection-subsurface
disposal concept has been recommended for these areas in lieu
of sewering the entire Cobbossee Lake shore since there are
few problems between the northeastern shore and this area.
Also, the secondary impacts of a sewer line along the shore
of Cobbossee could cause more pollutants to enter the lake
than the sewer line would intercept. Management of any clus-
ter septic systems should be assumed by the Manchester Sani-
tary District or a regional treatment authority if formed.
The limited storm drainage system in the village area
is managed by the Maine Department of Transportation. Th®
town and DOT manage the ditches and culverts throughout the
rural areas. Unless another town department is given this
responsibility, the Sanitary District should assume control
and maintenance of local storm drainage facilities f
-------
water runoff controls on new development, flash flooding
will increase and the town may be faced with constructing
an expensive storm sewer system.
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected avoiding the adverse impacts
discussed above. The economic benefits associated with these
environmental benefits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the
plan recommendations are also difficult to assess with any
specificity. The town is being asked to hire a full time
or part-time code enforcement officer. Costs could range
from $5,000 to $13,000 per year minimum including salary
and overhead (travel, etc.).
The town is also being asked to strengthen its zoning
ordinance to include protection of sensitive areas, en-
courage open space through cluster development incentives,
limit the density of development according to soils and
other considerations (aquifer recharge protection), require
erosion control and stormwater runoff plans, and others.
The town presently receives land use consulting services
from a private consultant and through its membership in
the SKVRPC. Costs associated with tailoring these sug-
gestions to Manchester's situation should therefore be
minimal, as the process is presently ongoing.
The costs associated with reviewing subdivision and
other development proposals under the suggested revised zon-
ing and permit process should be minimized if a fee is
charged to developers to cover the costs. Undoubtedly this
fee would be passed on to prospective property owners but
shouldn't escalate unit prices significantly. This is an
equitable way of distributing review costs since the review
is for the protection of the prospective property owners
as much as for the town in general.
Social impacts of revisions on existing ordinances
requiring more stringent controls on development should be
minimal if the rationale for the revisions relates to re-
source protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few
property owners whose property consists largely of marginal
or "sensitive" lands may lose the option of developing
at some economic disadvantage, but this is unavoidable and
should be compensated by reduced property tax rates.
Extension of the sewage collection system as discus-
sed above could cost the town $2,300,000 unless Federal grant
assistance is made available. This would be passed on to
users of the system at a cost of $100 to $150 per year.
Construction^ operation and maintenance of recommended
cluster subsurface waste disposal systems in Manchester
would cost approximately $300,000, with 90% payable through
State-Federal grants and the remainder to be recovered in
user fees at rates equal to or less than those for con-
-215-

-------
ventional sewer system users - $100 to $150 per year. in
fact, these systems are recommended only where conventional
sewer systems or individual on-site systems are not eco-
nomically feasible. Additional management responsibilities
by the Manchester Sanitary District or some future regional
authority would be covered by the additional user fees.
-216-

-------
MONMOUTH
The Setting
Monmouth is a growing community located between Aug-
usta and Lewiston. The population expanded thirty four
percent during the period of 1960 to 1975. A popular va-
cation area, the population is estimated to nearly double
during the summer. The community, rural-recreational in
character, encompasses 34.9 square miles. The town has
two village areas. Monmouth Center is a unique culturally-
oriented concentration with a theatre and museum. Al-
though the town is forested, many farms and open fields
border the roads, particularly in the south.
Numerous water bodies including Cobbossee, Annabessa-
cook and Cochnewagon Lakes as well as Wilson, Frost, Mud
and Sand Ponds set the recreational tone of the community.
The following chart indicates the water quality condition
of Monmouth's lakes:
Lake
Current water
quality
Current Major
sources of
phosphorus^
Assimilative
Capacity2
Need for
Pro-
tection
Annabes-
sacook
Lake
Low
Lake Bottom
Sediments 36%
Agriculture 24%
Mill Stream 24%
High
High
Cobbossee
Lake
Low
Upstream Lakes
56%
Agriculture
(Jock Stream)
30%
Moderate
High
Cochne-
wagon
Lake
Moderate
Agriculture 45%
Development 30%
Low
High
Sand
Pond
High
Upstream
(Buker) 60%
Agriculture 20%
High
Low
•'•Phosphorus is the major source of lake pollution in
the region.
A measure of a lake's ability to absorb phosphorus
and other nutrients without degradation.
-217-

-------
Annabessacook1s water quality will improve if the cur-
rent phosphorus load is reduced to an acceptable level.
The proposed Cobbossee watershed District Lake Restoratior
Project will focus on reducing the phosphorus input from
the two major sources: in—lake sediments and agriculture.
Farmers in Cobbossee Lake and Pleasant pond drainages will be
eligible for financial assistance to build manure storage
pits. There are nine Monmouth farmers interested in par-
ticipating in this program. Assistance for these projects
could range from 60 to 90%. Reduction of in-lake phosphorus
loading from lake bottom sediments will be accomplished
through a chemical treatment process using alum.
It should be emphasized that although control of agri-
cultural runoff is necessary for restoration of water qual-
ity in Annabessacook Lake and Cobbossee Lake, it was not
responsible for the demise of these lakes, pollution enter-
ing Annabessacook Lake from municipal and industrial dis-
charges caused the degradation of both lakes. Because of
the stress placed upon the lakes from these "point source"
discharges, they became susceptible to additional degradation
from other sources. Today these lakes can no
the same pollutional loadings they could in the past, and
remain sensitive to phosphorus 1?a^in?sa^°^n5ustr?al ooint
despite the diversion of the municipal and industrial point
sources from the lakes.
Reduction of present sources of Phosphorus through
techniques proposed in the Cobbossee Watershed District^Lakes
Restoration Project is critical to rest,'protection of these
cook Lake and Cobbossee Lake. HOW	mlla +• v.a ronsidered
lakes from additional phosphorus sources	M considered
in nvriei- +-r,	the crradual decline of the lakes in tne
future For example, the projected increase in development
ruture. For example, uu r i-nrade the lakes once again,
within these lakesheds ^l^slurce °f Phosphorus are
if efforts to reduce	| tru6 o£ cochnewagon which has
not initiated. This is l trient loading, in contrast,
a low tolerance to ^reased nu	pQnd# and thus this
water moves more	horus should provide ade-
pond's natural capacity for phospnorus s« u *>
quate protection.
Another potentially significant source of phosphorus to
Another potenti^y *	is ironically the trunk-
Annabessacook and Cobbossee	fron, MonInouth, Minthrop
line sewer which	w"	flugusta sewage treat-
and Manchester and conveys ax * trunkline could result
ment facility. A "reakdora innkl^ ^ or ^ Qf
in direct discharge of ""treat ^ problem is a pri-
these lakes. Solution to thi.s po*^
mary water quality protective
, - >—*u m a of cartxcul&r conc63fn to
Another pollutantwhic	Sedimentation increases
water supply systems is seaime	habitat in streams
pretreatment costs and also	secondary water supply for
and lakes, cobbossee LaKe i® x;
-218-

-------
the Augusta water District, and so has a high need for
protection from sedimentation as well as excessive phos-
phorus loading.
Erosion and sedimentation of water bodies results
from two processes — direct disturbance of soils and dis-
turbances in the hydrology of an area which can cause in-
creased runoff with resultant increases in flooding and
streambank erosion. An area that is developing quickly is
likely to suffer from the latter, due to increases in
impervious surfaces.
To avoid erosion and sedimentation from land disturb-
ance and increased runoff, development should be guided to
avoid areas "sensitive" to such disturbances. in Monmouth,
these sensitive areas include over 1,000 acres of wetlands,
floodplains, steep slopes, and shallow or highly erodible
soils. Because of the secondary water quality consequences
which result from the development of prime agricultural
lands (subsequent clearing of marginal lands which are prone
to erosion), the protection of these lands is also import-
ant.
Protection of groundwater supplies is an important
water quality issue in Monmouth since its residents depend
solely on this source for water. The town's water associ-
ation owns two wells, and there are at least two additional
areas where significant quantities of groundwater may exist.
(See Map 7, Part I.) Residents in the remote areas of
town use private wells. protection of the recharge areas
to these groundwater systems should include prevention of
activities which could transmit pollutants to the groundwater
or which would increase significantly the percentage of
impervious surfaces overlying high yield aquifers.
A final water quality issue of concern to Monmouth is
the solution to domestic waste disposal problems which are
too remote to be connected to an existing or proposed sewer
system or which for environmental reasons should not be
solved with a sewer extension. Failing septic systems do
not contribute significantly to water quality degradation in
the Monmouth lakes. A new sewer line extended along a lake-
shore could induce new development creating additional phos-
phorus and sediment runoff. The harmful impacts of a new
sewer could thus be more significant than the problems it
was intended to solve. The 208 study identified eleven such
problem areas, and recommended an on-site cluster septic
system approach as the solution.
In summary, the significant water quality issues in
Monmouth focus on the improvement of Annabessacook and
Cobbossee Lakes' water quality; the protection of sensitive
lakesheds and water supplies; the management and mainten-
ance of the inter-community trunkline; the extension of
sewers; improved coordination and enforcement; the develop-
-219-

-------
ment of cluster septic systems to serve lakeshore areas;
and the control of stormwater sedimentation and erosion
from new development.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Monmouth's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality man-
agement recommendations for the town. For a summary of the
specific recommendations of this Plan and the extent to
which Monmouth has already implemented them, see Tables 23,
24, and 25.
Land Use and Open Space - Monmouth's Shoreland Zoning
Ordinance is one of the most effective in the region as it
includes several wetlands in addition to the shorelines of
lakes. The town's other ordinances indicated below, how-
ever, are not similarly capable of protecting the rural qual-
ities and resources of the town.
June 197 5	June 197 7
Comprehensive Plan
X
X
Open Space Plan


Shoreland Zoning
X
UC
Areawide Land Use Regulation

UC
Minimum Lot Size
X(1 acre)
UC
Site Plan Review


Subdivision Review
X
UC
Building Code


Street Construction


Flood Hazard
X
UC
Mobile Home
X
X
Growth Management


X = Adopted
UC = Under consideration


i						—	
Recocmizing this limitation, the Planning Board has
Recognizing w	_ uge regulation ordinance
been developing an ® _ - capability.. The Board is pro-
that will be kase P . f several sensitive areas in thi
viding for the protection or sevei.
-220-

-------
ordinance/ including wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes,
scenic areas, and wildlife habitat. It is also considering
including a cluster development provision and varying den-
sity requirements.
The ordinance which is currently being drafted proposes
a permit and review procedure for special exceptions which
will include most uses except single family dwellings and
agriculture. According to the draft, the Planning Board can
require additional information when an application is submitted.
In refining the ordinance in the months ahead, the town
should consider the following suggestions:
1.	In the granting of permits for special exceptions,
stormwater and erosion control plans are requested at the
discretion of the Planning Board. It is recommended that
such plans be automatically required for certain uses, in-
cluding subdivisions, multi-family residential, commercial
and industrial developments.
The Planning Board should consider enlisting the tech-
nical assistance of the SKVRPC for development of plan re-
quirements and the M.S.D. and/or the Kennebec County Soil
and Water Conservation District for review of the plans.
Trust account fees could also be used to hire professional
help for review purposes.
2.	A performance standard should be added to the ordin-
ance to regulate stormwater runoff. For example: "Whenever
attainable, a change in land use should not be allowed to in-
crease the rate or amount of runoff from a site beyond that
which existed prior to that change in land uses. Additional
runoff created by a change in land use should be retained on-
site for infiltration within a reasonable time to the extent
that soils, slopes, and other features of the site permit.
If this is not attainable, the additional runoff should not
be allowed to leave the site at such a rate as to increase
downstream peak flows".
3.	The Board should consider waiting to finalize the
wording of the ordinance until after a detailed land capa-
bility analysis is made. The analysis may indicate that addi-
tional performance standards are needed to protect certain
areas of the town that are sensitive to development. For in-
stance, the Board might consider special controls for highly
erodible, shallow or wet soils. The Board should also con-
sider a provision to restrict the filling of wetlands, flood-
plains and other wet soils in order to protect the natural
storm drainage system.
4.	To protect available groundwater supplies (two muni-
cipal wells and areas of potential high yield identified in
Map 7, Part I.) Monmouth should consider special controls.
-221-

-------
Specifically, it should prohibit development within 400 ft.
of its municipal wells, and after grounachecking for veri-
fication should protect the potential high yield aquifers
with provisions such as restricting development from creat-
ing more than 10% impervious surface and prohibiting uses
which could add pollutants to the groundwater (solid waste
disposal, septage and sludge disposal, etc.).
5. Finally, since Monmouth is a growing community, the
Recreation Committee which functions as a Conservation Com-
mission should consider developing an open space plan for
the town.
Coordination - According to its comprehensive plan,
the town wishes Eo guide future development, m part, through
the location of water and sewer facilities. Currently,
there is good communication between the Selectmen,^ Planning
Board, Town Manager, Sanitary District and Water District.
The town should continue to strengthen and formalize this
relationship, particularly in regards
ties extensions, water supply and the land use regulation
ordinance that is currently being developed.
Enforcement - Monmouth should consider upgrading its
code enforcement capabilities. It presently has a plumbing
inspector who also enforces_the_shorelandjoning^ordinance.
system*does pro"L'3onrcompensatio°nforXpl5mbing in«P«c-
Sir Bycooperatingwithnad joining
arrangement would^e to cooperate	oth«to™s_in J:he
-222

-------
Specifically, it should prohibit development within 400 ft.
of its municipal wells, and after groundchecking for veri-
fication should protect the potential high yield aquifers
with provisions such as restricting development from creat-
ing more than 10% impervious surface and prohibiting uses
which could add pollutants to the groundwater (solid waste
disposal, septage and sludge disposal, etc.).
5. Finally, since Monmouth is a growing community, the
Recreation Committee which functions as a Conservation Com-
mission should consider developing an open space plan for
the town.
Coordination - According to its comprehensive plan,
the town wishes to guide future development, in part, through
the location of water and sewer facilities. Currently,
there is good communication between the Selectmen, Planning
Board, Town Manager, Sanitary District and Water District.
The town should continue to strengthen and formalize this
relationship, particularly in regards to long-range utili-
ties extensions, water supply and the land use regulation
ordinance that is currently being developed.
Enforcement - Monmouth should consider upgrading its
code enforcement capabilities. It presently has a plumbing
inspector who also enforces the shoreland zoning ordinance.
There is no salary for either position, except that a fee
system does provide some compensation for plumbing inspec-
tions. By cooperating with adjoining towns, Monmouth could
share a professional code enforcement officer. A logical
arrangement would be to cooperate with other towns in the
Cobbossee Watershed District, such as Litchfield or Wayne.
The SKVRPC is available to assist communities in forming
interlocal agreements.
Education - In order to achieve public approval of its
zoning ordinance, the Planning Board recognizes the need to
demonstrate to townspeople the connection between land use
and water quality problems. They are currently distributing
information to the public and will be presenting alterna-
tives £o townspeople for discussion. The Selectmen and
Planning Board members are discussing ways to improve local
awareness of town regulations and ordinances.
In addition to these efforts, the local plumbing in-
spector and/or code enforcement officer should distribute
information to homeowners concerning water conservation and
septic system maintenance to avoid future subsurface waste
disposal problems.
Water and Wastewater - A member of the inter-community
trunkline group, Monmouth is interested in cooperating with
other towns in upgrading the Monmouth-Augusta trunkline. The
town should also consider working with other trunkline communi-
ties in formalizing a regional trunkline authority in order to
insure voting representation in matters of regional concern.
-223-

-------
Unless another town department is given this responsi-
bility, the Sanitary District should assume control and
maintenance of local storm drainage facilities for which
users fees may be charged. Alternatively a regional treat-
ment authority, if formed, could assume management responsi-
bility for stormwater systems.
In addition, there are several subsurface wastewater
problem areas where cluster septic systems should be consid-
ered for construction and maintenance by the Monmouth Sani-
tary District or a regional treatment authority. Several
of these have already been investigated by the District and
its consultant, C. E Beal inc. Problem areas where
clusters are recommended include:
High Priority	Medium Priority	Low—Priority
Annabessacook 38*	Annabessacook 27,28,41 Yobbossee 33
Cobbossee 40	Cobbossee 7,30,32	Cochnewagon 17
Cochnewagon 18
*tax map numbers
Other Droblem areas exist which do not appear to be
suitable for cluster systems. In most cases the density xs
too low to offset the expense of a	\ e t as
areas listed below should be investigated for treatment as
recommended in the report entitled Non-Sewered Areas waste-
water Disposal problems. Phase III.
Annabessacook:	Tax map 28, 41
cobbossee: "	36' 33' 37
Cochnewagon:	" "
Sand pond:	" " 36
, ^	ni strict should seek State-Federal
The Monmouth sfnitf5Jn of these systems. Up to 90% of
grants for the constructi .	oniy 10% to be recovered
the cost could be coJef®d' ^ also be used to cover the
by user fees. User fees could	incurred by the Dist-
annual operation and maintenance
rict.
. ^	water Association should con-
The Sanitary District i StJ.ii.ties extension plans as
tinue to develop long-range	sewer and water
well as capital imPr?veme?!:JLd after a thorough environ-
systems should	b® impact on cobbossee, Annabessa-
mental assessment of tneir imp wadies.
cook, cochnewagon and other wat
«,4-vi water Association should continue
Finally, the Monm°^Jfals in the investigation and
cooperating with town offioi	that could be developed
protection of groundwater s^P^ss0ciation should also
for future municipal use.	ical survey in future research
cooperate with the U. S. G * and m0Vement. Local well
on groundwater quality, qu Y c00perate.
drillers should also be urged to coop
-224-

-------
Road Salting - Monmouth should consider implementing
the road salting recommendations included in this Plan
in Part I.
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, land use activities in the town of Mon-
mouth could cause declining water quality in Cochnewagon
Lake, Annabessacook Lake and Cobbossee Lake and numerous
tributaries in the town. In addition to the loss of fish
and wildlife habitat, aesthetic and recreational values,
this could result in increased pretreatment needs for use
of Cobbossee Lake as a water supply, or loss of the resource
as a water supply entirely. Loss of wetlands from filling
or draining could have a severe impact on the natural hydro-
logy of the town (1,000 acres of wetlands have been identi-
fied) with a resultant loss in flood storage capacity and
increased flash flooding. The town may be faced with re-
peated and unnecessary revisions and improvements in its
storm drainage system (more frequent road ditching and re-
placement of culverts). Finally, poorly planned land use
could cause contamination of valuable groundwater aquifers
or loss of recharge to these aquifers.
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the plan
recommendations are also difficult to assess with any speci-
ficity. The town is being asked to hire a part-time code
enforcement officer, costs could range from $3,000 to $5,000
per year, including salary and overhead (travel, etc.).
The 208 plan recommends that Monmouth continue in its
effort to develop an ordinance protecting sensitive areas
and that in addition it consider special controls to protect
high value groundwater supplies.
In addition, it is recommended that Monmouth revise its
present ordinances to require erosion and sedimentation con-
trol plans as well as stormwater runoff control plans of
all developers. Costs to the town for review of these plans
should be minimized if the developer is charged a fee for
review processes. Undoubtedly this fee will be passed on
to prospective property owners, but shouldn't escalate unit
prices significantly. This is an equitable way of distrib-
uting review costs since the review is for the protection
of prospective property owners as much as the town in general.
-225-

-------
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to Monmouth through its membership in the Southern Kennebec
Valley Regional Planning Commission and Cobbossee Watershed
District. No additional costs for these revisions need be
incurred as a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be mini-
mal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few property
owners whose property consists largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at some eco-
nomic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and should be
compensated by reduced property tax rates.
For construction of recommended cluster septic systems,
total costs are estimated at $2,000/000. The local share
of this would be 10% or $200,000 to be recovered over time
by user fees ranging from $100 to $150 per year. Operation
and maintenance of these systems by the Monmouth Sanitary
District will entail some expansion in services, but costs
will be covered by user fees.
-226-

-------
MOUNT VERNON
The Setting
Mount Vernon is located on the northwestern fringe of
the Southern Kennebec Valley region. A rural community-
encompassing 39.6 square miles, the population in 1975 was
estimated to be 7 56, a 27% increase over that of 1960.
During the summer, population may increase as much as 136%.
Mostly forested, Mount Vernon had in 1974 1, 174 acres
of low density development, 1,286 acres of farmland, 1,709
acres of wetland and approximately 2,000 acres of surface
water. Mount Vernon Village, which sits at the top of
Minnehonk Lake, has deteriorated and land values have
fallen because of widespread septic system failure.
The lakes whose characteristics are described below
lie in the Thirty Mile River drainage area with the ex-
ception of Torsey Lake which forms the headwaters of the
Cobbossee chain of lakes. Long Pond and Moose pond are part
of Messalonskee Lake drainage and were not studied as part
of this program. The lakes in Mt. Vernon are used primarily
for recreation and wildlife habitat.
Lake
Current Water
quality
Current Major
sources of
phosphorus1
Assimilative
Capacity2
Need for
Pro-
tection
Echo Lake
High
undetermined
High
Low
Plying
Pond
Moderate
undetermined
High
Low
Minnehonk
Lake
High
undetermined
High
Low
Torsey
Lake
Moderate
Agriculture 45%
Development 25%
Low
High
Phosphorus is the major source of lake pollution in
the region.
2A measure of a lake's ability to absorb phosphorus
and other nutrients without degradation.
Water moves fairly quickly through Echo, Flying, and
Minnehonk, thus carrying with it phosphorus that might other-
wise cause algae blooms. For this reason, these lakes are
naturally well protected from degradation. Torsey Lake, how-
-227-

-------
ever, because of its shallowness and slow flushing nature,
provides good conditions for algae growth if its tolerance
is exceeded. phosphorus loading must be carefully limited
in this sensitive lakeshed.
Because of the severe septic system problems in Mount
Vernon Village, Minnehonk Lake suffers from bacterial contami-
nation. As discussed later, this problem was studied in-
tensively and a solution incorporating a cluster septic sys-
tem concept was proposed as part of the 208 study. Once
this problem is solved, the water quality in Minnehonk Lake
will be quickly restored.
Protecting the water quality of Mount Vernon's lakes
from sedimentation is another water quality issue, pres-
ently this is not a major problem, but future development
in the watersheds of these water bodies could result in sig-
nificant sedimentation problems.
Erosion and sedimentation of water bodies results from
two processes —— direct disturbance of soils and exposure to
erosive winds and rain* and disturbances in the natural
hydrology of an area which result in increased runoff with
resultant streambank and gully erosion as	as £^ooc^n9*
An area that is developing quickly is likely to suffer from
both of these processes, as large tracts of land are bull-
dozed and impervious surfaces are increased with a corres-
ponding increase in runoff. To avoid these effects, devel-
opment should be required to follow strict performance
standards, and should be avoided or severely limited in cer-
tain areas which are especially "sensitive" to disturbance,
either due to erosion potential or hydrologic factors.
Sensitive areas in Mount Vernon include 1700 acres of wet-
lands and other wet soils, steep slopes (over 15%) , highly
erodible soils and shallow soils Because the displacement
of agriculture from prime soils to marginal soils often
creates erosion and runoff problems, the prime agricultural
lands are considered by this study to be sensitive and
deserving protection.
Protection of groundwater is another water quality issue
of concern to Mount Vernon as its residents rely on individ-
ual well Lstems (and some lake water) for water supply.
Ther! " afSst'one area
identified as a POt~ti.Uy
considered "sensitive" and Protected
from a	increase in impervious cover or accivi-
ties	cfiw transmit pollutants to the aquifer.
in summary#	^stLato^dis^sal^iSb-
Mount vernon focus on	water quality and other sensi-
lems; the Protection of	segmentation and
tive areas; the contr	improved land use planning
erosion from new development, ana am*'	*
and code enforcement.
-228-

-------
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Mount Vernon's
land use planning program and presents the major water qual-
ity recommendations for the town. For a summary of the
extent to which Mount Vernon has already implemented these
recommendations, see Tables 23, 24, and 25.
Land Use and Open Space - considering its small popula-
tion, Mount Vernon has a number of regulatory ordinances
including the following:
June 1975 June 1977
Comprehensive Plan

UC
Open Space Plan


Shoreland Zoning
X
X
Areawide Zoning


Minimum Lot Size shoreland,
3/4 acre; other,
state minimum
Site Plan Review


Subdivision Review

X
Building Code

X
Street construction

X
Flood Hazard
X
X
Mobile Home


Growth Management


X = Adopted
UC = Under Consideration


Both the subdivision and street construction ordinances
are well equipped to protect water quality if forcefully
administered. The 208 plan recommends that Mount Vernon aug-
ment its regulatory program with the following specifics:
1. Currently the Planning Board is interested in re-
vising its comprehensive plan report to identify significant
problems associated with growth and the protection of natural
resources. They would like to present to townspeople various
techniques for managing growth in order to determine which
alternatives are most desirable for Mount Vernon and accept-
able to townspeople. The option of continuing without ade-
quate controls should be evaluated as well. The Board has
requested assistance from the Regional Planning Commission in
the revision of their comprehensive plan.
-229-

-------
2.	The town should establish a procedure for the re-
view of new development that is not covered by the sub-
division ordinance (a shopping center may not be, for in-
stance) so that the community will have the opportunity to
insure properly planned development.
In regard to water quality, criteria for review should
consider the control of stormwater runoff, sedimentation
and erosion, and the protection of sensitive areas. Stand-
ards should be established that will require development to
perform in a manner that will not disrupt water quality.
For this purpose, Mount Vernon should consider adopting a
site plan review procedure with performance standards as
discussed below. The proposed provisions for the review of
subdivision applications could be incorporated into this
ordinance, as could a building permit procedure.
3.	in regard to stormwater and erosion control, the
community should consider adopting the following policy for
the review of proposals: new land development should not
be allowed to cause drainage problems, erosion or down-
stream flooding; new stormwater generated should be handled
on site via storage, detention or infiltration. This is
particularly important in sensitive lakesheds such as Torsey
Lake.
Developers should be required to submit stormwater and
erosion control plans for review, presently the shoreland
zoning ordinance requires that earth-moving activities con-
form to accepted erosion control practices, but requires
no nlan The Planning Board should consider enlisting the
SLESil assistance of the SKVRPC or cobbossee Watershed
District for development of plan requirements andthe Kenne-
bee countv Soil and Water conservation District for review
of the clans Trust account fees could also be used to
ufre nrofessional help for this purpose in order to avoid
public expenditures. performance guarantees should be re-
vested to insure that stormwater and erosion controls are
adequately constructed.
4 Growth should be encouraged to occur according to
the c» ^ ^^Yr^&dsourriion:ur
ment on steep slope , J Jre erosion or drainage problems.
and wet soils can c	allowed to disturb these areas in
Development should not be * blemB> Sl0pes greater than
?cSanSer1^ entirely restricted from development as should
2 5/a should be entir ly	development within 75 feet
wetlands. There sho"1fn5® etlands. The filling of wetlands
°f.alLp0nd!; anils should be prohibited in order to protect
and other wet soils sno"Aa " * «vatem. Finally, develop-
the natural stormwater drain^g^^^i^ yield groundwater
ment in areas °ve^yJ"ga?l£wed to significantly increase im-
aquifers should not b	activities which could trans-
pervious surface area orinciuu«
mit pollutants to the groundwater. (See also
Sensitive Areas protection.;
-230-

-------
Developers should be required to show the locations of
sensitive areas on a site location map as well as the sub-
division or development plan.
Presently Mount Vernon's Shoreland Zoning Ordinance
affords some protection to sensitive areas. Steep slopes
and wetlands within areas zoned Resource Protection are pro-
tected, and development is prohibited within 75 feet of water
bodies (not wetlands) regulated by the ordinance. Shoreland
zoning does not cover all tributaries.
5. The Conservation Commission should work with the
Planning Board and develop an open space program to meet
the future needs of the town, and to identify sensitive
areas. The Conservation Commission indicated some time ago
a desire to inventory natural resources in order to help
the Planning Board assess land capability in the town.
They should be encouraged to follow through on this project.
Enforcement - Responding to an SKVRPC questionnaire,
several local officials and citizens indicated an interest
in upgrading the town's code enforcement capabilities. Pres-
ently, the town has an unsalaried code enforcement officer
and a plumbing inspector who is paid on a fee basis for
each inspection. In addition to plumbing inspection, other
local ordinances should be more strongly supported through
enforcement. Mount Vernon should consider sharing a part-
time, salaried code enforcement officer with ajoining towns.
Fayette, for instance, has indicated a similar interest as
have most of the towns in the Cobbossee Watershed District.
The SKVRPC is available to assist towns in forming interlocal
agreements.
Water Supply and Wastewater - Mount Vernon should con-
sider adopting a local plumbing code to incorporate the pro-
visions suggested in this Plan, unless the State amends
the State Plumbing Code in a similar manner.
The Mount Vernon village area has been identified as a
high priority for the construction of a clustered subsurface
waste disposal system. The village area was studied in
detail in the Phase II report entitled Non-Sewered Areas
Wastewater Disposal Problems. The town should consider con-
structing and maintaining this system or should form a
special district for this responsibility. In either case
the town or district should apply for State-Federal grant
monies which would cover 90% of the construction costs.
Finally, given Mount Vernon's dependence on groundwater
for water supply, it is important that the town support and
encourage research in this area. For example, a recent
Bureau of Geology study of groundwater in the SKVRPC con-
ducted under 208 funding was thwarted in its data collection
efforts by a lack of cooperation from area well drillers.
Town officials should encourage local well drillers to co-
operate in future research programs.
-231-

-------
Education - Mount Vernon should consider improving
local awareness of town regulations and ordinances. Ordi-
nances should be compiled in a booklet for ready access to
individuals. In addition, the plumbing Inspector should
distribute informational literature to homeowners regarding
water consumption reduction and the proper functioning and
maintenance of waste disposal systems, in order to avoid
future septic system failures.
Road Salting - The town should consider implementing
the road salting recommendations included in this plan
in Part I.
Environmental, Social and Economic impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, land use activities in the town of Mount
Vernon will continue to contaminate Minnehonk Lake, and
could impair the future water quality of Torsey Lake. Sedi-
mentation from ill-planned development could also degrade
many of the town's streams and lakes, reducing their value
as wildlife and waterfowl habitat as well as for recreation.
Without stormwater runoff controls on new developments,
including prohibition of the filling of wetlands, flash
flooding will increase and the town will face repeated and
unnecessary repairs and improvements to its drainage system
(more frequent road ditching and replacement of culverts).
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
rfce social and economic impacts of implementing the
plan recommendations are also difficult to assess with any
specificity. The town is being asked to hire a part-time
code enforcement officer. Costs could range from $2,000 to
$4,000 per year, including salary and overhead (travel, etc.).
In addition, it is recommended that Mount Vernon re-
vise its present ordinances to require erosion and sedi-
mentation control plans as well as stormwater runoff control
plans of all developers. Costs to the town for review of
these plans should be minimized if the developer is charged
a fee for review processes. Undoubtedly this fee will be
passed on to prospective property owners, but shouldn't
escalate unit prices significantly. This is an equitable
way of distributing review costs since the review is for the
protection of prospective property owners as much as the
town in general.
-232-

-------
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to the town of Mount Vernon through its membership in the
Southern Kennebec valley Regional Planning Commission and
Cobbossee Watershed District. No additional costs for
these revisions need be incurred as a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be
minimal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few property
owners whose property consist largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at some eco-
nomic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and should be
compensated by reduced property tax rates.
Finally, the town is being asked to assume responsibility
for construction and maintenance of a cluster septic system
to serve Mount Vernon village area. Total cost for this sys-
tem is estimated at $200,000, but 90% could be paid by State-
Federal grants, with the remainder paid on a user fee basis.
Costs per user for construction and subsequent operation and
maintenance would range from $100 to $150 per year. These
fees would cover all costs incurred by the town or newly
formed special district, so that no additional town monies
need be expended. It would simply necessitate an enlarge-
ment in the town's role in sewage disposal matters. Any
additional personnel would be paid through the user fee system.
-233-

-------
PITTSTON
The Setting
Located on the eastern shore of the Kennebec River, the
town of pittston encompasses approximately thirty-two square
miles. A rural community, Pittston is one of the fastest
growing towns in the region. The population of 1,131 in
1960 increased to 2,074 in 1975, representing an almost sixty
percent gain.
In the recent past, land use has been changing at an
even faster rate. Between 1966 and 1974, suburban develop-
ment increased 75%, rising from 838 to 1,472 acres. in 1974
low density development accounted for 8% of the total land
area. Agricultural land and forested land respectively com-
prised 10% and 70% of the land area. In fact, Pittston had
approximately 1,800 acres of agricultural land in 1974. How
much of this land is considered to be prime farmland has not
yet been determined. However, because the displacement of
agriculture from prime soils to marginal soils often creates
erosion and runoff problems, the prime agricultural lands
are considered by this study to be "sensitive" and deserving
protection.
The Kennebec River is the most significant water resource
in Pittston. Although there is currently no public access to
the River, townspeople have indicated a strong desire to see
the River upgraded to a swimmable, fishable status. Unfortu-
nately, the water quality of the River is severely impaired
due to upstream industrial and municipal discharges, most of
which are scheduled for abatement and treatment in the near
future. Gardiner, opposite Pittston, currently discharges
raw waste to the Kennebec, but is scheduled for construction
of a secondary sewage treatment facility in the near future.
Despite the degraded condition of the River, however, it
provides numerous wildlife and waterfowl feeding and nesting
areas to the enjoyment of Pittston residents. As the River
continues to improve in response to additional treatment
facilities, the Kennebec could be restored to serve a fuller
range of recreational needs including contact recreation.
In addition to the Kennebec River, several tributaries as
well as a second tidal river, the Eastern, drain the gently
rolling topography of Pittston. Presently the water quality
of the Eastern River is good; there have never been any major
point sources of pollution, it supports an anadromous fish
run and is a popular river in the winter when smelt are run-
ning.
The only pond that the town possesses is Nehumkeag Pond,
a shallow kettlehole that is naturally productive and is
noted for its excellent bass fishing. Its shallow nature
and small drainage area indicate a low assimilative capacity,
-234-

-------
and consequently a high need for protection front activities
which could add sediment or phosphorus to the pond. Exces-
sive phosphorus runoff will trigger nuisance algae blooms.
Because of their unique values and sensitivities,
Pittston's water resources should be protected from the ad-
verse impacts of development. This is particularly crucial
for pittston because land use is changing so rapidly. An
area that is developing quickly is likely to suffer from
erosion and sedimentation as large tracts of land are bull-
dozed and impervious surfaces are increased with a correspond-
ing increase in runoff. To avoid these effects, development
should be required to follow strict performance standards,
and should be avoided or severely limited in certain areas
which are especially "sensitive" to disturbance, either due
to erosion potential or hydrologic factors. Sensitive areas
in Pittston include 357 acres of wetlands, floodplains, other
wet soils, steep slopes, highly erodible soils and shallow
soils.
In addition, because groundwater is the sole source of
water supply for the town, it is extremely important to pro-
tect this resource from the adverse effects of development.
Significant groundwater quantities are believed to exist in
the Kennebec Esker ridge system as well as in the upland gravel
to the east. Recharge areas to these aquifers should also be
considered "sensitive" and protected from a significant in-
crease in impervious cover or activities which could transmit
pollutants to the aquifer.
In summary, the significant water quality issues in
Pittston include the Kennebec River and future opportunities
for its recreational use, the management of erosion and storm-
water runoff, the protection of sensitive areas, and improved
land use planning, code enforcement and growth management.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Pittston's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality manage-
ment recommendations for the town. For a summary of the
specific land use recommendations of this Plan for local action
and the extent to which Pittston has already implemented them,
see Tables 23, 24, and 25.
Land use and Open Space - Although public awareness is
beginning to call for a change, Pittston has very few planning
tools with which to effectively guide growth and avoid water
quality problems.
-235-

-------
June 1975 June 1977
Comprehensive plan
X
X
Open Space Plan


Shoreland Zoning
X
X
Areawide Zoning


Minimum Lot Size

one acre
Site Plan Review

UC
Subdivision Review

UC
Building Code
X
X
Street construction


Flood Hazard
X
X
Mobile Home


Growth Control


X = Adopted
UC = Under consideration


The Planning Board has recently begun investigating
what additional regulatory measures are needed and practicable
for Pittston. In particular, the Board has asked the Regional
Planning Commission for examples of subdivision and site plan
review ordinances. In adapting these ordinances to suit
Pittston's needs, the Board should consider the criteria set
forth in Part I for developing a comprehensive planning
program. It should also consider the following comments
and suggestions.
1. The comprehensive Plan prepared by the Planning Board
compiled background information regarding land use, natural
resources, and public services. The Board regarded the pl^-
as a first step in the process of deciding what future direct-
ion the town desires to move toward.
Townspeople have expressed a desire to maintain Pittston's
rural character and qualities, in developing the regulatory
tools to achieve this objective, the planning Board should
take the comprehensive Plan a step further. The Board should
interpret the existing information, identifying what resources
and qualities are most important in defining Pittston's rural
character. For instance, open fields and views from roadways
may contribute significantly to the visual image of the town.
All such assets should be identified. Then in developing a
-236-

-------
regulatory program, provisions can be included that will
help to protect the most essential qualities while still
allowing the community to grow. A provision to encourage
cluster development, for instance, may be effective in pre-
serving rural qualities. Furthermore, the planning Board
in reviewing development proposals could use this knowledge
to work with developers in achieving design schemes that
compliment the rural character of the town. The Planning
Board could receive assistance from the Regional Planning
Commission in taking the Comprehensive plan this next step.
2.	The planning Board should consider integrating the
review procedure of the model subdivision regulations with
the site plan review ordinance in order to develop a simple
review procedure that can be applied to subdivisions, multi-
family residential, commercial or industrial developments.
Such an ordinance should contain both a review procedure
and performance standards to insure properly planned develop-
ment. The ordinance should be administered in accordance
with a future land use plan. The performance standards
should include water quality considerations as well as mea-
sures to preserve rural qualities. A site plan review ordi-
nance could also incorporate a building permit procedure.
3.	in regard to stormwater and erosion control, the
community should consider adopting the following policy for
the review of proposals: new land development should not
be allowed to cause drainage problems, erosion or downstream
flooding; new stormwater generated should be handled on site
via storage, detention or infiltration.
Developers should be required to submit stormwater and
erosion control plans for review, presently the shoreland
zoning ordinance requires that earth-moving activities con-
form to accepted erosion control practices, but requires no
plan. The Planning Board should consider enlisting the
technical assistance of the SKVRPC for development of plan
requirements and the Kennebec County Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District for review of the plans. Trust account fees
could also be used to hire professional help for review pur-
poses in order to avoid public expenditures.
4.	Also, in regard to water quality, performance stand-
ards should encourage growth to occur according to the cap-
ability of the land to accept development. Development on
steep slopes, highly erodible soils, shallow soils and wet
soils can cause severe erosion or drainage problems. Devel-
opment should not be allowed to disturb these areas in a
manner that will cause problems. Slopes greater than 25%
should be entirely restricted from development as should wet-
lands. There should be no development within 75 feet of all
ponds, streams and wetlands. The filling of wetlands and
other wet soils should be prohibited in order to protect the
natural stormwater drainage system. (See also Part I,
Sensitive Areas protection.)
-237-

-------
Developers should be required to show the locations of
sensitive areas on a site location map as well as the sub-
division or development plan.
5,	Due to the abundance of sand and gravel deposits
and the reliance of groundwater for water supply, the town
should also consider adopting the measures to require sand
and gravel mining reclamation contained in Part I. Pittston
should also consider incorporating the recommendations in
Part I regarding road construction into its regulatory pro-
gram.
6.	And lastly, because Pittston is a fast growing com-
munity, the Conservation Commission should continue to de-
velop an open space planning program to assist in the pro-
tection of sensitive areas. In regard to protecting water
quality and rural character, such a program might focus on
agricultural land preservation. Such measures as easements
and land trusts should be considered as a means to protect
natural resources.
Coordination - Coordination is a low priority for
Pittston which does not have a public sewer system.
Enforcement - Pittston rhcognizes a great need for im-
proving its code enforcement capabilities. It should consider
sharing a code enforcement officer with other towns in the
coastal zone such as Chelsea and Randolph that have also ex-
pressed a desire to form an interlocal agreement for this pur-
pose. The SKVRPC is willing to assist communities in forming
interlocal agreements.
Water and Wastewater - In the town comprehensive plan
the Planning Board identified several areas that were experi-
encing subsurface disposal problems. The Board should investi-
gate whether these problems are continuing and, if so, what
steps should be taken to remedy the situation. They should
consider asking the State Department of Human Services, Divi-
sion of Health Engineering, for asistance in this matter.
Pittston should also consider adopting a local plumbing code
to incorporate provisions suggested in this Plan (Part I) un-
less the State amends the State Plumbing Code in a similar way.
Since Pittston relies entirely upon groundwater for its
water supply, local officials should develop a program to pro-
tect groundwater in the community of Pittston. The town
should work with the State Bureau of Geology in the development
of a program to ground check areas of potential high yield
identified in Part I. Upon verification, development in
the recharge areas of these aquifers should be subject to
strict performance standards such as a requirement to limit
impervious surfaces to 10% of the site or to infiltrate any
excess runoff created by development. Solid waste disposal,
sludge disposal and the like should be prohibited from these
areas.
SAD # 11 Elementary School in the northern part of town
will be tied into the proposed regional interceptor and treat-
-238

-------
ment system which will serve Gardiner, Randolph and Farming-
dale. There is a possibility that the proposed line to the
school could serve residences in the immediate vicinity of
the school and perhaps along Route 126 to the east. It is
recommended that the town study the need for a municipal or
district managed facility for that part of town.
Education - The Planning Board should continue to in-
crease public awareness of the importance to provide a regula-
tory program that will insure properly planned development
and avoid costly public expenditures. For instance, few
people are aware that wetlands serve as a natural storm drain-
age system and if destroyed will need to be replaced by a
costly engineered system.
In addition, local ordinances should be compiled and
made readily available to the public.
The Plumbing Inspector should distribute informational
literature to homeowners regarding reduced water consumption
and the proper functioning and maintenance of their waste
disposal systems.
Road Salting - Pittston should consider implementing
the recommendations for road salting included in this Plan
in Part I.
Environmental, Social and Economic impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, land use activities in the town of Pittston
could degrade water quality in Nehumkeag Pond, the Eastern
River, and several small tributaries to the Kennebec River.
This could result in the loss of valuable fishery resources
in Nehumkeag pond and on the Eastern River which provide
both recreational and economic benefits to the town.
In addition, without controls to avoid the filling or
drainage of wetlands, approximately 350 acres of wetlands could
be lost which not only provide wildlife and waterfowl habitat,
but also act to absorb floodwaters and remove pollutants from
runoff.
Hydrologic disturbances caused by the loss of wetlands
and new developments which do not adequately handle stormwater
runoff could lead to increased flash flooding necessitating
repeated and expensive enlargements of culverts, increased
road ditching, and perhaps even the installation of an expen-
sive storm sewer system in built up areas.
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
-239-

-------
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the
plan recommendations are also difficult to assess with any
specificity. The town is being asked to hire a part-time
code enforcement officer. Costs could range from $3,000 to
$5,000 per year, including salary and overhead (travel, etc.).
In addition, it is recommended that Pittston consider
an ordinance to require erosion and sedimentation control
plans as well as stormwater runoff control plans of all de-
velopers. costs to the town for review of these plans should
be minimized if the developer is charged a fee for review
processes. Undoubtedly this fee will be passed on to pro-
spective property owners, but shouldn't escalate unit prices
significantly. This is an equitable way of distributing
review costs since the review is for the protection of pro-
spective property owners as much as the town in general.
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to pittston through its membership in the Southern Kennebec
Valley Regional Planning commission. No additional costs
for these revisions need be incurred as a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be mini-
mal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few property
owners whose property consists largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at some eco-
nomic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and should be
compensated by reduced property tax rates.
Costs for the collector system for the connection of the
SAD #11 Elementary School to the proposed regional inter-
ceptor and treatment system in Gardiner are estimated at
$800,000. It is not determined how much, if any, of this
could be covered by Federal grants.
Finally, ground checking of potential high yield aquifers
could cost from $500 to $1,000 per site, according to State
Bureau of Geology estimates.
-240-

-------
RANDOLPH
The Setting
Randolph is a small town of about two square miles lo-
cated on the eastern side of the Kennebec River. Between
1960 and 1975 the population is estimated to have grown from
1,724 to 1,879, representing a nine percent increase. There
are indications that this low growth rate will increase when
significant additions to the sewer system become possible.
With the exception of Augusta, Randolph is the only
community on the eastern side of the River with high density
development. In fact 20% of Randolph's land area was urban-
ized in 1974. Only 35% of the town was forested, while 19%
was in agricultural land use.
The shoreland of the Kennebec has been the focus for
Randolph's urban development. There are currently no public
recreational opportunities associated with the River, but
local officials are hopeful of at least developing a boat
launching facility in the future.
Drainage in Randolph is into the Kennebec River, Togus
Stream and Togus Brook. Togus Stream still supports an
Atlantic Salmon run. The mouth of Togus Stream is the
only remaining major wetland in Randolph. There are no
areas where high yielding groundwater supplies are presently
thought to exist. There are, however, other areas considered
to be sensitive to land use disturbances which could cause
increased flooding and water quality problems if improperly
developed, particularly in the small streams. These include
steep slopes; floodplains; and wet, shallow and highly erod-
ible soils. Prime agricultural land is also considered to
be sensitive by this program because the displacement of
agriculture from prime to marginal soils often creates erosion
and runoff problems. The current extent of prime agricultural
land in Randolph has not been determined.
All but one small area is currently on public water, a
service provided by the Gardiner Water District. Thus Rand-
olph has a vested interest in protecting the Cobbossee Stream
drainage area.
The town is served by a mostly separate sewer system
with five major outfalls of untreated sanitary wastes into
the Kennebec.
In summary, the significant water quality issues in
Randolph focus on the Kennebec River and future opportunities
for its recreational use, the construction of the sewer system
and Gardiner treatment facilities, stormwater management, and
improved land use planning and code enforcement.
-241-

-------
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Randolph's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality manage-
ment recommendations for the town. For a summary of the
specific land use recommendations of this Plan for local
action and the extent to which Randolph has already imple-
mented them, see Tables 23, 24, and 25.
Land use and Open Space - As shown below, Randolph until
recently had very few regulations which could effectively
guide growth and avoid water quality problems.
June 1975 June 1977
Comprehensive Plan
X
X
Dpen Space Plan


Shoreland Zoning
X
X
^reawide Zoning


Minimum Lot Size
Site Plan Review

X
(% acre)
UC
Subdivision Review

X
Building Code

UC
Street construction
X
R
Flood Hazard
X
R
Mobile Home
X
X
Growth Management
X = Adopted
UC « Under consideration
R = Has been revised
However, over the past few months the town has begun a
program to upgrade its land use decision-making process.
Subdivision regulations which effectively consider the impacts
of development on stonnwater and sensitive areas recently
were adopted by the planning Board. Both a minimum lot size
and a street construction ordinance appeared on the warrant
of a June town meeting, as did the latest flood hazard ordi-
nance .
The planning Board has requested additional assistance
from the SKVRPC in further refining the town's land use pro-
-242-

-------
gram next fall. In particular, they plan to enact a site
plan review procedure and building code. The town is especi-
ally interested in the protection of steep slopes, highly
erodible soils, non-discharge soils and prime agricultural
lands.
The Board has already worked successfully with two
developers in encouraging the protection of sensitive areas
and the management of stormwater on site. In fact, one
developer changed his design for a multi-family complex so
as to include a dutch drain system for the collection of roof
runoff.
The policy of working with developers to imorove site
plans and the regulatory program being developed by the Plan-
ning Board should effectively serve to protect water quality
in Randolph, especially if the site plan review ordinance if
administered in conjunction with a future land use plan for
the community.
Coordination - Randolph has a fairly effective coordina-
ting mechanism as their current Board of Selectmen and Plan-
ning Board work jointly on many projects. Their recently
adopted subdivision regulations encourage coordination be-
tween Town boards and departments. They, therefore, consider
coordination a low priority at present, although, they see a
need to formalize this process in regards to sewer planning
in the months ahead. In particular, they plan to establish
a Sewer Commission as sewers are a municipal responsibility.
The twenty-year sewer extension plan should be coordinated
with a future land use plan for the town.
Enforcement - Randolph recognizes a high priority for
upgrading its code enforcement capabilities. It is interested
in working with nearby towns such as Chelsea, Pittston and
Gardiner in sharing a code enforcement officer. The 208
plan recommends that such an arrangement be pursued. The SKV
-RPC is available to assist towns in forming interlocal agree-
ments .
Education - The Planning Board is currently investigat-
ing a single-permit form system which will identify all the
requirements which must be met in order to comply with local
land use codes and ordinances. This will serve as a check-list
for townspeople to follow in complying with local requirements.
In seeking passage of the site plan review ordinance at town
meeting next fall, the Board should consider ways to make
townspeople aware of the connection between land use activities
and environmental problems. The Board should particularly
demonstrate the advantages of insuring well planned development
in order to avoid costly public expenditures.
Water and Wastewater - The sewer construction program
in Randolph will entail an interceptor along the Kennebec
River, a small interceptor along Togus Brook and the pump
station and force main across the Kennebec to Gardiner. The
-243-

-------
Kennebec River interceptor will extend into Pittston to
serve the SAD #11 Elementary School and possibly a few ad-
ditional homes in the immediate area in later phases of con-
struction.
Once the Gardiner treatment facility is on line, the
Randolph Selectmen and Planning Board see a high priority for
establishing a regional authority for the system as recom-
mended in the facilities section in regard to policy, capital
budgeting and maintenance. The 208 Plan recommends that
the feasibility of regional management be explored. The two
boards also intend to work with their consultants, SEA, on
the separation of a few combined stormwater and sewer systems
as well as further refining of their long-range facilities
plans. They are currently preparing regulations governing
the use of public sewers.
They also have identified a lower priority issue, the
investigation of ways to upgrade subsurface system failures
that are not included in the present sewer extension plans.
Road Salting - Randolph should consider implementing
the road salting recommendations included in this Plan in
Part I.
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts
Randolph has worked concurrently with the 208 study in
upgrading its land use regulation program to protect water
quality. It has an effective development review process
whose only weakness is enforcement. Without effective en-
forcement, the ability of the town to protect water resources
will be compromised. To improve its code enforcement cap-
abilities, Randolph is asked to hire a part-time code enforce-
ment officer in conjunction with adjacent towns, costs to
the town to implement this suggestion could range from $3,000
to $5,000 per year, including salary and expenses.
To connect to the proposed regional treatment facility
in South Gardiner, Randolph users will pay an estimated
$100,000 to be recovered, along with annual maintenance and
operation costs, by annual user fees estimated at $100 to
$150. Total costs for the connection are estimated at
$1,000,000, but State-Federal grants will pay 90% of this.
Extending the system to undeveloped areas of town in accordance
with 20-year projections could cost up to $800,000. it is
not known how much of this would be paid by State-Federal
grants at this time.
-244-

-------
READFIELD
The Setting
Readfield has become an extremely popular residential
community, not only because of its rural-recreational char-
acter and location, but due to the new district school facil-
ities as well. The population has increased 39% since 1960
and was estimated to number 1,429 in 197 5. Readfield also
supports a significant seasonal population which increases
by an estimated 64% over the winter population. Between 1966
and 1975, significant land use changes occurred. in that
period the amount of developed land increased approximately
155%, jumping from 592 acres to 1,510 acres. Land use in
1975 also included 1,716 acres of agricultural land and 416
acres of wetland.
The town encompasses the drainage areas of several water-
bodies including the upper basin of Maranacook Lake, and parts
of Lovejoy pond, Echo Lake, Torsey Lake and Carlton Pond.
The chart below summarizes the water quality status of these
lakes.
Lake
Current watei
quality
Current Major
sources of
phosphorus-*-
Assimilative
Capacity^
Need for
Pro-
tection
Carlton
Pond
High
Agriculture 76%
Low
High
Echo
Lake
High
Undetermined
High
LOW
Lovejoy
Pond
Moderate
Upstream Lakes
60%
Agriculture 18%
Development 14%
High
Low
Maranacook
Lake
Moderate
Agriculture 60%
Development 20%
High
High
Torsey
Lake
Moderate
Agriculture 45%
Development 25%
Low
High
Phosphorus is the major source of lake pollution in
the region.
2A measure of a lake's ability to absorb phosphorus
and other nutrients without degradation.
-245-

-------
Carlton Pond is the primary water supply for the Augusta
Water District, serving Augusta, Manchester and East Winthrop.
Phosphorus loading to Carlton Pond is presently not excessive.
However, although much of the watershed is owned by Augusta
Water District, increases in nutrient loading from agriculture
or development could become a problem.
Both Echo Lake and Lovejoy Pond have a high assimilative
capacity and thus a high tolerance to phosphorus loading.
Lovejoy Pond is extremely fast flushing (flushing about 15
times per year), while Echo Lake has a moderate flushing rate
(3 to 4 times per year) and is relatively deep. it is un-
likely that future land use changes will cause excessive phos-
phorus loading to these lakes; hence their "low need for pro-
tection" status.
Maranacook and Torsey Lakes, on the other hand, have a
"high need for protection." water quality in the upper basin
of Maranacook Lake, while still considered "moderate", is
nearing a critical stage in which additional phosphorus load-
ing could trigger the onset of nuisance algae blooms. Be-
cause of this and the fact that it is also the secondary water
supply for the Winthrop Water District, land use activities
which add to phosphorus runoff in the watershed should be
carefully controlled. Presently, runoff from manured fields
and development accounts for 80% of the phosphorus entering
the lake, if recent trends in the intensification of agri-
cultural activities and increases in development continue un-
controlled, the lake's water quality is sure to decline.
Torsey Lake has a low assimilative capacity because of
its slow flushing rate and shallow depth. It is therefore
sensitive to even slight increases in phosphorus loading.
Located in an area which has experienced both rapid increases
in developed land and intensification of agriculture, Torsey
has a "high need for protection." Like Maranacook Lake,
water quality in Torsey Lake will decline without proper land
use controls.
Besides protecting the water quality of the lakes from
excessive phosphorus loading, Readfield should be concerned
about the control of erosion and sedimentation of its water-
bodies, particularly given the town's increasing growth pres-
sures. Sedimentation of the lakes and their tributaries will
impair their use as water supplies and will damage fish
habitat.
Erosion and sedimentation of waterbodies results from
two processes — direct disturbance of soils and exposure to
erosive winds and rainy and disturbances in the natural
hydrology of an area which result in increased runoff with
resultant streambank and gully erosion as well as flooding.
An area that is developing quickly is likely to suffer from
both of these processes, as large tracts of land are bull-
dozed and impervious surfaces are increased with a corres-
ponding increase in runoff. To avoid these effects, devel-
-246-

-------
opment should be required to follow strict performance stand-
ards, and should be avoided or severely limited in certain
areas which are especially "sensitive" to disturbance,
either due to erosion potential or hydrologic factors. Sensi-
tive areas in Readfield include 400 acres of wetlands and
other wet soils, steep slopes, highly erodible soils and
shallow soils. Because the displacement of agriculture from
prime soils to marginal soils often creates erosion and run-
off problems, the prime agricultural lands are considered
by this study to be "sensitive" and deserving protection.
Another water quality issue which affects Readfield is
the solution to subsurface waste disposal problems in the
town. Recent studies by the cobbossee Watershed District
have indicated that septic systems are not a significant
source of phosphorus to the lakes in this Region. Generally
less than 2% of the phosphorus entering the lakes is from
septic systems. However, septic system failures do represent
a substantial health problem in the Region. In Readfield,
there are three areas which have severe subsurface waste
disposal problems which for environmental and economic rea-
sons should not be solved with a sewer extension. These
areas are: Torsey Shores on Torsey Lake and two areas on
Maranacook Lake — one including properties located on tax
map numbers 23, 25 and 27; and the other, tax maps 20 and 26.
The 208 study recommends the construction of cluster septic
systems for these areas. Extending a sewer to these areas
would trigger intensive growth along the sewers and could
create more of a water quality problem than the failing sys-
tems it would eliminate. It would also be extremely expens-
ive.
protection of groundwater is another water quality issue
of concern to Readfield, since its residents rely on individ-
ual wells. There is no public water supply.
In summary, the significant water quality issues in
Readfield include the protection of sensitive lakes and other
sensitive areas; control of erosion and sedimentation; con-
trol of stormwater runoff; solution to subsurface disposal
problem areas; and improved code enforcement.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Readfield's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality manage-
ment recommendations for the town'. For a summary of the
extent to which Readfield has already implemented these recom-
mendations, see Tables 23, 24, and 25.
Land Use and Open Space - The Readfield Planning Board
a year ago worked hard to prepare and get passed an areawide
zoning ordinance, unfortunately, an extensive resource pro-
tection area proposed by the Conservation Commission was
-247-

-------
politically not acceptable at that time. The town should
continue working toward the protection of those sensitive
areas in its zoning and review procedure.
June 197 5 June 1977
Comprehensive Plan

X
Shoreland Zoning
X
X
Areawide Zoning

X
Open Space


Minimum Lot Size

X
Site plan Review

(2acres)
Subdivision Review
X
UC
Building Code


Street Construction


Flood Hazard
X
X
Mobile Home


Growth Control


X = Adopted
UC = Under consideration
(including revisions)

Although the zones do not reflect land capability and
sensitive areas, taken together with shoreland zoning and
subdivision review, the zoning ordinance could be effective
in avoiding water quality problems if aggressively adminis-
tered in regard to the review of conditional uses, m order
to deal with the water quality problems associated with
incremental growth not regulated by these ordinances, Read-
field should consider adopting a building code ordinance that
would consider sensitive areas and stormwater runoff, con-
siderations might include restrictions on clearing, building
on steep slopes, and other site disturbances.
The Planning Board should also consider enlisting the
technical assistance of the Kennebec county Soil and water
Conservation District in the review of stormwater and sedi-
mentation and erosion control plans for new development.
Application fees could also be used to hire professional help
for this purpose for large scale projects. The following
policy should be used as a criteria for review: new land
development should not be allowed to create stormwater dis-
-248-

-------
posal problems or downstream flooding. Additional storm-
water generated should be handled on-site via storage, deten-
tion or infiltration. This is particularly important in
the drainage areas of sensitive lakes,including Torsey and
Maranacook.
The town should also reconsider whether an area-wide
minimum lot size of two acres is the most effective and desir-
able method to control the rate of growth, protect water
quality and meet other objectives. Large lot zoning tends
to produce exclusive communities, to waste valuable land
resources and to significantly increase the costs of public
services, incentives for cluster development,such as in-
creased density allocations, may prove more suitable to the
future objectives of Readfield in order to preserve rural
character. A phased growth management program may control
the rate of growth in a more rationale manner.
Enforcement - Readfield should consider upgrading its
code enforcement capabilities. Presently the town has a
plumbing inspector who also enforces the shoreland zoning
ordinance. Neither activity is salaried, although there is
some reimbursement for plumbing inspections according to a
fee schedule. The areawide zoning is enforced by the town
manager. With the exception of Plumbing Code permits, permits
issued by the town through its code enforcement officers or
Planning Board and which are subject to special conditions
do not require any certificate of inspection to assure that
conditions are met. Such a procedure, coupled with a profes-
sional code enforcement program utilizing a single, salaried
code enforcement officer would greatly improve code enforce-
ment in Readfield.
The town should consider forming an interlocal agreement
with adjoining towns in the cobbossee watershed District to
share a salaried code enforcement officer that would serve
each community on a part-time basis.
Water and Wastewater - Readfield should consider adopt-
ing a local plumbing code to incorporate provisions suggested
in this plan, unless the State amends the State Plumbing code
ina similar manner.
There are several wastewater problem areas where cluster
or community septic systems should be considered for construc-
tion and maintenance by the community. These include:
High priority	Medium Priority
Maranacook: Tax Maps 23,	Maranacook: Tax Maps 20,
25, 27	26
Torsey Lake: Readfield-Torsey
Shores
-249-

-------
The town should seek State-Federal funding for the con-
struction of these pystems (90% could be paid by such grants).
Other problem areas exist which do not appear to be
suitable for cluster systems. In most cases, the density is
too low to offset the expense of a cluster system. The areas
listed below should be investigated for treatment as recom-
mended in the report entitled Non-Sewered Areas Wastewater
Disposal Problems, Phase ill;	~~~	'
Maranacook Lake: Tax Maps 17, 22, 20
Finally, given Readfield' s dependence on groundwater for
water supply, it is important that the town support and en-
courage research in this area. For example, a recent Bureau
of Geology study of groundwater in the Region conducted
under 208 funding was thwarted in its data collection efforts
by a lack of cooperation from area well drillers. Town
officials should encourage local well drillers to cooperate
in future research programs. Groundwater should be protected
in order to avoid the future need for a costly public water
supply if possible, and if one becomes necessary to insure
the future quality of groundwater supplies.
Education - Readfield should also consider improving
local awareness of town regulations and ordinances. The Plumb-
ing inspector should distribute informational literature to
homeowners regarding water consumption reduction and the
proper functioning and maintenance of waste disposal systems,
in order to avoid future septic system failures.
Road Salting - Readfield should consider implementing the
road salting recommendations included in this Plan, in
Part I.
Environmental, Social and Economic impacts
Readfield has a number of codes which, if properly en-
forced, together could effectively regulate new development
(except incremental, small developments not subject to zoning
or subdivision requirements). However, if Readfield does
not implement the recommendations discussed above to regulate
incremental growth and to improve enforcement and technical
review procedures, development could adversely affect water
quality in the town# nonetheless. This could result in water
quality problems in Torsey Lake and Maranacook Lake in
particular, water quality degradation in Maranacook Lake
could limit its use as a water supply in the future, or
could necessitate expensive pretreatment. in addition, de-
graded water quality in both Torsey and Maranacook Lake would
be passed on to Annabessacook and cobbossee Lakes, both
sensitive to additional pollutants due to their past history
of heavy pollution from winthrop and Monmouth.
-250

-------
Implementation of the 2 08 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the
plan recommendations are also difficult to assess with any
specificity. The town is being asked to hire a part-time
code enforcement officer. Costs could range from $5,000 to
$7,000 per year, including salary and overhead (travel, etc.).
The town is also being asked to take responsibility
for the construction and management of cluster septic systems
as needed in the town. Total costs for those recommended
by the 208 study are estimated at $900,000, of which all
but $90,000 would be paid by State and Federal grants. The
remainder, plus operation and maintenance costs, would be
recovered by annual user fees ranging from $100 to $150.
Thus the town would not bear any additional costs for these
systems, only added responsibility.
-251-

-------
RICHMOND
The Setting
Located at the north end of Merrymeeting Bay on the
Kennebec River, Richmond encompasses thirty square miles.
A community with a concentrated village area, the town had
a population of 2,424 in 197 5, an eleven percent increase
over 1960. Although Richmond has been experiencing a slow
growth rate, it is expected to be a prime target for growth
now that 1-95 is open, completing the link between Portland,
Brunswick and Augusta.
Rural in character, Richmond had the greatest amount of
agricultural land in the region in 1974, 3,580 acres, approxi-
mately twenty percent of its total land area.. Other major
land uses included 296 acres of dense urban development,
1,706 acres of suburban development and 10,851 acres of
forest land. Low density suburban development almost doubled
between 1966 and 1974, adding 769 acres during that time
period.
Richmond's stretch of the Kennebec River is extremely
scenic. The land slopes steeply towards the River and is
relatively undeveloped except for the railroad which flanks
the River's edge. The village of Richmond is opposite Swan
island, also undeveloped and managed by the State Department
of inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The island is a refuge for
deer and Canadian geese, and once hosted several eagles'
nests. A State boat launching area is located at the village
edge, a popular entry point to Merrymeeting Bay.
The water quality of the Kennebec as it passes through
Richmond is poor. The effects of municipal and industrial
discharge in the Augusta-Waterville area peak in South
Gardiner, just to the north of the town. Richmond itself
discharges primary treated waste to the River, but its facil-
ity is scheduled for upgrading to secondary treatment when
funds become available. Municipal and industrial sources
upriver are also scheduled for secondary treatment in the
near future, and the River is expected to improve significantly
as a result. Residents of Richmond look forward to enjoying
a full range of recreational activities as the River improves,
including possibly contact recreation. This is a future water
quality goal recommended by the 208 plan if economically
attainable.
The Abagadasset River flows through the center of Rich-
mond. A small tributary to Merrymeeting Bay, it supports an
Atlantic Sturgeon run. protection from sedimentation is
therefore critical for the maintenance of this unusual fish-
ery resource.
-252-

-------
Pleasant Pond forms the eastern border of Richmond,
presently water quality in this Pond is low primarily due
to agricultural runoff which is estimated to contribute
80% of the phosphorus load to the Pond. This problem
originates primarily in Litchfield where six dairy farms
drain into the Pond, exceeding its capacity to absorb phos-
phorus. Despite a heavy buildup of cottages on the Pond's
perimeter, phosphorus input from septic systems presently
accounts for less than 2% of the total loading, in fact,
even assuming that all systems discharged directly to the
pond, they would still contribute less than 20% of the total
load. Runoff from development (lawns, driveways, etc.) is
estimated to contribute about 14%. However, this latter
source could increase significantly if the watershed continues
to develop rapidly.
The poor water quality of pleasant pond will improve if
the current phosphorus load is reduced to an acceptable
level. The proposed cobbossee watershed District Lake Res-
toration project will focus on reducing the sources of phos-
phorus entering the pond as well as cobbossee and Annabessa-
cook Lakes. Drainage from Pleasant Pond adds high numbers of
algae to cobbossee Stream, causing the Gardiner Water District
to heavily treat the water before distribution. This emphas-
izes the importance of restoring Pleasant Pond's water quality.
In order to make the restoration program successful, however,
new sources of phosphorus should be minimized, particularly
runoff from development.
Protecting the water quality from sedimentation resulting
from construction activities is also vitally important. Pres-
ently this is not a major problem, but in the past severe
sedimentation occurred during the construction of 1-95. Future
development in the watershed could result in significant sedi-
mentation problems.
Erosion and sedimentation of water bodies results from
two processes — direct disturbance of soils and exposure to
erosive winds and rain and disturbances in the natural
hydrology of an area which result in increased runoff with
resultant streambank and gully erosion as well as flooding.
An area that is developing quickly is likely to suffer from
both of these processes, as large tracts of land are bull-
dozed and impervious surfaces are increased with a corres-
ponding increase in runoff.
To avoid these effects, development should be required
to follow strict performance standards, and should be avoided
or severely limited in certain areas which are especially
"sensitive" to disturbance, either due to erosion potential
or hydrologic factors. Sensitive areas in Richmond include
416 acres of wetlands, floodplains, other wet soils, steep
slopes, highly erodible soils and shallow soils. Because the
displacement of agriculture from prime soils to marginal
soils, often creates erosion and runoff problems, the prime
253-

-------
agriculture lands are considered by this study to be "sensi-
tive" and deserving protection. it has not yet been deter-
mined how much of Richmond's farmland is considered to be
prime.
Protection of groundwater is another water quality issue
of concern to Richmond. Presently the urban areas of town
are on public water served by the Richmond Utilities District.
The District obtains groundwater from a well in Dresden. A
recent study by the Maine Bureau of Geology has identified
three potential high yield groundwater aquifers in Richmond
which should be further investigated for development as
future water supplies. After ground checking for verifica-
tion, these areas should be protected from activities which
could cause contamination or a significant loss in recharge.
The Richmond Utilities District is also responsible for
the town's primary wastewater treatment facility. Sanitary
and stormwater sewers which serve the village area are pres-
ently combined but should be separated in conjunction with
the conversion of the treatment facility to secondary treat-
ment.
A final water quality issue concerns the solution to
severe subsurface disposal problems in the town. The 208 study
identified two areas on Pleasant Pond in which individual on
site correction, or connection to an existing or proposed
sewer line, are not feasible solutions for both economic and
environmental reasons. These areais are in the vicinity of
Sunset cove and Spring Cove. Cluster septic systems are
recommended for these areas (a single large septic system
servicing a number of homes). Extending a sewer from Gardiner
would trigger additional growth pressure around the pond,
creating more of a water quality problem than the few prob-
lem systems it would intercept. As discussed above, runoff
from developed areas has a greater impact on water quality
than leakage from septic systems.
In summary, the significant water quality issues in
Richmond include improvement of the Kennebec; the conversion
to secondary wastewater treatment? the separation of combined
stormwater/sewer systems; the construction of cluster septic
systems on Pleasant Pond; the improvement of Pleasant Pond's
water quality; stormwater runoff from new development; the
protection of prime agricultural land and other sensitive
areas; and improved land use planning and code enforcement.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Richmond's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality manage-
ment recommendations for the town. For a summary of the
specific land use recommendations of this Plan for local action
and the extent to which Richmond has already implemented them
see Tables 23, 24, and 25.	'
-254-

-------
Land Use and Open Space - Richmond's comprehensive plan
and zoning ordinance are as sophisticated as any land use
regulation program in the region.
1975	1977
comprehensive Plan
X
X
Dpen Space Plan


Shoreland Zoning
X
X
?\reawide Zoning
X
R
Minimum Lot Size
X
X
Site Plan Review


Subdivision Review

UC
Building code
X
X
Street construction


Flood Hazard
X
X
Mobile Home
X
X
Growth Control
agricultural
zone only
X = Adopted


UC = Under consideration


R = Has been revised


The zoning ordinance is very comprehensive and includes
provisions for shoreland zoning as well as performance stand-
ards. in particular, it incorporates major wetlands and some
tributaries into the resource protection district. Pleasant
pond and the Abagadasset River are in the shoreland district.
Residential uses permitted in the shoreland district are pro-
hibited from filling or building structures in the 100 year
floodplain.
The ordinance also establishes an agricultural district
where the rate of growth is limited to three building permits
per subdivision per year. However, this measure will not
insure the protection of prime farmland as it doesn't address
the issue directly. The Planning Board is interested in
exploring alternative protective strategies.
The Board is also considering the adoption of subdivision
regulations that will clearly spell out the review process
for the protection of sensitive areas and the management of
stormwater runoff.
-255-

-------
In order to strengthen the town's ability to protect
water quality and to deal with growth which will surely be
attracted to the community with the completion of 1-95 and
the new sewage treatment facilities, the Planning Board
should consider the following suggestions.
1.	The town should consider establishing a site plan
review procedure for new development that is not covered by
the zoning or subdivision ordinances so that the community
will have the opportunity to insure properly planned devel-
opment .
2.	In regard to stormwater and erosion control, the
community should consider adopting the following policy or
performance standard for new development: new land develop-
ment should not cause drainage problems, erosion or down-
stream flooding? new stormwater generated should be handled
on site via storage, detention or infiltration. This is
particularly important in the pleasant Pond lakeshed. (See
also Part I.)
Developers should be required to submit stormwater and
erosion control plans for review. The Planning Board should
consider enlisting the technical assistance of the SKVRPC
for development of plan requirements and the Sagadahoc County
Soil and Water conservation District for review of the plans.
Trust account fees could also be used to hire professional
help for this purpose in order to avoid public expenditures.
Presently erosion control plans are required to be submitted
only for mining excavations over 100 cubic yards. There is
also currently no performance standard for the control of
stormwater runoff, although the conditional use review pro-
cess addresses the impact of the proposal on water quality.
Even a conditional permit, however, does not routinely re-
quire stormwater and erosion and sedimentation control plans
to be submitted.
3.	Growth should be encouraged to occur according to
the capability of the land to accept development. Develop-
ment on steep slopes, highly erodible soils, shallow soils
and wet soils can cause severe erosion or drainage problems.
Development should not be allowed to disturb these areas in
a manner that will cause problems. Slopes greater than 25%
should be entirely restricted from development, in addition
to the existing provision for floodplains, the filling of
wetlands and other wet soils should similarly be prohibited
in order to protect the natural stormwater drainage system.
In particular, the planning Board should consider the drain-
age area of Pleasant Pond in its efforts to protect sensitive
areas. This water body needs a high degree of protection
because of its present water quality and vulnerability to
pollution. Groundwater aquifers and recharge areas should
also be considered in the town's planning program, (see also
Part I).
-256-

-------
Developers should be required to show the locations of
sensitive areas on a site location map as well as the sub-
division or development plan.
4.	If the town desires to control the rate of growth
it should consider a phased growth management program based
upon a plan that not only projects population increases, but
capital outlays for municipal services and specific improve-
ments. The extension of utilities should be based on where
growth is most desirable and how fast it should occur. The
Planning Board should coordinate the Utilities District's
twenty-year sewer extension plan with a similar future land
use plan for the community.
5.	Richmond should also consider activating its Conserva-
tion Commission which could develop an open space planning
effort to assist the Planning Board in the preservation of
farmland and other public assets such as the Kennebec River
shoreline. The Planning Board could also consult with the
Conservation Commission in the review of development proposals
that might impact sensitive areas.
Coordination - Town officials should continue to improve
coordination between utilities planning and land use planning.
The twenty-year sewer extension plan should be integrated
with the future land use plan of the community.
Enforcement - Richmond is interested in upgrading its
code enforcement capabilities through a part-time code en-
forcement officer either commissioned by the town or through
an interlocal agreement. Other coastal zone communities that
have expressed a similar interest are Pittston, Randolph,
Chlesea, Hallowell, and possibly Gardiner. The SKVRPC is
available to assist towns in forming interlocal agreements.
Water and Wastewater - The Community's secondary treat-
ment facilities are expected to be completed by 1981. The
combined sewer and stormwater systems should be separated as
per the District's infiltration/inflow study.
The Utilities District should continue to develop a
long-range utilities extension plan as well as a capital im-
provement program. Utilities should only be extended after
a thorough environmental assessment of their impacts on
Pleasant Pond and other sensitive areas and in accordance
with the town's future land use plan.
There are several wastewater problem areas where cluster
septic systems should be considered for construction and
maintenance by the Richmond Utilities District. The District
should seek State-Federal grants for the construction of these
systems (up to 90% aid is available). High priority problem
areas where clusters are recommended on Pleasant Pond include:
Sunset Cove and Spring Cove. Another problem area, the KOA-
Peacock Beach area, was studied in detail in the Phase II
report of Non-Sewered Areas Wastewater Disposal Problems.
-257-

-------
It was recommended that an individual approach be taken to
address this problem area.
The town should also investigate whether the protection
of the Dresden well site is sufficient. Presently the town
owns considerable acreage around this well, if the recharge
area to the aquifer supplying the well is not included,
Richmond should consider additional protective actions.
The Utilities District should also continue working with
other town officials in the investigation and protection of
sources of groundwater within the town that could be developed
for municipal purposes.
Education - The town should continue to make local ordi-
nances readily available to townspeople, it should also con-
sider other methods of increasing local awareness of the con-
nection between land use activities and water quality. The
Plumbing Inspector should distribute informational literature
to homeowners regarding reduced water consumption and the
proper functioning and maintenance of their waste disposal
systems.
Road Salting - Richmond should consider implementing
the recommendations for road salting included in this Plan
in Part I.
Environmental, Social and Economic impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, land use activities in the town of Richmond
could result in sedimentation of sensitive water bodies such
as the Abagadasset River and pleasant Pond. This could re-
sult in the loss of a significant natural fishery, the
Atlantic Sturgeon, and in the case of Pleasant Pond, could
cause increased pretreatment of the Gardiner water supply
directly downstream.
in addition, 400 acres of wetlands could be lost,
with a resultant loss in waterfowl and wildlife habitat,
flood storage capacity, and scenic resources.
Hydrologic disturbances caused by the loss of wetlands
and new developments which do not adequately handle storm-
water runoff could lead to increased flash flooding, necessi-
tating repeated and expensive enlargements of culverts, in-
creased road ditching and perhaps even unnecessary expansions
to existing storm sewers.
Lacking any initiative to correct the subsurface waste
disposal problems on Pleasant Pond, individual property
owners may be faced by law with installing expensive indi-
vidual holding tanks (installation costs up to $1,000 with
pumping costs ranging from less than $100 to over $3,000 per
-258-

-------
year, depending on the number of occupants and the duration
of occupancy). The high costs of this alternative may force
property owners to sell their homes.
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the
plan recommendations are also difficult to assess with any
specificity. The town is being asked to hire a part-time
code enforcement officer. Costs could range from $3,000 to
$5,000 per year, including salary and overhead (travel, etc.).
In addition, it is recommended that Richmond revise
its present ordinances to require erosion and sedimentation
control plans as well as stormwater runoff control plans of
all developers. Costs to the town for review of these plans
should be minimized if the developer is charged a fee for
review processes. Undoubtedly this fee will be passed on to
prospective property owners, but shouldn't escalate unit
prices significantly. This is an equitable way of distribut-
ing review costs since the review is for the protection of
prospective property owners as much as the town in general.
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to the town of Richmond through its membership in the South-
ern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission or Cobbossee
Watershed District. No additional costs for these revisions
need be incurred as a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be
minimal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few property
owners whose property consists largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at some eco-
nomic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and should be
compensated by reduced property tax rates.
The Richmond Sanitary District is being asked to assume
responsibility for construction and maintenance of cluster
septic systems in various problem areas in the town. Total
costs for these systems could run as high as $300,000, but
90% would be paid by State-Federal grants, with the remainder
paid by users on an annual basis, similar to the user fee
system utilized by the conventional sewage treatment systems.
Costs per user for construction and subsequent operation
and maintenance would range from $100 to $150 per year.
These fees would cover all costs incurred by the District so
that no additional monies need be expended, it would simply
necessitate an enlargement in the District's role in sewage
-259-

-------
disposal matters. Any additional personnel would be paid
through the user fee system.
To upgrade its sewage treatment plant to secondary
treatment, and to separate the combined storm and sanitary
sewers, total costs are estimated at $1,000,000, of which
90% could be paid by State-Federal grants. The remainder
would be paid by annual user fees which would also cover
maintenance and operation costs, and would range from $100
to $150 per user per year.
The 20-year sewer extensions projected by the Plan
could cost $500,000. It is not known how much of this cost
would be paid by State-Federal grants.
Finally, to ground check potential high yield aquifers,
costs would range from $500 to $1,000 per site, according to
Bureau of Geology estimates.
-260-

-------
VIENNA
The Setting
The least populated community in the area, Vienna is
a rural town located in the northeast corner of the Southern
Kennebec region. Estimated to number 233 individuals in
1975, the population increased 46% over that of 1960. The
summer population increases significantly, perhaps by as
much as 230%.
Vienna had the greatest percentage of land area in forest
in the Region in 1974, approximately 84%; low density develop-
ment accounted for only 4%, or about 530 acres. Located at
the headwaters of the Thirty Mile watershed, Vienna has two
ponds on its southern boundary whose water quality status
is shown below:
Lake
Current Water
quality
Current Major
sources of
phosphorus1
Assimilative
Capacity2
Need for
Pro-
tection
Flying
Pond
Moderate
Undetermined
High
Low
Parker
Pond
High
Undetermined
LOW
High
^Phosphorus is the major source of lake pollution in
the region.
2A measure of a lake's ability to absorb phosphorus
and other nutrients without degradation.
Both Parker and Flying ponds are presently'relatively
undeveloped. Due to its shallowness and the fact that water
moves through it very slowly, Parker Pond is very vulnerable
to phosphorus loading, an excess of which can cause algae
blooms. Parker requires a high degree of protection. In
contrast, Flying Pond is less susceptible to pollution, being
less shallow and faster flushing.
To protect these lakes from degradation, Vienna should
be concerned about activities which could add significant
amounts of phosphorus or cause sedimentation of the lakes
and their tributaries. Development can greatly increase both
phosphorus loading and sedimentation of lakes, increased
phosphorus loading results from lawn fertilization, leaf
burning, pet wastes, etc. and increased runoff created by
impervious surfaces to transport the phosphorus to the lakes.
Erosion and sedimentation can be increased by improper con-
struction procedures and the increased erosive force created
by increased runoff.
-261-

-------
A number of areas could create severe erosion or runoff
problems if developed, and should be appropriately protected.
They have been collectively termed "sensitive" areas, and
include wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, highly erodible
soils, non-discharge soils, and shallow soils. Steep slopes
are a prominent feature of Vienna's landscape.
Water supply is by private well system or lake water.
This reinforces the need to protect the lakes, and similarly
groundwater.
In summary, the significant water quality issues in
Vienna include the protection of sensitive areas and Parker
and Flying Ponds and the improvement of land use planning
and code enforcement capabilities.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Vienna's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality manage-
ment recommendations for the town. For a summary of the
specific recommendations of this Plan and the extent to which
Vienna has already implemented them, see Tables 23, 24, 25.
Land Use and Open Space - Vienna is one of the least
prepared communities in the region to deal with growth and
land use change. The town has only Shoreland zoning and
Flood Hazard ordinances. This is not surprising given its
relatively undeveloped nature and remote location. However,
as shown below the Planning Board has indicated that it would
like to consider the preparation of subdivision regulations
and revision of its comprehensive plan.
June 1975 June 1977
comprehensive Plan
X
uc
Open Space Plan
Shoreland Zoning
X
X
kreawide Zoning
Minimum Lot Size
State minimum
Bite Plan Review
Subdivision Review
UC
3uilding Code
Street construction
Flood Hazard
X
X
-262-

-------
(Continued)
June 1975 June 1977
Mobile Home
Growth Management
X = Adopted
UC = Under consideration
In considering these activities and in order to improve
its readiness to deal with future growth, the town should
consider the following suggestions as well as the other recom-
mendations summarized in Tables 23, 24, 25. The discussion
presents a minimum but effective land use planning and regu-
lation program for the protection of water quality.
1.	in revising its comprehensive plan, the planning
Board should evaluate land capability in Vienna, including
the identification of both sensitive areas and those areas
that are better suited to development. Problems and needs
should be identified as well as conflicts among differing
needs. The Board should outline for townspeople what options
are open to meet these needs or to resolve conflicts and to
protect natural resources. The implications of selecting a
given alternative should be identified. The option of contin-
uing without controls should be evaluated as well. By pre-
senting the alternatives to townspeople before recommending
a given course of action, the Planning Board can receive input
into and can develop support for the program that is finally
decided upon. This process will allow an opportunity to
increase public awareness of the connection between land use
activities and water quality degradation and the need to be
prepared for growth in order to protect the town.
2.	The town should establish a procedure for the review
of new development so that the community will have the oppor-
tunity to insure properly planned development. For this
purpose, Vienna should consider adopting a site plan review
ordinance with performance standards. Provision for the
review of subdivisions could be incorporated into this ordi-
nance as could a building permit procedure.
3.	in regard to stormwater, the community should con-
sider adopting the following policy for the review of pro-
posals: new land development should not be allowed to cause
drainage problems, erosion or downstream flooding. New
stormwater generated should be handled on site via storage,
detention or infiltration. This is particularly important in
the sensitive Flying Pond drainage area.
Developers should be required to submit stormwater and
sedimentation and erosion control plans for review.
-263-

-------
The community should consider enlisting the technical
assistance of the SKVRPC in the development of plan require-
ments and the Kennebec County Soil and Water Conservation
District in the review of these plans. Trust account fees
could also be used to hire professional help for this pur-
pose in order to avoid public expenditure.
4. Growth should be encouraged to occur in relation to
the capability of the land to accept development. Develop-
ment on steep slopes, highly erodible soils, shallow soils
and wet soils can cause severe erosion or drainage problems.
Slopes greater than 25% should be entirely restricted from
development as should wetlands, and a 75 foot setback from
all ponds, streams and wetlands. The filling of floodplains
wetlands and other wet soils should be prohibited in order
to protect the natural stormwater drainage system. New
development should not be allowed to occur in a manner that
will degrade groundwater quality.
Coordination - The coordination of sewer and land use
planning is not presently necessary in Vienna which has no
public sewer system, or plans for one in the future.
Enforcement - The town should consider improving its code
enforcement capabilities. Presently it has a plumbing inspec-
tor and an unsalaried code enforcement officer. It should con-
sider sharing a part-time salaried code enforcement officer
with one or more adjoining towns. Fayette and Mount Vernon,
for instance, have indicated a willingness to enter into such
an arrangement. The SKVRPC is available to assist communities
in forming interlocal agreements.
Water and Wastewater - Vienna should consider adopting a
local plumbing code to incorporate provisions suggested in this
Plan, unless the State amends the State Plumbing Code in a
similar manner.
Finally, given Vienna's dependence on groundwater for
water supply, it is important that the town support and en-
courage research in this area. For example, a recent Bureau
of Geology study of groundwater in the Southern Kennebec Valley
conducted under 208 funding was thwarted in its data collection
efforts by a lack of cooperation from area well drillers. Town
officials should encourage local well drillers to cooperate
in future research program.
Road Salting - Vienna should consider implementing the
road salting recommendations of this Plan in Part I.
Environmental. Social and Economic Impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, land use activities in the town of Vienna
could degrade water quality in Parker Pond, Flying Pond, and
their tributaries. Parker Pond is vulnerable to excessive
ohosDhorus loading and could develop nuisance algae blooms.
Degradation of this sensitive lake will be difficult to
-264-

-------
reverse, given its slow flushing rate. Both ponds could suf-
fer from sedimentation which would reduce fish habitat and
impair recreational and aesthetic values.
In addition, if the town experiences a significant in-
crease in development without controls on stormwater runoff,
the small tributaries will experience increased flash flood-
ing and the town may be faced with unnecessary and expensive
road ditching and replacement of culverts.
Finally, without controls on land use, over 600 acres
of wetlands could be lost which not only act to absorb flood-
waters and remove pollutants, but also provide valuable
wildlife and waterfowl habitat.
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental bene-
fits are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the
plan recommendations are also difficult to assess with any
specificity. The town is being asked to hire a part-time
code enforcement officer. Costs could range from $2,000 to
$3,000 per year, including salary and overhead (travel, etc.).
In addition, it is recommended that Vienna adopt ordi-
nances to require erosion and sedimentation control plans as
well as stormwater runoff control plans of all developers.
Costs to the town for review of these plans should be mini-
mized if the developer is charged a fee for review processes.
Undoubtedly this fee will be passed on to prospective property
owners, but shouldn't escalate unit prices significantly.
This is an equitable way of distributing review costs since
the review is for the protection of prospective property
owners as much as the town in general.
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to the town of Vienna through its membership in the Southern
Kennebec valley Regional Planning Commission. No additional
costs for these revision need be incurred as a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be
minimal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few property
owners whose property consists largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at some eco-
nomic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and should be
compensated by reduced property tax rates.
-265

-------
WAYNE
The Setting
A picturesque resort community, Wayne is located on the
western fringe of the Southern Kennebec valley region. In
197 5 the population was estimated to number 689, representing
a 38% increase over that of 1960. Although sparsely popu-
lated in the winter, the community attracts a considerable
summer crowd, perhaps as much as a 160% increase over the
year-round population.
The 19.7 square mile land area was approximately 80%
forested in 1974; low density development accounted for 7%.
The village area is located between Androscoggin and Pocasset
Lakes. Smaller ponds include Lovejoy, Berry and Dexter.
The following chart indicates the water quality condition
of these recreational water bodies:
Lake
Current Water
quality
Current Major
sources of
phosphorus1
Assimilative
Capacity^
Need for
Pro-
tection
Andros-
coggin
Lake
Moderate
Undetermined
Moderate
Moderate
Berry
Pond
Moderate
Agriculture 75%
Forests 20%
High
High
Dexter
Pond
Moderate
Upstream 65%
Agriculture 15%
High
Moderate
Lovejoy
Pond
Moderate
Upstream 60%
Agriculture 18%
Development 14%
High
Low
Pocasset
Lake
Moderate
Upstream 48%
Agriculture 29%
High
Low
Phosphorus is the major source of lake pollution in
the region.
2A measure of a lake's ability to absorb phosphorus
and other nutrients without degradation.
Due to its shallow depth and large surface area, Andro-
scoggin is sensitive to phosphorus loading. Measures to ore
vent phosphorus runoff from development and farmlands would
-266

-------
insure protection of the lake's water quality. Berry Pond
could become eutrophic if trends in the intensification of
agriculture continue. Because of the rate at which water
moves through them (greater than 13 flushes per year), Dexter,
pocasset and Lovejoy are'not as susceptible to pollution.
The condition of Dexter, however, could be impaired by water
from Berry if it becomes too degraded.
Protecting the water quality of the Wayne lakes and
streams from sedimentation is another water quality issue of
concern to the town. Presently this is not a major problem
but increasing development pressures could result in signifi-
cant problems.
Erosion and sedimentation of water bodies results from
two processes — direct disturbance of soils and exposure to
erosive winds and rain and disturbances in the natural
hydrology of an area which result in increased runoff with
resultant streambank and gully erosion as well as flooding.
An area that is developing quickly is likely to suffer from
both of these processes, as large tracts of land are bull-
dozed and impervious surfaces are increased with a correspond-
ing increase in runoff. To avoid these effects, development
should be required to follow strict performance standards,
and should be avoided or severely limited in certain areas
which are especially "sensitive" to disturbance, either due
to erosion potential or hydrologic factors. Sensitive areas
in Wayne include 400 acres of wetlands and other wet soils,
steep slopes (over 15%), highly erodible soils and shallow
soils. Because the displacement of agriculture from prime
soils to marginal soils often creates erosion and runoff prob-
lems, the prime agricultural lands are considered by this
study to be "sensitive" and deserving protection.
Protection of groundwater is another water quality issue
of concern to Wayne as its residents rely on individual well
systems (and some lake water) for water supply. There is at
least one area in the town which has been identified as a
potentially high yielding groundwater aquifer (see Map 7,
Part I). Recharge areas to this aquifer should also be con-
sidered "sensitive" and protected from a significant increase
in impervious cover or activities which could transmit pol-
lutants to the aquifer.
A final water quality issue which concerns Wayne is the
solution of several domestic wastewater disposal problems.
Three problem areas were identified in which individual on-
site correction or connection to an existing or proposed sewer
system were not feasible solutions. These were located in
Wayne Village, and on two areas of Androscoggin Lake including
West Acre woods and Lincoln Point, and the Pond Road on
Pocasset Lake. Of these, west Acre woods was studied in de-
tail. The plan concluded that cluster septic systems are a
viable alternative for these areas, and that steps be taken
to correct the problem areas accordingly. (see detailed recom-
mentations below.)
-267-

-------
in summary, the significant water quality issues in
Wayne include septic system failure problems; the protection
of vulnerable lakesheds and other sensitive areas; the con-
trol of stormwater, sedimentation and erosion from new
development; and improved code enforcement capabilities.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Wayne's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality manage-
ment recommendations for the town. For a summary of the
extent to which Wayne has already implemented the land use
recommendations of this Plan, see Tables 23, 24, and 25.
Land Use and Open Space - Wayne already has a fairly
comprehensive planning process including the ordinances below:
June 1975
omprehensive plan
Epen Space Plan
horeland zoning
^reawide zoning
Minimum Lot Size
Site Plan Review
Subdivision Review
Building Code
[Street construction
Flood Hazard
Mobile Home
Growth Management
X = Adopted
X
1977
X
X	X
X	X
(h acre and 1 acre)
X	X
X	X
(included in subdivision ord.)
X	X
X	X
The zoning, subdivision and building code ordinances to-
gether provide for the review of new development occurring in
the Town of Wayne. Many provisions are made for the protection
of water quality.
The zoning ordinance incorporates the shoreland zones.
It establishes five districts on the basis of density and land
use. The resource protection zone includes wetlands and
-268-

-------
islands. Several performance requirements relating to water
quality are included regulating stormwater, erosion and sedi-
mentation, agriculture, forestry and the mining and reclama-
tion of sand and gravel.
The ordinance is well thought out? however, slight modi-
fications could be made to further strengthen its ability to
protect water quality. The following discussion presents sug-
gestions for its improvement.
1.	Sensitive Areas Protection - The resource protect-
ion zone could be expanded to include slopes greater than 25%
and a 75 foot setback from the shorelines of wetlands and all
streams. (There is presently a setback requirement for the
lakes and a few streams only.) Other sensitive areas includ-
ing floodplains, groundwater aquifers and recharge areas,
slopes greater than 15%, highly erodible soils, prime agri-
cultural land, and watersheds requiring a high need for pro-
tection should be identified in the review procedure, con-
ditions for adequate protection should be placed on develop-
ment occurring in these areas and/or certain uses restricted.
The filling of wetlands, floodplains and other wet soils
should be prohibited in order to protect the community's
natural stormwater drainage system.
2.	Stormwater and Erosion - The ordinance stipulates
land shall be developed in such a way that causes no flooding
and erosion on adjacent properties. This excellent criteria
should be applied to all new development, with developers re-
quired to submit stormwater and erosion control plans. New
stormwater generated should be handled on site via storage,
detention or infiltration.
The Planning Board should consider enlisting the tech-
nical assistance of the SKVRPC or Cobbossee watershed District
for development of plan requirements, and the Kennebec county
Soil and Water Conservation District for review of the plans.
Trust account fees could also be used to hire professional
help for this purpose in order to avoid public expenditures.
3.	Density - The establishment of a higher density
zone in the village area is an excellent strategy to encour-
age the preservation of a visual focus for community identity.
However, the uniform density requirements for other districts
could create a monotonous appearance and not encourage the
optimum utilization of suitable land unless a cluster provis-
ion is added to the ordinance. As it stands, the present
ordinance discourages the preservation of open space by re-
quiring multi-family developments to meet lot size require-
ments which exceed (per unit) those of single family dwellings.
Further, it does not allow buildings to be clustered. This
provision should be reconsidered? by encouraging cluster de-
velopment, the most suitable land can be used for buildings
while sensitive areas can be protected as open space.
-269-

-------
4. The Conservation Commission should consider develop-
ing an open space program to provide for the future needs of
the community and to protect sensitive areas.
Coordination - The coordination of sewer and land use
planning is not presently necessary in Wayne which has no
public sewer system or plans for one in the future.
Enforcement - Wayne should consider upgrading its code
enforcement capabilities, it presently has a plumbing inspec-
tor who is paid on a fee basis for each inspection, and an
unsalaried code enforcement officer, it should investigate
sharing a part-time code enforcement officer with adjoining
towns in the cobbossee watershed District.
Education - By compiling its ordinances in one booklet,
Wayne has made its land use policies readily accessible to
the public. 'The Plumbing Inspector should distribute informa-
tion to homeowners regarding water consumption reduction and
septic system maintenance to prevent unnecessary septic system
failures.
water and Wastewater - in order to insure the protection
Qf groundwater and to avoid the need for a public water supply
system, the town should cooperate with the U. S. Geological
Survey'and the Maine Bureau of Geology in future research on
groundwater quality, quantity and movement. For example, a
recent Bureau of Geology study of groundwater in the SKVRPC
conducted under 208 funding was thwarted in its data collection
efforts by a lack of cooperation from area well drillers.
Town officials should encourage local well drillers to cooper-
ate in future research programs.
As mentioned above, there are several subsurface waste-
water disposal problem areas in Wayne where cluster septic
systems should be considered for construction and maintenance
by the town or a new special district, problem areas where
clusters are recommended include:
wi-gh Priority	Low Priority
West Acre woods	Lincoln Point
pond Road
Wayne village
rpvja feasibility of west Acre woods has been discussed in detail
in the phase II report of Non-Sewered Areas wastewater Disposal
Problems.
D-aj eaitina - Wayne should consider implementing the
road salting recommendations included in this Plan in Part I.
Environmental, Social and Economic impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
-270

-------
discussed above, land use activities in the town of Wayne
could result in the loss or impairment of valuable resources,
including wetlands and scenic qualities. Although the town
requires new development to be constructed so as to avoid
erosion and flooding problems on adjacent properties, its
effectiveness is damaged by a lack of specificity. Without
strict technical requirements, subject to professional re-
view, the ordinance may not achieve its goals, and the water
quality of Wayne's streams and lakes could be impaired by
sediment and increased algae production. Improper management
of stormwater could also lead to increased flash flooding and
the town could face repeated and unnecessary improvements and
repairs to its drainage system (more frequent road ditching
and replacement of culverts).
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social and economic impacts.
Water Quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental benefits
are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the plan
recommendations are also difficult to assess with any speci-
ficity. The town is being asked to hire a part-time code
enforcement officer. Costs could range from $3,000 to $5,000
per year, including salary and overhead (travel, etc.).
In addition, it is recommended that Wayne revise its
present ordinances to require erosion and sedimentation con-
trol plans as well as stormwater runoff control plans of all
developers. Costs to the town for review of these plans
should be minimized if the developer is charged a fee for
review processes. Undoubtedly this fee will be passed on to
prospective property owners, but shouldn't escalate unit
prices significantly. This is an equitable way of distribut-
ing review costs since the review is for the protection of
prospective property owners as much as the town in general.
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to the town of Wayne through its membership in the Southern
Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission and Cobbossee
Watershed District. No additional costs for these revisions
need be incurred as a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be mini-
mal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few property
owners whose property consists largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at some eco-
nomic disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and should be
compensated by reduced property tax rates.
Finally, the town is being asked to assume responsibility
for construction and maintenance of cluster septic systems in
-271-

-------
various problem areas in the town. Total costs for these sys-
tems are estimated at $600,000, but State-Federal grants
could be used for 90% of this, with the remainder paid by
uders on an annual basis, costs per user for construction
and subsequent operation and maintenance would range from $100
to $150 per year. These fees would cover all costs incurred
by the town.
-272-

-------
WEST GARDINER
The Setting
Encompassing 40.6 square miles, West Gardiner is a grow-
ing community. Between 1960 and 1975, the population is esti-
mated to have increased 44%, expanding from 1,144 to 1,642.
The attraction of the community for residential development
can be attributed to its rural character, convenient location
to Gardiner and Augusta, and low tax rate. The intersection
of the Maine Turnpike and Interstate 95 in West Gardiner
offers easy commuting access to several employment centers.
With the recent opening of 1-95, the community is expected to
attract much of the new growth that this major transportation
link will generate.
In 1974, there were approximately 1,400 acres of sub-
urban development in the community (10% of the total land area)
representing an increase of 110% over 1966). During the same
period, agricultural land decreased by 89% to 1,610 acres.
Development seems to be displacing agricultural land, almost
acre for acre. This has water quality implications. As resi-
dential and other development continues to compete for prime
agricultural land, farmers will be forced to utilize their
marginal lands in order to continue providing for steadily in-
creasing herd sizes. They cannot compete successfully with
developers for productive land. Clearing of marginal land that
is rocky, shallow, wet or steep will increase erosion and sedi-
mentation of water bodies unless conducted carefully utilizing
conservation practices. it has not yet been determined how
much prime agricultural land there is in West Gardiner.
A number of water quality issues have been identified
by the 208 Plan which affect or are affected by activities in
West Gardiner. A small portion of the Cobbossee Lake drainage
area lies in West Gardiner. This lake has been severely de-
graded in the recent past, and recreational use of this resource
has been greatly impaired as a result. West Gardiner resi-
dents and lakeshore property owners have a direct interest in
the restoration of Cobbossee Lake not only for improved recre-
ational use, but also an improved tax base;
A second water quality issue which concerns West Gardiner
is the protection of two regionally significant water supply
systems — cobbossee Lake, which is the secondary water supply
for the Augusta Water District (also serving parts of Manchester
and East winthrop); and Cobbossee Stream, the primary source
for the Gardiner water District (also serving Farmingdale,
Randolph and Pittston). While west Gardiner depends upon indi-
vidual wells for water supply to its residents, and is not
serviced by either the Augusta or Gardiner water Districts,
it nevertheless must be involved in efforts to protect these
water supplies, as activities in the town could cause problems
for water consumers in a number of other towns.
-273

-------
Activities in West Gardiner presently have a minor
impact on the degraded quality of both lower Cobbossee
Stream and Cobbossee Lake. The water quality of Cobbossee
Stream is currently good to fair, although it becomes degraded
as it passes through Gardiner where three sewage outfalls
flow into it. Construction of the Gardiner wastewater treat-
ment facilities will upgrade the quality of this lower reach
of the stream.
In addition, water quality in lower Cobbossee Stream
as well as Cobbossee Lake is heavily impacted by excessive phos-
phorus loading. The dense algae blooms which result create
expensive pretreatment needs for water utilities which draw
from these sources. For both Cobbossee Lake and lower Cobbos-
see Stream, the source of this phosphorus originates for the
most part outside of West Gardiner. Phosphorus-enriched
water from Annabessacook Lake directly upstream from Cobbossee
Lake, and pleasant Pond, upstream from the Gardiner Water
supply intake on Cobbossee Stream, are the sources of major
significance. Agricultural drainage into Cobbossee Lake and
Cobbossee Stream, including drainage from some west Gardiner
farms, comprises a source of secondary concern.
Water quality in both Cobbossee Lake and Cobbossee
Stream will improve significantly if upstream sources and
agricultural sources to both water bodies can be reduced. The
proposed cobbossee watershed District lake restoration project
will focus local and Federal efforts towards the solution of
these two problems. Through the restoration program, at least
three west Gardiner farmers in the Cobbossee stream drainage
area will be eligible for greater than fifty percent financial
assistance from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency
and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service for
construction of manure storage pits. This will eliminate the
need to spread or pile manure on frozen fields in the winter,
the primary cause of phosphorus runoff from agricultural opera-
tions, and will allow greater efficiency in farming operations.
Another pollutant affecting the cobbossee Lake and
Cobbossee Stream water supplies is sediment from erosion of
agricultural lands and construction sites. Activities in
west Gardiner which cause erosion and sedimentation can have
a direct impact on water quality in Cobbossee Lake and cobbos-
see Stream, and control of this pollutant will become increas-
ingly important as west Gardiner continues to grow.
Erosion and sedimentation of water bodies results from
two processes — direct disturbance of soils and exposure to
erosive winds and rain and disturbances in the hydrology of
an area which cause increased runoff and increased streambank
erosion and flooding. An area that is developing quickly is
likely to suffer from the latter, as impervious surface increase
with a corresponding increase in runoff.
To avoid erosion and sedimentation from land disturbance
and increased stormwater runoff, development should be guided
-274-

-------
to avoid areas which are particularly "sensitive" to disturb-
ance, such as wetlands, floodplains, and other poorly drained
soils, steep slopes (over 15%) and highly erodible or shallow
soils.
The benefits of properly guided growth extend beyond
water quality protection, and include coincidentally the
protection of significant waterfowl and wildlife habitat,
preservation of scenic areas, decreased incidence of flooding,
and decreased costs to the towns for such services as road
ditching to accommodate increased runoff. it could also
potentially include the protection of a future water supply
for west Gardiner, which has at least one area where a high
yielding groundwater supply may exist (see Map 7, Part I).
Protection of its recharge area through growth controls should
compliment efforts to reduce runoff and decrease flooding.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates the town's land use
planning program and presents the major 208 water quality
management recommendations for west Gardiner. For a summary
of the extent to which west Gardiner has already implemented
the recommendations of this Plan, see Tables 23, 24, and 25.
Land use and Open Space - Due to its location, West
Gardiner is likely to be a prime target for growth; yet the
town is not equipped to deal with new development in a way
that will avoid or prevent the destruction of the rural qual-
ities of the town, water quality problems, and costly solutions
to remedy them.
The town does not have either a Planning Board or Con-
servation Commission. It does not participate in planning
activities with other communities, it belongs neither to
the Cobbossee watershed District nor to the Regional planning
Commission.
The community's regulatory program is far from being
comprehensive, as shown below.
	 June 1975	1977
Comprehensive plan
Open Space Plan
Shoreland zoning	x
Zoning
Minimum Lot Size	(state minimum)
Site Plan Review
Subdivision Review
-275-

-------
(continued)
June 197 5
1977
Building Code
Street Construction
Flood Hazard
Mobile Home
Srowth Management
X = Adopted
Shoreland Zoning was imposed by the State and is not en-
forced by local officials. Enforcement of the State Plumbing
Code is also considered lightly. However, the town has recog-
nized the need for a street construction ordinance.
Local attitudes are far more sympathetic to the rights
of the individual than to those of the community in general.
Regulation is seen as a threat from outside rather than as an
opportunity from within the community to influence the future
quality of life.
The reaction against regulation is to some extent well
founded. Controls in some communities in the region do in
fact have a tendency to be arbitrary, exclusionary or unduly
restrictive. However, they need not be. Land use controls,
if carefully developed, can balance the needs of individuals,
social groups and the community in order to avoid unreasonable
public costs, protect resources of value to society, and yet
allow a reasonable degree of individual freedom and oppor-
tunity.
The townspeople and local officials of West Gardiner
should carefully consider what they want the town to be and
to look like in the future. How well will present policies
guide the community in attaining future goals?
Although many factors should be explored, the discussion
below presents what the community should consider as a minimum
land use program to protect future water quality:
1. Runoff from development - The traditional practice
in construction is to get the excess water displaced by pave-
ment and buildings during a storm immediately into the nearest
ditch or brook. As the land becomes more developed, however,
with water running into the gullies from many subdivisions
and commercial areas, the combined amounts erode the channels
causing washouts, sedimentation and reduced water quality.
New land development should not be allowed to cause
stormwater disposal problems, erosion or downstream flooding.
-276-

-------
New stormwater generated should be handled on site via stor-
age, detention or infiltration. This is particularly import-
ant in water supply watersheds such as Cobbossee Lake and
Cobbossee Stream. Specific standards are found in Part I,
Land use planning. Assistance in formulating an appropriate
ordinance should be enlisted from a qualified land use planner
or through membership in the Regional Planning Commission.
Developers should be required to submit stormwater and
erosion control plans for review as part of the ordinance.
The community should consider enlisting the technical assist-
ance of the Kennebec County Soil and water conservation Dist-
rict in the review of these plans. Trust account fees could
also be used to hire professional help for this purpose as
the need arises.
2.	protection of sensitive areas - Growth should be
encouraged to occur in relation to the capability of the land
to accept development. Development on steep slopes, highly
erodible soils, shallow soils and wet soils can cause severe
erosion or drainage problems. Development should not be
allowed to disturb these areas in a manner that will cause
problems.
Wetlands and floodplains absorb stormwater during times
of peak runoff. They slow down the stormwaters, thus mini-
mizing erosion, filtering out pollutants and allowing sediment
to settle. The filling of wetlands and floodplains should
be prohibited in order to protect the natural stormwater
drainage system.
New development should not be allowed to occur in a man-
ner that will degrade groundwater quality, specifically in
the vicinity of the potentially high yield aquifer zone
identified in Map 7, Part I.
Specific standards relating to the protection of sensi-
tive areas are found in part I, Land use planning. Assistance
in formulating an appropriate ordinance should be enlisted
from a qualified land use planner or through membership in
the Regional Planning Commission.
3.	Planning Board and Review procedure - A planning
board should be established and given the authority to review
proposals for new development, in regard to water quality,
criteria for review should consider the protection of sensitive
areas and the control of stormwater runoff. Standards should
be established that will require development to perform in a
manner that will not disrupt water quality, west Gardiner
should consider adopting a site plan review ordinance with
performance standards. The ordinance could provide for sub
division review and building code. The town might also conl
sider redrafting the shoreland zoning ordinance to make it
reflect local concerns, if it does not do so already
-277-

-------
Enforcement - The Selectmen should initiate an effective
enforcement program, particularly in regard to shoreland zon-
ing and the plumbing code. The town should have the services
of a part-time code enforcement officer either by hiring one
on its own or sharing one with adjoining towns (Gardiner or
Litchfield for instance).
Coordination - As indicated earlier, west Gardiner had
little to do with the pollution of Cobbossee Lake. Yet its
degraded state affects recreation opportunities and property
values in West Gardiner. The town should consider cooperat-
ing with other communities in the Cobbossee Watershed so that
it will have a voice in what is done to improve water quality
and what measures are taken to protect it from future degrada-
tion.
Road Salting - West Gardiner should consider implement-
ing the road salting recommendations included in this plan
in part I.
Water and wastewater - in order to insure the protection
of groundwater and to avoid the need for a public water supply
system, the town should cooperate with the u. S. Geological
Survey and the Maine Bureau of Geology in future research on
groundwater quality, quantity and movement. For example, a
recent Bureau of Geology study of groundwater in the SKVRPC
conducted under 208 funding was thwarted in its data collection
efforts by a lack of cooperation from area well drillers.
Town officials should encourage local well drillers to co-
operate in future research programs.
No community wastewater facilities are proposed by this
study.
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, water quality management efforts by other
towns in the Region may be thwarted. in particular, poorly
planned development in west Gardiner may cause continued
degradation of Cobbossee Stream ancl continued high treatment
costs for the Gardiner Water District despite restoration
efforts in Litchfield, Richmond, and Gardiner, poorly guided
development will also adversely affect the quality of life in
West Gardiner itself.
Because of the laxity of regulations and enforcement
in west Gardiner, the town may tend to attract more than its
share of future development in the region. Developers will
recognize and take advantage of the town's weak position in
relation to the stronger regulatory approaches of other towns.
It is possible that west Gardiner could attract lower quality
construction that will leave behind to the town's responsi-
bility problems of poor drainage, erosion, sedimentation,
flooding, and groundwater pollution. In this regard and
-278-

-------
others, it is extremely important that townspeople be aware
of the consequences of community policies.
implementation of the 208 recommendations would create
a series of environmental, social and economic impacts. in
general, water quality in cobbossee Stream and its tributaries
and in Cobbossee Lake will benefit by controls on development
designed to prevent erosion, control stormwater runoff and
protect sensitive areas. This will minimize future pretreat-
ment costs for two regionally significant water supplies
(Cobbossee Lake and Cobbossee Stream). Such controls will
also protect waterfowl, fish and wildlife habitat (including
180 acres of wetlands) and scenic resources in the town.
Impacts of new development on the hydrologic regime will be
minimized, reducing flash flooding and loss of groundwater
recharge, west Gardiner has a potentially high yielding
aquifer that may become an important source of public water
in the future. The economic benefits associated with these
environmental benefits are unquantifiable, but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the
plan recommendations in West Gardiner are also difficult to
assess with any degree of specificity. in general, the town
will be faced with hiring the part-time services of a code
enforcement officer at a minimum cost of approximately $3,000
per year (including overhead). Establishing a planning
Board to review development proposals will entail some mini-
mal administrative costs (part-time secretarial support and
materials) ranging from $300 to $500 per year. Costs incur-
red for the review of specific plans by outside legal and
technical expertise should be borne by the developer and not
the town through a fee schedule. This cost would, of course,
be passed on by the developer to prospective property owners,
but would not escalate the purchase price significantly. The
review is as much for the protection of prospective property
owners as it is for the town. in addition, a substantial
time commitment may be required of Planning Board members for
the review of development proposals (these positions are
customarily unsalaried).
in order to effectively review development proposals,
it is recommended that west Gardiner adopt a site plan review
ordinance, it is recommended that the specifics of the ordi-
nance be worked out with the assistance of a qualified land
use planner either through a special contract (estimated cost
$500 - $1,000) or through membership in the Southern Kennebec
Valley Regional Planning Commission (estimated cost $400 -
$500 per year). Adoption of such an ordinance will require
an intensive educational process to overcome prejudices within
the town against regulations of any kind.
-279-

-------
Finally, the plan recommends that West Gardiner consider
joining the Cobbossee Watershed District in order to have a
voice in District policies and programs affecting water qual-
ity in the Cobbossee drainage (West Gardiner is almost wholly
within the drainage system served by the District). Annual
costs would range from $800 to $1,400 based on property valu-
ations (1973) on Cobbossee Lake, Cobbossee Stream and lower
Pleasant Pond.
-280-

-------
WHITEFIELD
The Setting
A Lincoln county town, Whitefield has the second larg-
est land area in the Southern Kennebec region, encompassing
46.7 square miles. The attractive rural community is almost
bisected north and south by the Sheepscott River. The town
experienced a slow growth rate of 6% during the sixties but
has grown rapidly between 1970 and 197 5. During that period,
population expanded from 1,131 to 1,449, approximately 28%.
Dominated by forest, land use in Whitefield in 1974
included 6% low density development, 12% agricultural land
and 5% wetland. In fact, after Richmond, whitefield had the
second greatest acreage of farmland in the region encompass-
ing 3,180 acres. However, this land is being lost to develop-
ment. Between 1966 and 1974 about as many acres of farmland
were lost as were converted to development.
Drainage in Whitefield is primarily into the Sheepscott
River; the town also includes the headwaters of the Eastern
River. These rivers are classified as Bl and are of good
quality. The Sheepscott is very scenic and provides oppor-
tunities for swimming, fishing and boating, in fact, it is
a noted white water canoeing spot in the spring and supports
a good Atlantic Salmon population, although it is a fairly
warm river.
The Eastern River supports an Atlantic Sturgeon run,
and downstream, in Pittston and Dresden, it is a popular spot
for smelt fishermen.
Clary Lake is the only major pond in the town. Accord-
ing to information gathered by the Department of Environmental
Protection Agency's lay monitoring program, the shallow pond
currently has low to moderate water quality, supporting summer
algae blooms; however the sources of phosphorus degrading the
pond have not been determined.
These water bodies should be protected against future
water quality degradation from excessive phosphorus and sedi-
mentation. phosphorus is a nutrient which in excess causes
nuisance algae blooms.
Water quality monitoring activities in other lakes and
streams of the region have indicated that runoff from agri-
culture and from developed areas are the chief sources of
both phosphorus and sediment. Development can greatly increase
both phosphorus loading and sedimentation of lakes. Increased
phosphorus loading results from lawn fertilization, leaf
burning, pet wastes, etc. and increased runoff created by
impervious surfaces to transport the phosphorus to the lakes.
-281

-------
Erosion and sedimentation can be increased by improper con-
struction procedures and the increased erosive force created
by increased runoff.
A number of areas could create severe erosion or run-
off problems if developed, and should be appropriately pro-
tected. They have been collectively termed "sensitive" areas,
and include wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, highly
erodible soils, non-discharge soils, and shallow soils. Be-
cause the displacement of agriculture from prime soils to
marginal soils often creates erosion and runoff problems,
prime agricultural lands are considered "sensitive" and de-
serving protection. It is not known how much prime agri-
cultural land is found in Whitefield.
Protection of groundwater is another water quality issue
of concern to Whitefield as its residents rely on individual
well systems (and some lake water) for water supply. There
are two areas in Whitefield which have been identified as
potentially high yielding groundwater aquifers (see Map 7,
part I). Recharge areas to these aquifers should also be
considered "sensitive" and protected from a significant in-
crease in impervious cover or activities which could transmit
pollutants to the aquifer.
In summary, the significant water quality issues in
Whitefield focus on the protection of groundwater and other
sensitive areas, the control of stormwater, erosion and sedi-
mentation from new development, and improved land use planning
and code enforcement.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates whitefield's land
use planning program and presents the major water quality
recommendations for the town. For a summary of the specific
recommendations of this plan and the extent to which white-
field has already implemented them, see Tables 23, 24, and 25.
Land use and Open Space - Responding to recent growth
pressures, the whitefield Planning Board prepared several land
use ordinances which were then adopted by the town as shown
below. The town is neither a member of the Flood Hazard
insurance program nor the Regional Planning commission.
282

-------
June 1975 July 1977
Comprehensive Plan
Open Space Plan
Shoreland Zoning
Areawide zoning
Minimum Lot Size
Site Plan Review
Subdivision Review
Building Code
Street Construction
Flood Hazard
Mobile Home
Growth Management
Sand/Gravel Mining & Reclamation
X = Adopted
UC = Under consideration
The regulatory program that Whitefield has adopted is
the most inclusive review process of any municipality in the
region. The Site Plan Review and Subdivision ordinances put
the town in a good position to insure properly planned develop-
ment. A sand/gravel mining and reclamation ordinance under
consideration will be a significant addition to Whitefield1s
program. The town's comprehensive plan, a major step towards
acquainting townspeople with the issues of growth in the com-
munity, is also well done.
Clearly, whitefield has made significant strides toward
a comprehensive land use planning process, in refining this
program in the future to strengthen water quality protection,
the town should consider the following suggestions as well
as the specific recommendations in Tables 23, 24, and 25.
1. In reviewing development proposals, the following
criterion should be used: new land development should not
be allowed to create stormwater disposal problems, erosion or
sedimentation. This performance standard, already part of
site plan and subdivision review ordinances, should be imple-
mented so that new stormwater generated is handled on site
via storage, detention or infiltration.
X
X
(2 acres)
X
X
UC
-283-

-------
The Planning Board should consider enlisting the tech-
nical assistance of the Kennebec County Soil and Water Conser-
vation District in the review of stormwater and sedimentation
and erosion control plans for new development. Trust account
fees could also be used to hire professional help for this
purpose as the need arises.
2.	A more comprehensive study of land capability
should be made to give the Planning Board, developers and
others an indication of the kinds of problems that may be en-
countered with a given development. This analysis could be
developed through a map overlay procedure that would allow
the compositing of land use constraints in order to identify
the degree of suitability of a parcel and the constraints
that may pose problems for development. A composite tax map
used with the suitability analysis will allow the Planning
Board to quickly locate a given proposal.
Such a land capability analysis will also provide a
basis for future land use planning. in particular, this map-
ping system could be used by the conservation Commission in
its efforts to develop an open space program for the, community.
3.	The clause of "land not suitable for development"
found in the subdivision ordinance could also be provided for
in the site plan review ordinance and building permit procedure
(included in the minimum lot size ordinance). The town should
also consider applying the other recommended standards of this
Plan in regard to sensitive areas to all new development.
4.	Since agricultural land is so abundant and one of
the major resources of the community, the Board should identi-
fy its prime agricultural land and devise a program for its
protection. It may desire to work with the U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service and the Regional Planning commission in
this effort.
5.	The town should reconsider whether an area-wide
minimum lot size of two acres is the most effective, equitable
and desirable method to control the rate of growth, protect
water quality and rural character, and meet other objectives.
Large lot zoning tends to produce exclusive communities, to
waste valuable land resources and to significantly increase
the costs of public services. A two acre minimum doesn't
discourage the loss of farmlandt in fact it may have the op-
posite effect of increasing economic pressures on the farmers.
One advantage of large lots is that they generally mini-
mize stormwater runoff problems. However, other methods may
be more equitable such as the provision of incentives for
cluster development in the regulatory program. In this way,
development can be guided to the most suitable areas and sensi-
tive areas can be protected as open space. A phased growth
management program may also control the rate of growth in a
more rationale manner.
284

-------
Coordination - The coordination of sewer and land use
planning is presently unnecessary as whitefield has no public
sewer system or plans for one in the future.
Enforcement - Whitefield should consider upgrading its
code enforcement capabilities. The town presently has an
unsalaried code enforcement officer and a plumbing inspector
who is reimbursed on a fee basis for each inspection. In
addition to plumbing inspection, other ordinances should be
strongly supported through professional enforcement. The town
should consider sharing a salaried code enforcement officer
with other communities on the eastern side of the river.
Pittston, Randolph and Chelsea, for instance, have indicated
an interest in forming such an agreement.
Water Supply and Wastewater - Local officials should
support future groundwater research by the u. S. Geological
Survey or the Maine Bureau of Geology. in addition, the town
should provide for the ground checking of the areas identified
by the recent Bureau of Geology study as potential high yield
aquifers, and if verified, investigate controls to avoid a
significant loss in recharge capability or contamination
(solid waste disposal, sludge or septage disposal, etc.). No
community wastewater facilities are proposed in this study.
Education - Whitefield should consider ways to improve
local awareness of town regulations and ordinances. The
Plumbing inspector should distribute informational literature
to homeowners regarding water consumption reduction and the
proper functioning and maintenance of waste disposal systems
in order to avoid future septic system failures.
Road Salting - Whitefield should consider implementing
the road salting recommendations included in this plan in part
I.
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts
Because Whitefield has a relatively advanced land use
control program, the Plan recommendations concentrate on
refinements in technical review of stormwater and erosion con-
trol, and adequate enforcement, without these refinements,
particularly in enforcement, the effectiveness of Whitefield's
controls may be compromised.
To hire a part-time code enforcement officer in conjunc-
tion with adjacent towns, costs may range from $2,000 to $3,000,
including salary and expenses.
To obtain increased technical review and mapping capa-
bilities through membership in the SKVRPC, Whitefield would
be asked to expend approximately $400.00.
-285-

-------
WINDSOR
The Setting
Windsor is a fast-growing community located on the
northeastern border of the Southern Kennebec valley Region.
The population increased 76% between 1960 and 1975, rising
from 878 to 1,545. Residential development has been attracted
to a great degree by the rural setting, proximity to Augusta
and the low tax rate. Low density development accounted for 1%
(1,343 acres) of the land area in 1974. Wetlands and agri-
cultural land, however, comprised greater percentages, 9%
(1,794 acres) and 11% (2,108 acres) respectively, in fact,
Windsor is second in the region after Augusta in the number
of acres of wetland. It ranks fifth in the region in acreage
of agricultural land.
Encompassing 34.9 square miles, Windsor is drained by
several streams including parts of the East and West Branches
of the Sheepscott River. Both branches have good water qual-
ity, the East Branch supporting brook and rainbow trout as
well as land locked salmon, the West Branch providing nursery
areas for the Atlantic Salmon. Long Pond which forms a small
portion of the town's eastern border, is a widening of the
Sheepscott. Three Mile Pond in northwestern Windsor is a
shallow, naturally productive lake, it was identified by the
Department of Environmental Protection in 1975 to be one of
the top twenty culturally stressed lakes in Maine. At one
time, residents were applying copper sulphate to reduce algae
production. Although this condition may have improved, Wind-
sor should aslc the DEP to investigate the current quality of
this pond in order to determine whether protective measures are
needed.
All of Windsor's water resources should be protected
against future water quality degradation. Water quality moni-
toring activities in other lakes and streams of the region
have indicated that runoff from agriculture and from developed
areas are the chief causes of alga© blooms. Algae blooms
result when a waterbody receives excessive amounts of phos-
phorus , a plant nutrient.
Excessive phosphorus runoff from agricultural operations
results from inadequate handling of animal manures — spread-
ing or piling too close to water bodies, or on frozen ground.
The latter practice is the major problem as manure then runs
off into streams and ponds during spring snowmelt. The solu-
tion, winter storage of manure, is extremely costly, and
hence few farmers have been able to afford proper management.
Development can greatly increase both phosphorus load-
ing and sedimentation of lakes and streams, increased phos-
phorus loading results from lawn fertilization, leaf burning,
-286-

-------
pet wastes, etc. and increased runoff created by impervious
surfaces to transport the phosphorus to the lakes. Erosion
and sedimentation can be increased by improper construction
procedures and the increased erosive force created by in-
creased runoff. Controlling sedimentation of Windsor's trout
and salmon streams should be a prime concern to the town.
A number of areas could create severe erosion or run-
off problems if developed, and should be appropriately pro-
tected. They have been collectively termed "sensitive"
areas, and include wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes,
highly erodible soils, non-discharge soils, and shallow soils.
Because development of prime agricultural lands leads to
more intensive use of marginal lands which are susceptible
to runoff and erosion problems (marginal lands are often
steep, wet or shallow to bedrock) protection of these lands
is also warranted.
Protection of groundwater is another water quality
issue of concern to Windsor as its residents rely on individ-
ual well systems for water supply. There are two areas in
Windsor which have been identified as potentially high yield-
ing groundwater aquifers (see Map 7, Part I). Recharge
areas to these aquifers should also be considered "sensitive"
and protected from a significant increase in impervious cover
or activities which could transmit pollutants to the aquifer.
In summary, water quality issues in Windsor focus on
the protection of groundwater and other sensitive areas; the
control of stormwater, erosion and sedimentation from new
development; the reduction of manure runoff from agricultural
operations, particularly in the watersheds of sensitive ponds;
and improved land use planning and code enforcement.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Windsor's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality recom-
mendations for the town. For a summary of the specific land
use recommendations of this Plan and the extent to which
Windsor has already implemented them, see Tables 23, 24, 25.
Land Use and Open Space - Responding to growth pres-
sures, Windsor has been gradually improving its capability to
deal with land use change.
-287-

-------
June 1975 June 1977
Comprehensive Plan


Open Space plan


Shoreland Zoning

X
Areawide Zoning


Minimum Lot Size
(2 acres)

Site Plan Review


Subdivision Review

X
Building Code
X
UC
Street Construction

X
Flood Hazard

X
Mobile Home
X
X
srowth Management


Sand/Gravel Mining & Reclamation

UC
X = Adopted
UC = Under consideration (including
revisions)

During the last year, the Planning Board has been working
on an ordinance that will regulate sand and gravel raining and
reclamation. Windsor, like whitefield, possesses a large
quantity of sand and gravel resources which are intensively
mined. The Board is also considering revisions to the build-
ing code and is interested in undertaking a land capability
analysis for the community, in these activities and other
efforts to strengthen the town's ability to protect water re-
sources, the Planning Board should consider the following
suggestions as well as the specific recommendations summarized
on Tables 23, 24, and 25.
1. A thorough study of land capability will give the
town two major benefits: it will provide information upon which
to base future comprehensive planning and it will give the
Planning Board, developers and others an indication of the
kinds of problems that may be encountered with a given develop-
ment. This analysis could be developed through a map overlay
procedure that would allow the compositing of land use con-
straints in order to identify the degree of suitability of a
parcel and the constraints that may pose problems for develop-
ment. A composite tax map used with the suitability analysis
will allow the planning Board to quickly locate a particular
proposal, in undertaking the land capability analysis, the
-288-

-------
Planning Board should consider the sensitive areas identified
in part I as well as other factors not related to water
quality.
2.	The subdivision ordinance could be further improved
to protect water quality. The present review procedure does
not require a stormwater plan or erosion and sedimentation
control plan to be submitted with an application, although
the Planning Board is given the authority to request additional
information. If the town does not desire to change the word-
ing of the ordinance to specifically request these items,
then the Board should consider adopting a policy that such
additional information be requested on a routine basis.
In regard to stormwater runoff, the Planning Board should
use the following criterion for review: new land development
should not be allowed to create stormwater disposal problems,
erosion, sedimentation, or downstream flooding. Additional
stormwater generated should be handled on site via storage,
detention or infiltration.
The Board should consider enlisting the technical assist-
ance of the Southern Kennebec Valley Regional planning Com-
mission in developing plan requirements and the Kennebec County
Soil and Water Conservation District in the review of storm-
water and sedimentation and erosion control plans. Trust
account fees could also be used to hire professional help for
this purpose as the need arises.
3.	In reviewing subdivision permit applications, the
Planning Board should routinely ask developers to show the
locations of sensitive areas on a location map as well as the
subdivision plan. Developers can obtain this information
from the town's land capability analysis, but should also map
sensitive areas that do not appear at the town scale but are
apparent from a more detailed inspection of the site in ques-
tion. This information will help the planning Board to assess
the impact of a subdivision proposal on the environment and
will allow it to attach conditions of approval that will pro-
tect sensitive areas and water quality.
4.	Windsor should also consider expanding its review
jurisdiction to include new commercial, industrial, and multi-
family residential developments that may not be covered by
the subdivision regulations. Such land use activities can
also cause stormwater problems, especially as the town gradu-
ally grows, and can severely impact water resources. The town
should consider adopting a site plan review or zoning ordinance
to insure an adequate review procedure for these kinds of
development.
5.	The street construction ordinance could also be
improved according to the recommendations suggested in Part
I.
-289-

-------
6.	in addition, the town should consider restricting
certain sensitive areas from development, wetlands and
floodplains, in particular, are a vital asset that should be
protected, wetlands and floodplains provide a natural stor-
age system for floodwaters and also filter out sediments and
other pollutants. The filling or draining of wetlands and
floodplains should be prohibited in order to avoid costly
public expenditures in the future for the construction of
stormwater systems and flood protection devices.
The town should also consider the protection of its
streams with a 7 5 foot setback requirement for all develop-
ment. This could be added to the shoreland zoning ordinance.
Unfortunately, this ordinance applies only to selected streams,
and for adequate protection of the trout and salmon resource,
should be extended to include all streams.
Other sensitive areas deserving protection are discussed
in part I.
7.	The town should reconsider whether an areawide mini-
mum lot size of two acres is the most equitable and desirable
method to control the rate of growth, protect water quality
and rural character, and meet other objectives. Large lot
zoning tends to produce exclusive communities, to waste valu-
able land resources, and to significantly increase the costs
of public services, other methods may have more beneficial
results. For instance* a provision to allow and to encourage
cluster development could be included in the town's regulatory
program. In this way, development can be guided to the most
suitable areas and sensitive areas protected as open space.
Another method, a phased growth management program, may also
control the rate of growth in a more rationale manner.
8.	Lastly, to protect its ponds from excessive phosphorus
runoff, Windsor'should encourage its farmers to follow the
"Maine Guidelines for Manure and Manure Sludge Disposal", in
particular, farmers should not spread animal manures within
100 feet of any water body, or pile manure within 300 feet of
a water body. The town should also encourage farmers to con-
struct winter manure storage facilities so that they do not
have to spread or pile manure in the winter months on frozen
ground. This latter practice leads to heavy manure runoff
with spring snowmelt and is primarily responsible for excessive
phosphorus runoff from agricultural operations throughout the
Region. However, few farmers have been able to afford these
expensive facilities which could cost from $8,000 to $20,000.
In its efforts to encourage proper manure handling, the town
should be careful to avoid economic hardship? any requirements
must be tied to financial capability and availability of
Federal cost-sharing assistance.
Coordination - The coordination of sewer and land use
planning is presently not necessary in Windsor which has no
public sewer system or plans for one in the future.
-290-

-------
Enforcement - If the town's recent actions to improve
code enforcement prove ineffective, Windsor should consider
sharing a code enforcement officer with other towns such as
Chelsea and Whitefield. The SKVRPC is available to assist
communities in forming interlocal agreements.
water Supply and Wastewater - Local officials should
support future groundwater research by the u. S. Geological
Survey or the Maine Bureau of Geology. In addition, the town
should provide for the ground checking of areas identified by
the recent Bureau of Geology study as potential high yield
aquifers, and if verified, investigate controls to avoid a
significant loss in recharge capability or contamination
(solid waste disposal, sludge or septage disposal, etc.).
Education - Windsor should consider ways to improve
local awareness of town regulations and ordinances. The
Plumbing inspector should distribute informational literature
to homeowners regarding water consumption reduction and the
proper functioning and maintenance of waste disposal systems
in order to avoid future septic system failures.
Road Salting - Windsor should consider implementing
the road salting recommendations included in this plan.
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
discussed above, land use activities in the town of Windsor
could cause increased algae blooms on Three Mile Pond, and
sedimentation of the East and West Branches of the Sheepscot
River. The result would be a loss of trout and salmon fish-
ing resources as well as aesthetic and recreational values.
In addition, valuable wetlands could be lost, up to
1,300 acres, with a resulting loss in wildlife habitat, flood
storage capacity, and scenic resources. This, combined with
stormwater runoff problems caused by ill-planned development,
could cause increased flash flooding, with the town facing
repeated and unnecessary repairs and improvements to its
drainage system (more frequent road ditching and replacement
of culverts).
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social and economic impacts, water
quality will be protected and the adverse affects of uncon-
trolled development discussed above* avoided. The economic
benefits associated with these environmental benefits are
unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the recom-
mendations are also difficult to assess with any specificity.
is recQn®ie*1cled that Windsor require erosion and stormwater
C2n^5o1 Plans of all developers. Costs to the town for review
or these plans should be minimized if the developer is charged
-291-

-------
a fee for review processes. Undoubtedly this fee will be
passed on to prospective property owners, but shouldn't esca-
late unit prices significantly. This is an equitable way of
distributing review costs since the review is for the protect-
ion of prospective property owners as much as the town in
general.
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available
to the town of Windsor through its membership in the Southern
Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission. No additional
costs for these revisions need be incurred as a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be
minimal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary criteria. A few property
owners whose property consists largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" lands may lose the option of subdividing at some eco-
nomic disadvantage? but this is unavoidable and should be
compensated by reduced property tax rates.
Finally, ground checking of potential high yield ground-
water aquifers could cost the town from $500 to $1,000 per
site, according to Maine Bureau of Geology estimates.
-292

-------
WINTHROP
The Setting
Winthrop is one of the fastest growing communities in
the Southern Kennebec Valley Region. Between 1960 and 1975
the population increased forty percent, growing from 3,531
to 4,941. Winthrop is now the third most populated community
in the region. Rapidly becoming a bedroom community, Win-
throp also supports a significant seasonal population and
a few manufacturing concerns. In 1974, 73% of the land area
of the town was forested, 13% had been developed and about
9% was in agricultural use. The compact village area is the
only pocket of dense development in the region in a community
that does not border the Kennebec River.
A recreational resort community, winthrop possesses
over 5,000 acres of water. The town is located within the
drainage areas of several lakes and ponds including Annabessa-
cook, Maranacook, Cobbossee, Little Cobbossee, Carlton,
Wilson, Dexter, Berry and Upper and Lower Narrows» All of
these are used for recreation. The Winthrop water District
uses Upper Narrows Pond and Maranacook Lake as its primary
and secondary sources of water supply, respectively. The
Augusta Water District relies upon Carlton Pond and Cobbossee
Lake as its primary and secondary water supplies. The water
quality status of Winthrop's lakes is indicated in the
following table.
-293-

-------
Lake
Current water
quality
Current Major
sources of
phosphorus^
Assimilative
Capacity2
Need for
Pro-
tection
knnabes-
sacook
Lake
Low
Lake Bottom
Sediments 36%
Agriculture 24%
Upstream 24%
Development 11%
High
High
Berry
Pond
Moderate
Agriculture 75%
Forests 20%
High
High
Dexter
Pond
Moderate
Upstream 65%
Agriculture 15%
High
Moderate
Cobbos-
see
Lake
Low
Upstream 56%
Agriculture 30%
Development 8%
Moderate
High
Little
Cobbos-
see
Lake
Low
Agriculture 60%
Development 22%
High
High
Lower
Narrows
Pond
Moderate
Development 36%
Agriculture 24%
Low
High
Marana-
cook
Lake
(Lower
Basin)
Moderate
Upstream 40%
Agriculture 30%
Development 20%
High
Low
Upper
Narrows
Pond
Moderate
Agriculture 56%
Development 24%
Low
High
Wilson
Pond
Moderate
Agriculture 40%
Upstream 40%
Development 10%
High
Low
Phosphorus is the major source of lake pollution in
the region.
2 A measure of a lake's ability to absorb phosphorus
and other nutrients without degradation.
-294*

-------
It is significant that six out of nine lakes in Winthrop
are in the "high need for protection" category. Three are so
designated because they are presently low quality, eutrophic
lakes: Annabessacook, Cobbossee and Little Cobbossee Lakes.
Annabessacook Lake, until recently, had a long history of
point source pollution from municipal and industrial sources.
The degradation of this lake then caused the decline of
Cobbosee Lake, directly downstream. Both lakes continue to
be severely stressed by the residual effects of these point
sources which were diverted to the Augusta Sewage Treatment
facility between 1972 and 1976. Phosphorus that was deposited
in Annabessacook Lake in the past is now re-entering the
water from the lake bottom sediments due to its stressed con-
dition, and continues to cause algae blooms in Annabessacook
and then, as it flushes downstream, Cobbossee Lake. As a
result, these lakes are sensitive to other sources of phosphor-
us which, without the stress caused by point sources, would
not have degraded the lakes. The second most significant
source of phosphorus on cobbossee and Annabessacook Lakes to-
day is runoff from manured fields. Little cobbossee Lake is
affected primarily by agricultural runoff.
To adequately restore these lakes, agricultural runoff
as well as the in-lake recycling of phosphorus from bottom
sediments must be curtailed. The Cobbossee Watershed District
has proposed a Federally funded lake restoration project for
these eutrophic lakes which would stop internal phosphorus
recycling from the sediments through chemical treatment with
alum, and would reduce, to the extent feasible, other phos-
phorus inputs from agriculture through the construction of man-
ure storage facilities for dairy and poultry farmers. Three
poultry operations have been identified in Winthrop which may
need storage or piling facilities.
Three other lakes have a high need for protection due
to their low assimilative capacity or marginal water quality.
These are Berry Pond, Lower Narrows pond and Upper Narrows
Pond.
Protecting all of Winthrop's lakes from future water
quality degradation should be a prime concern for the town.
Even lakes which have a moderate to low need for protection
could suffer from higher levels of algae production (although
they are not projected to reach nuisance levels) and increased
turbidity from erosion and sedimentation unless land use
activities are properly controlled.
The construction of manure storage facilities as pro-
posed in the Cobbossee Watershed District lakes restoration
project will adequately control phosphorus runoff from agri-
culture in the Annabessacook, Cobbossee and Little Cobbossee
Lake drainages. To achieve a similar degree of control in the
other lake drainages, Federal cost sharing of 60% to 90% as
afforded by the CWD lakes restoration project will have to be
made avail-able to farmers.
-295-

-------
The other potentially significant cause of future water
quality degradation which must be controlled is runoff from
new developments. Development, the fastest growing land use
in the region, can greatly increase both phosphorus loading
and sedimentation of lakes. increased phosphorus loading
results from lawn fertilization, leaf burning, pet wastes,
etc. and increased runoff created by impervious surfaces to
transport the phosphorus to the lakes. Controlling increases
in runoff created by development will do much to control
phosphorus additions at the same time.
Erosion and sedimentation of water bodies results from
two processes — direct disturbance of soils and exposure to
erosive winds and rain and disturbances in the natural
hydrology of an area which result in increased runoff with
resultant streambank and gully erosion as well as flooding.
An area that is developing quickly is likely to suffer from
both of these processes, as large tracts of land are bull-
dozed and impervious surfaces are increased with a correspond-
ing increase in runoff.
To avoid these effects, development should be required
to follow strict performance standards, and should be avoided
or severely limited in certain areas which are especially
"sensitive" to disturbance, either due to erosion potential
or hydrologic factors. Sensitive areas in Winthrop include
300 acres of wetlands, floodplains, other wet soils, steep
slopes, highly erodible soils and shallow soils. Because the
displacement of agriculture from prime soils to marginal soils
often creates erosion and runoff problems, the prime agricult-
ural lands are considered by this study to be "sensitive" and
deserving protection. The extent of prime agricultural land
in Winthrop has not been determined.
Protection of groundwater is another water quality issue
of concern to winthrop as many residents rely on individual
well systems for water supply. There is at least one area in
Winthrop which has been identified as a potentially high yield-
ing groundwater acquifer (see Map 7, Part I). Recharge
areas to this aquifer should also be considered "sensitive"
and protected from a significant increase in impervious cover
or activities which could transmit pollutants to the aquifer.
Yet another water quality issue which concerns Winthrop
is the solution of several domestic wastewater disposal prob-
lems. Approximately eight problem areas were identified in
which individual on-site correction or connection to an exist-
ing or proposed sewer system were not feasible solutions for
both economic and environmental reasons. These include 2
areas on Annabessacook Lake; 3 areas on cobbossee Lake; 2
areas on Lower Narirows Pond; and one area on Maranacook Lake.
Cluster septic systems (systems serving a number of homes)
were recommended by the 208 study as the most cost effective
and environmentally sound solution. Extending a sewer would
trigger intensive growth pressures along the lakeshores and
would create more of a water quality problem than the failing
-296-

-------
septic systems it would eliminate. Detailed lake studies on
Annabessacook Lake, cobbossee Lake, and Upper and Lower Nar-
rows Ponds indicated that while septic systems may contribute
1 or 2 percent of the total annual phosphorus loading to
these lakes, development contributed from 8 to 36 percent of
the loading.
A final water quality issue of concern to Winthrop is
the management and maintenance of the trunkline interceptor
sewer which collects wastes from Monmouth, Winthrop, and
Manchester and transports these to Augusta. A breakdown in
this system could severely degrade Cobbossee and Annabessacook
Lakes as wastes could be discharged to these lakes in an
emergency.
In summary, the significant water quality issues in
Winthrop focus on the lakes and include: the improvement of
water quality in Annabessacook and Cobbossee Lakes? the
protection of sensitive lakesheds and water supplies; the
management and maintenance of the inter-community trunkline;
the extension of sewers; the development of cluster septic
systems to serve identified problem areas; and improved land
use planning.
Existing and Recommended Actions
The following discussion evaluates Winthrop's land use
planning program and presents the major water quality manage-
ment recommendations for the town. For a summary of the spec-
ific land use recommendations of this plan for local action
and the extent to which they have been implemented, see Tables
23, 24, and 25.
Land Use and Open Space - To deal with the pressures of
growth, Winthrop has developed a relatively aggressive program
of land use regulation including the controls below:
-297-

-------
June 1975
June 1977
Comprehensive plan
X
X
Open Space Plan
X
•>
Shoreland Zoning

uc
Areawide Zoning
X
uc
Minimum Lot Size
some zones
some zones
Site plan Review


Subdivision Review
X
R
Building Code


Street construction
X
R
Flood Hazard
X
X
Mobile Home
X
X
Growth Management


X = Adopted
UC = Under consideration
R = Has been revised
The first attempt at many of these ordinances included
loopholes or weaknesses that made the Planning Board's task
of dealing with land use change difficult. Thus the Board
has begun an effort to strengthen these controls. This spring
the town adopted the Board's revised Subdivision Standards and
Street Construction Ordinance. The Board plans to begin re-
vising the areawide and shoreland zoning ordinances in the
near future, presently the shoreland zoning ordinance is
State imposed. They hope to get public input in to these
processes.
in regard to water quality protection, however, the
revised subdivision standards still have a few basic weaknesses:
1. Although they ask the developer to show on the
subdivision plan the locations of natural fea-
tures influencing the layout of the proposal,
they do not specify which natural features are
to be shown. From a water quality standpoint,
the Board should ask for the locations of
sensitive areas on a site location plan and
the subdivision plan &s described i» part I.
The review process should proscribe
conditions so that these areas are not
-298-

-------
disturbed in a manner that will impair water
quality. Of primary importance is the need
to prevent the filling of wetlands, flood-
plains and other wet soils which regulate the
natural storm drainage system.
2. Secondly, the subdivision regulations avoid
the issue of stormwater management and eros-
ion and sedimentation control. This is a
serious omission, as Winthrop lies in the
drainage areas of six lakes and ponds which
have a high need for protection as discussed
above.
A performance standard should be added to the
ordinance to regulate stormwater runoff. For
example: "Whenever attainable, a change in
land use should not be allowed to increase the
rate or amount of runoff from a site beyond
that which existed prior to that change in land
uses. Additional runoff created by a change
in land use should be retained on site for
infiltration within a reasonable time to the
extent that soils, slopes, and other features
of the site permit. If this is not attainable,
the additional runoff should not be allowed to
leave the site at such a rate as to increase
downstream peak flows".
Developers should be required to submit storm-
water and erosion control plans for review,
presently the shoreland zoning ordinance re-
quires that earth-moving activities conform
to accepted erosion control practices, but
requires no plan. The Planning Board should
consider enlisting the technical assistance of
the SKVRPC for development of plan requirements
and the Kennebec County Soil and Water Con-
servation District for review of the plans.
Trust account fees could also be used to hire
professional help for review purposes in order
to avoid public expenditures.
The present areawide zoning ordinance designated five
zones on the basis of permitted land use. The Watershed Zone
is the only one delineated on the basis of natural resource
considerations and having performance standards to help pro-
tect the water resource, in all other zones there is no site
plan review procedure for new development to insure properly
planned development. This major weakness should be addressed
either in the upcoming revision of the zoning ordinance or
through new ordinances such as a site plan review ordinance
and/or a stormwater and erosion control ordinance.
Suggestions for improvement include:
-299-

-------
1.	Land capability should be one of the major con-
siderations in the designation of zoning dist-
rict boundaries. The analysis prepared for the
Conservation Commission a few years ago could
be used as a starting point to determine land
capability.
2.	The zoning ordinance should also include a re-
view procedure for new development such as com-
mercial, industrial, and multi-family residential
not covered by the subdivision ordinance. Storm-
water and erosion control plans should be re-
quired of all proposals. The locations of sensi-
tive areas should be required to be shown on
site location plans and development plans.
3.	performance standards should be included to pro-
tect water quality, regulating stormwater, sedi-
mentation and erosion as well as the disturbance
of sensitive areas. (See Part I.)
4.	The zoning ordinance should include a cluster
development provision with incentives to encour-
age the use of the most suitable land and the
protection of sensitive areas and open space.
As an alternative to the regulatory program described
above, which reflects the existing system but nevertheless in-
cludes a somewhat confusing overlap of performance standards
in the zoning and subdivision regulations, winthrop could
consider the following:
1.	A zoning ordinance specifying uses and densities
allowed in various zones; and
2.	A site plan review ordinance incorporating per-
formance standards for subdivisions, commercial
and industrial uses to control erosion and storm-
water runoff and to protect sensitive areas.
And finally, land use recommendations for winthrop sug-
gest that the conservation commission follow through on its
desire to develop a land trust or easement program. With the
help of the Planning Board they should develop a priority list
of the kinds of land and water resources that would be desir-
able to protect as open space. They can then work with land-
owners in encouraging the preservation of such areas. Such
an effort should be seriously considered in order to plan for
the future open space needs of the rapidly growing community.
The visual character analysis that the conservation Commission
is considering undertaking will help to identify priority areas
and will also increase public awareness of the importance that
natural resources have in defining the "image" of the commun-
ity.
-300-

-------
Coordination - The coordination of land use planning
and utilities extension planning should continue to be a
high priority for Winthrop. In particular, long range utili-
ties planning should be coordinated with zoning revision
efforts.
Water and wastewater - A member of the inter-community
trunkline group, Winthrop regards upgrading the Augusta-Mon-
mouth trunkline as a high priority for interlocal cooperation.
The town should also consider cooperating with other trunk-
line communities in formalizing a regional treatment authority.
If this occurs, Winthrop should consider giving up the manage-
ment of its stormwater system to the regional authority if
stormwater management is one of its functions.
The Winthrop water District should continue to develop
a long range utilities extension plan as well as a capital
improvement program. Utilities should only be extended after
a thorough environmental assessment of their impacts on
Maranacook, Annabessacook and other water bodies and in con-
junction with a future land use plan for the community.
In addition there are several problem areas where clus-
ter septic systems should be constructed. These should be
managed by the winthrop water District.
High Priority
Annabessacook Lake Tax Map 13, 16
Cobbossee Lake	" " 40, 41
Lower Narrows	" " 25
Medium Priority
Annabessacook Lake	Tax Map 17
Cobbossee Lake	" " 9, 18
Lower Narrows	" " 22
Maranacook	" " 11, 56
Low priority
Cobbossee Lake	Tax Map 15
The District should seek State-Federal funds for the construc-
tion of these systems. Up to 90% cost sharing is available.
Other problem areas exist which do not appear to be
suitable for cluster systems, in most cases the density is too
low to offset the expense of a cluster system. The areas listed
below should be investigated for treatment as recommended in
the report entitled, Non-Sewered Areas wastewater Disposal
Problems, Phase Hi;	1		
Annabessacook Lake	Tax Map 17
Cobbossee Lake	" " 8, 18
Lower Narrows	" " 21, 29
Maranacook Lake	" " n
-301-

-------
Education - In strengthening land use controls, the
Planning Board should continue to work with other boards,
developers and citizens. The Board should outline for towns-
people what options are open to meet future needs and to re-
solve conflicts between development and natural resource pro-
tection. The implications of selecting a given alternative
should be identified, particularly the public expenditures
associated with each alternative. The option of continuing
without adequate controls should be evaluated as well. By
presenting the alternatives to townspeople before recommend-
ing a given course of action, the Planning Board can develop
support for the program that is finally decided upon.
This process will allow an opportunity to increase
public awareness of the connection between land use activities
and water quality degradation and the need to be prepared for
growth in order to protect the town.
The code Enforcement Officer should distribute informa-
tion to homeowners regarding water consumption reduction and
septic system maintenance.
Road Salting - Winthrop should consider implementing the
road salting recommendations included in Part I.
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts
If no action is taken to implement the recommendations
outlined above, land use activities in the town of winthrop
could result in declining water quality in Maranacook Lake,
Wilson Pond, Carlton Pond, Dexter pond, Berry pond and Upper
and Lower Narrows ponds. In addition, efforts to improve water
quality in Annabessacook Lake# cobbossee Lake and Little cob-
bossee Lake could be compromised. The resultant poor quality
of several of these lakes, used for water supply, could neces-
sitate costly pretreatment and higher water rates for users in
Winthrop, Manchester and Augusta. In general, aesthetic and
recreational values would decline, causing a decline in tour-
ism and real estate values.
Lacking controls to prevent the development of wetlands
and floodplains, stormwater runoff problems will be created,
valuable wildlife habitat will be lost, and phosphorus re-
lease to adjacent water bodies will increase dramatically,
causing increases in nuisance algae blooms.
Similarly, unless a backup system is developed for the
inter-communitytrunkline, water quality in Annabessacook and
Cobbossee Lakes will be continually threatened by a possible
breakdown in the system, and the efforts of the cobbossee
Watershed communities to improve and protect water quality
could be negated. This single issue may have the roost seri-
ous consequences for water quality management in the region.
¦•302'

-------
Without controls to guide development in areas over-
lying existing or potential groundwater supplies, this re-
source could become contaminated, necessitating costly extens-
ions of existing public water supply systems.
Finally, if there is no initiative to correct the sub-
surface waste disposal problems identified above, individual
property owners may be faced with expensive individual hold-
ing tanks (installation costs up to $1,000 with annual pump-
ing costs ranging from less than $100 to over $3,000 depending
on the number of occupants and duration of occupancy). The
high costs of this alternative may force property owners to
sell their homes.
Implementation of the 208 recommendations will create
a series of environmental, social and economic impacts.
Water quality will be protected as the adverse affects of
uncontrolled development discussed above are avoided. The
economic benefits associated with these environmental benefits
are unquantifiable but extensive.
The social and economic impacts of implementing the
plan recommendations are also difficult to assess with any
specificity.
It is recommended that Winthrop revise its present ordi-
nances to require erosion and sedimentation control plans as
well as stormwater runoff control plans of all developers.
Costs to the town for review of these plans should be minimized
if the developer is charged a fee for review processes. Un-
doubtedly this fee will be passed on to prospective property
owners, but shouldn't escalate unit prices significantly.
This is an equitable way of distributing review costs since
the review is for the protection of prospective property owners
as much as the town in general.
Assistance in revision of existing codes is available to
Winthrop through its membership in the Southern Kennebec valley
Regional Planning Commission and the Cobbossee watershed Dist-
rict. No additional costs for these revisions need be incur-
red as a result.
Social impacts of revisions in existing ordinances re-
quiring more stringent controls on development should be mini-
mal if the rationale for the revisions relates to resource
protection and not some arbitrary crii^ria. A few property
owners whose property consists largely of marginal or "sensi-
tive" land may lose the option of subdividing at some economic
disadvantage; but this is unavoidable and should be compen-
sated by reduced property tax rates.
Establishment of a regional treatment authority would
facilitate operation and maintenance of the Augusta facility
Some legal and management consultant fees may be incurred in
-303-

-------
the process of establishing the authority. This cost would
be recovered by the town through user fees to the residents
served by the sewer.
The costs of developing cluster septic systems for
Winthrop problem areas is estimated at $1,700,000. Federal
grants would pay 90%, and the remainder would be recovered,
along with annual operation and maintenance costs, through
user fees ranging from $100 to $150 per year. Additional
management responsibilities by the winthrop water District
would also be covered by the user fees.
Extension of sewers as projected for winthrop over the
next 20 years could cost $4,300,000. This figure is taken
from the 208 study's interim report on Publicly Owned Facili-
ties. it is not known how much of this would be covered by
State-Federal grants.
-304-

-------
ACTION AT THE STATE LEVEL

-------
ACTION AT THE STATE LEVEL
The role of the State in implementing the areawide
water quality plan is substantial. The planning process
is recommending the continuation of existing water quality
management activities at the State level, and further rec-
ommends several new activities, particularly in the area
of non-point source pollution controls.
The following discussion is organized around three
major topics: Land Use Planning and Non-Point Sources,
Water and wastewater Facilities and Water Quality Manage-
ment. Each of these is divided into sub-topics corres-
ponding to the issues previously discussed. Management
activities discussed include financial and technical
assistance, enforcement and regulation, education, coordi-
nation and planning. A summary chart is included at the
end of the discussion, indicating the responsibilities
assigned to each State agency in the plan. A forth topic,
Impacts on the State, is also included which summarizes
the impacts of the plan recommendations on various State
agencies.
1. Land Use Planning and Non-Point Sources
State agencies are expected to assume varying degrees
of responsibility for the control of the non-point sources
in the Southern Kennebec valley.
Manure Disposal; Existing State guidelines for manure
disposal, the primary non-point source problems in the region,
are recommended for all agricultural operations, while
agricultural assistance is centered at the Federal and dis-
trict levels, the Maine Soil and Water Conservation commission
should assist the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts
and the Federal agricultural agencies in any programs which
provide financial aid or education on manure disposal
practices. As the primary water quality agency of the State,
the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in conjunc-
tion with the planning Commission and the Cobbossee water-
shed District should assume an oversight role to assess the
adequacy of regional and local agricultural controls over a
5 year period. The DEP should be prepared to aid in the on-
going agricultural programs and to propose additional con-
trol measures as needed. Monitoring of water quality impacts
of agriculture should also be a DEP function with the
-305-

-------
public Health Laboratories of the Department of Human Ser-
vices providing special technical assistance for the assess-
ment of groundwater contamination, particularly nitrates
from manure disposal.
Erosion and Sedimentation controls: As with manure
disposal, State involvement in erosion control should be
initially limited to the educational and coordinating
activities of the Soil and water Conservation Commission
and its associated agencies (Federal and local). In cases
of violations of stream sedimentation standards, or where
local efforts have failed to alleviate serious erosion prob-
lems, the DEP should take appropriate action. Municipali-
ties and the DEP often share the responsibility for sub-
division review; increased cooperation and interaction
could insure more effective erosion control at the local
level. Again review of progress should be undertaken
after 5 years by the interested parties to consider the
need for a mandatory program of erosion and sedimentation
control; no recommendation has been developed for which
State agency might supervise such requirements.
Sand and Gravel Mining: The DEP currently regulates
most mining operations under the Mining and Rehabilitation
of Land and Site Location of Development Laws through the
Board of Environmental Protection. Excluded from these
laws are sand and gravel mining operations encompassing 5
acres of less, which includes many, if not a majority of
operations. Requirements for reclamation and overall site
planning for all sand and gravel operations as discussed in
part I should be administered and enforced by the DEP.
The present and potential roles of the Bureau of Geology
in the Department of Conservation (DOC) regarding resource
extraction should also be better defined.
Road Salt; Responsibility for judicious use of road
salt lies with the Maine Department of Transportation (DOT).
The DOT should increase its on-going educational programs
and technical advice to municipalities on proper usage of,
as well as alternatives to, road salting.
Water and Sewer Line Extensions: Sewer line extens-
ions must be considered by all levels of government in light
of their secondary impacts on land use and water quality.
The A-95 Review process, coordinated by the State Planning
Office in the Executive Department, should be utilized more
effectively by all involved State agencies to insure effec-
tive coordination and planning of sewer extensions. The
Department of Human Services, Division of Health Engineering
(DHE) is computerizing its on-site soils evaluation to
provide a clearer definition of localized soils conditions
than is available from present medium-intensity soils; such
data will prove useful in the planning and evaluation of
on-site sewage disposal problems, water supply facilities
must also receive careful attention; the Public Utilities
Commission should allow greater flexibility in water district
capital budgeting to improve planning capabilities.
-306-

-------
Sensitive Areas; Protection of sensitive environmen-
tal or cultural resources is presently fragmented at the
State level. DEP, the State Planning Office, various bur-
eaus of the Department of Conservation, and the Department
of Agriculture should cooperate through the Land and water
Resources council to identify significant natural or
cultural areas and methods for protection and preserva-
tion.
Solid and Residual Waste Disposal: Management of solid
wastes and other residuals is the state-level responsibility
of the DEP. Improved enforcement of solid waste regulations
is needed, together with financial and technical assistance
to the municipalities that must comply with these require-
ments .
Forest Management: While forest practices have not
created a substantial portion of the region's non-point source
pollution, the Bureau of Forestry of the Department of con-
servation should increase its assistance to the region
through the service forester and various educational pro-
grams to insure that sound forest practices are utilized at
all times. T*he Bureau should also develop a data system
to provide information on forestry activities in each munici-
pality on an annual basis, so that regional evaluation of
water quality/land use linkages may be more accurate.
2. water and wastewater Facilities
Facilities construction: A primary responsibility of
the State in wastewater management will continue to be the
processing of its own and U.S. EPA grants for major con-
struction projects identified in the plan (secondary treat-
ment for Augusta, Gardiner, and Richmond? interceptors for
Hallowell, Randolph, Gardiner and Farmingdale). The
Department of Environmental protection (DEP) should insure
that local districts have the capacity to effectively plan
system extensions and other capital improvements in a
coordinated manner. Grant and/or license conditions
could be used to implement this. Encouragement for co-
ordination in the development of water supply systems could
come from the Public utilities commission and the Depart-
ment of Human Services, which have regulatory responsi-
bilities for such systems.
Stormwater: A major concern for future State water
quality planning should be the management of stormwater.
Presently, little attention is given by the DEP to monitor-
ing, licensing, or abating stormwater discharges, regard-
less of their potential or actual impact. As other point
-307-

-------
sources are abated, the stormwater problems will become
more apparent. DEP should prepare for this problem by
characterizing the extent of the problem and by develop-
ing an abatement program on a "worst-first" basis. Rec-
ognizing the tremendous expense of stormwater treatment
in urban areas, the DEP's initial efforts should focus on
discharges into lakes and other sensitive receiving waters,
which may show the most adverse effects of such discharges.
Attention must also be given to future abatement needs of
wet-weather discharges as they relate to maintaning Class
B-2 waters, such as the Kennebec River and certain urban
tributaries.
On-Site Wastewater Disposal; In non-sewered areas,
State responsibility is divided between the DEP for "straight-
pipe" dischargers and the Department of Human Services,
Division of Health Engineering (DHE) which has all subsur-
face wastewater disposal systems. The consolidation of these
DHE responsibilities into DEP has been recommended, but
has been opposed by both Departments and a number of inter-
est groups at Maine Legislative hearings. In any event,
proper management of subsurface wastewater disposal systems
should be recognized as a highly desirable method of dis-
posal and pollution control. A number of technical recom-
mendations on State Plumbing Code regulations have already
been made in this report and are being considered by both
the DEP and DHE.
Cluster or small-scale subsurface wastewater disposal
systems have been recommended as a low-cost alternative
to public sewers in remote areas experiencing serious on-
site disposal problems. Management of such systems will re-
quire adaptation of the State agencies to these new concepts.
The DEP should provide funding for cluster system construc-
tion, as it now does with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) funds for the larger municipalities in the
State for the more complex treatment facilities. To develop
an effective cluster construction program, the DEP should
adopt a separate funding priority list for small-scale
projects (based on a maximum of 15,000gpd average daily flow
and total cost of $200,000 or less) and reserve no less
than 5 percent of the construction grant funds alloted to
it annually by EPA, to be used for these small-scale projects.
Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment: DEP should insure
that local pretreatment standards for industrial connections
to public sewer systems will be adequate for effective pro-
cessing at the treatment facility. Maintenance of such stand-
ards can be a complex and difficult task. The Augusta Sani-
tary District and the City of Gardiner should receive lab-
oratory, legal, and any other needed technical support on a
cost-sharing basis from the Department to assure adequate
pretreatment.
-308-

-------
Trunkline Sewer Maintenance; The Monmouth-Augusta
trunkline sewer has also been recognized as a significant
aspect of the region's water quality management program.
While most of management problems of the system must be
handled by the local sanitary and water districts in-
volved, the DEP should assist in any way possible to assure
the ongoing structural integrity of this vital sewer line.
3. water Quality Management
Lake Restoration: Cultural eutrophication is a prime
water quality problem in the Southern Kennebec Valley,
particularly in the cobbossee Watershed. The DEP's Bur-
eau of water Quality Control is expected to continue to
play an important role in the efforts at lake improvement.
In the cobbossee watershed District's proposed lakes res-
toration program, the DEP will provide significant techni-
cal services, particularly on control of phosphorus from
in-lake sediments with alum.
Water Quality Goals and Standards; The development
of water quality classifications is, of course, an import-
ant role that the DEP shares with the State Legislature.
A new system of lake water quality classification based
on trophic status has already been proposed by the DEP
and should be adopted by the 108th Legislature. Additional
tributary-to-lake standards proposed by the Cobbossee
Watershed District on an advisory basis should be care-
fully reviewed and tested by DEP for possible adoption
at some later time.
The DEP, through is Board of Environmental Protection,
should maintain a Class C Kennebec River within the 208 Study
area with a goal of B-2 for the River below urban Gardiner
by 1983. The DEP should carefully review the costs involved
in the elimination of combined overflows and urban runoff
treatment which may be necessary to maintain the higher
classification. The urban streams should also be retained
as class C waters for the near future.
Water Ouality Management: Effectiveness of any water
quality standards for the region's lakes will depend upon
the willingness of the State to monitor water quality on
an ongoing basis. The Division of Laboratory and Field
Services of the DEP should continue to provide regular
phosphorus monitoring on a continuing basis for the major
lakes of the region. Additional monitoring by the Divi-
sion should be continued on the Kennebec River, urban
streams ana various lakes and their tributaries. Moni-
toring is highly recommended on the Kennebec and its
tributaries to determine the needed wet-weather abatement
measures necessary to maintain the b-2 water quality goals.
-309

-------
Some of the sophisticated lake monitoring should be supple-
mented by lay sampling personnel, trained by the DEP
Division of Lakes and Biological Studies.
No State agency has yet studied the question of ground-
water quality on a comprehensive basis. The DEP through
the Bureau of Land Quality Control, Division of Solid Waste
Management and the Bureau of water Quality control should
work closely with the public Health Laboratory, the Depart-
ment of conservation's Bureau of Geology, and other con-
cerned State and Federal agencies to identify the priorities
for groundwater quality data and a monitoring program to
meet these needs. The Bureau of Geology is recommended as
the lead State agency due to its existing groundwater pro-
grams .
4. Plan Impacts on State Agencies
Table 26 summarizes the key activities assigned to the
various State agencies. All of the activities are recommend-
ed to improve water quality or to better manage the region's
resources through coordination and similar functions. The
following is a brief agency by agency assessment.
Department of Environmental protection; The DEP will
be impacted more than any other State agency since it is
being asked to increase and expand a number of its on-going
programs as well as to develop others, such as a program
to manage stormwater. The DEP is also being asked to fund
"cluster" septic systems via a separate construction
priority system. Sampling and monitoring is also recommended
for intensification. Other activities which the DEP is being
asked to perform are the solid waste management and lake
restoration areas.
It is felt that although the DEP may have to reassess
its priorities to carry out these recommendations, the agency
probably does not need to increase in size. The DEP, as
does all agencies, continually prioritizes its activities.
The recommendations of the plan to further emphasize the
non-point pollution sources, lake water quality, stormwater
and cluster systems could be easily managed by the DEP, since
point source abatement is well underway. Likewise, once
the grossly polluted major waterways are cleaned up, the
laboratory will be able to shift its emphasis to non-point
sources, stormwater and lakes as it did for the 208 planning
agencies during 1975 and 1976.
The impact on the environment will be vary positive since
the plan pointed out in a rationale manner what the key issues
were in terms of land use and water quality management.
-310-

-------
TABLE 26
STATE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
^Responsibility
Agency
department of
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
-Bureau of Land
Quality Control
-Bureau of Water
Quality Control
•public waste-
water disposal
facilities
-cluster septic
systems
solid, residual
waste disposal
-lake restora-
tion
~-stormwater treat-
ment facilities
DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION
-Bureau of
Forestry
-Bureau of
Geology
-Bureau of Parks
& Recreation
DEPARTMENT of
transportation
-Bureau of High-
way	
DEPARTMENT of
BUrtfiN SERVICES
-Bureau of Health
(Division of
Health Engineer-
ing)
DEPARTMENT of
agriculture
"Soil & water
Conservation
Commission
DEPARTMENT of
inland fisheries
& WILDLIFE
Funding
Technical
Assistance
-public waste-
water disposal
facilities
(operat. 6,
ma int.)
-industrial pre-
treatment
-lake restora-
tion
-water quality
monitoring
~-stormwater run-
off
~-cluster septic
systems
-sensitive area
acquisition
-scenic and
recreation area
acquisition
PUBLIC utilities
COMMISSION
state PLANNING
Office
-forest manage-
ment
Education
-forest manage-
ment
-road salting
-water supply
quality and
treatment needs
•public water
testing
•cluster septic
systems
implementation
•septic system
management
~-septic systems
operation and
maintenance
~-groundwater
contamination
-manure disposal
-agricultural
erosion
-construction
erosion
-atormwater
runoff
-sensitive areas
-sensitive areas
-sensitive areas
•Indicates new or expanded functions
-5 11-
TSSSSmended by the 708 Plan."
-road salting
-manure dis-
posal
-agricultural
erosion
-construction
erosion
-stormwater
runoff
-sensitive aree
Regulation and
Enforcement
-public waste-
water disposal
facilities
-storm sewer
discharges
sand-gravel
mining
-land use: Site
Location,
Shoreland Zon-
ing and Great
ponds Act3
-solid, residual
waste disposal
-industrial
waste disposal
-water quality
standards
setting
-water quality
standards
violations-
point & non-
point
-septic systems
-water supply
standards
~-cluster septic
systems
-stream altera-
tions
-water supply
Coordination
public waste-
water disposal
facilities
-cluster septic
systems
•solid, residual
waste disposal
-water quality
monitoring
-stormwater run-
off
Planning
-all water
quality man-
agement activ-
ities
-non-point
source
-solid,
residual
wastes
-point
sources
-goals and
standards
-water supply
requirements
-natural re-
sources
-geology
-forestry
-outdoor rec.
-critical &
sensitive
areas
-groundwater
-manure disposal
-agricultural
erosion
-construction
erosion
~-stormwater
runoff
sensitive areas
-sensitive
areas
-water supply
-sensitive areas
-all land use
& natural
resources
planning

-------
State Planning Office, Departments of Conservation,
Transportation and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife: These
agencies are not being asked to increase, expand or estab-
lish any program to any degree that would impact their
operation.
Department of Human Services: The DHS is being asked
to increase its efforts in the subsurface wastewater manage-
ment and groundwater quality fields. The agency would prob-
ably have to expand its activities in the Division of Health
Engineering to better serve the local plumbing code enforce-
ment efforts. Education and technical assistance are two
important areas that would require new personnel, although
not to a significant extent. The alternative of not in-
creasing the Division's activities will be costly to the
environmental health of the State since a lot of on-site
disposal problems can be avoided through better local and
State regulation. Also, the costs to homeowners can be re-
duced by better managing the rural wastewater disposal
activities.
The DHS may also have to increase its laboratory ser-
vices to deal with the ever growing concern of groundwater
quality. The plan recommends a stepped-up groundwater
management program to assess the effects of certain land
use activities suspected of contaminating groundwater.
Department of Agriculture: The Soil and Water Con-
servation Commission is being asked to increase its efforts,
along with the Federal agricultural agencies and the local
districts, in the area of stormwater management. It is not
expected that new personnel or funding would be necessary.
Public Utilities Commission: The PUC presently pre-
vents water districts from effective capital budgeting.
This prevents districts from developing and implementing
capital improvement programs in conjunction with other local
planning such as land use, sewer extensions and growth
management. Changes in PUC statute or regulation would
not impact the agency to a great extent while allowing more
flexible operations at the local level. The environmental
impacts are potentially great since water and/or sewer lines
can greatly influence where development occurs.
-312-

-------
ACTION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL

-------
ACTION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
The Federal government plays a major role in the im-
plementation of the water quality management plan. A full
range of responsibilities is outlined including funding,
technical assistance, education, regulation and enforcement,
coordination and planning. All of these functions are
presently carried out to some degree by a number of agen-
cies particularly the EPA and U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA). Additional responsibility for funding, tech-
nical assistance and coordination are suggested for a number
of agencies.
The following discussion describes the Federal role
for water quality management of each of three topics: Land
Use planning and Non-point Sources, water and Wastewater
Facilities, and water Quality Management, consistent with
the previous discussions under "Plan Elements" in Part X.
A summary of Federal responsibilities, both existing and
recommended, is attached in chart form at the end of the
discussion, detailing responsibilities for each agency. A
final discussion is also included summarizing the impacts
of the plan on each agency.
1. Land use planning and Non-Point Sources
Manure Disposal: Federal concern with agriculture is
presently well established, with the USDA Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) and Agricultural Stabilization and conserva-
tion Service (ASCS) playing significant roles in the region.
The established relationship of these agencies and local
farmers should be strengthened and utilized in efforts to
reduce agricultural sources of pollution. ASCS is the fin-
ancial arm of Federal agricultural assistance and should
be given increased capabilities to aid manure disposal sys-
tem construction. Specifically, present funding limita-
tions of $2,500 per farm per year per project should be in-
creased to a more realistic figure. This would allow sub-
stantial assistance on major capital improvements such as
manure handling systems.
Even without a change in funding limits, ASCS should
focus its attention on assistance for animal waste manage-
ment. increased inter-agency cooperation could improve
manure disposal in the region; the Small Business Adminis-
-313-

-------
tration should continue to expand its programs in assist-
ing agricultural enterprises. The Environmental protection
Agency (EPA) should continue to provide matching grants
for manure handling systems through the lake restoration
provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Re-
gional coordination of these various agencies and programs
could have a significant impact on present agricultural
problems.
in addition to financial aid, education and technical
assistance are essential. The SCS must play an important
part in any efforts of farmer education since it provides
professional staff services for the local County Soil and
Water Conservation Districts. The cobbossee watershed
District has also proposed SCS and conservation District
assistance in its lakes restoration program for the design
of manure storage facilities.
Erosion and Sedimentation; Federal participation in
erosion and sediment control should be based primarily on
educational activities and technical assistance by the
SCS to the County Soil and water conservation District and
local farmers and developers. SCS personnel should assist
in development and review of erosion control plans in all
municipalities in the region. At the recommended 5 year
review of progress on erosion control, all concerned Fed-
eral agencies (EPA, SCS, etc.) should participate in de-
ciding the need for State erosion control legislation. A
similar Federal role is envisioned for management of storm-
water runoff.
Sewer and Water Line Extensions: Sewer and water line
extensions, which may stimulate development and non-point
source water quality problems, should be carefully reviewed
by the Federal agencies providing construction funds, EPA,
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) and the Economic Develop-
ment Administration. These agencies should encourage
careful technical review of potential secondary impacts
and full public and agency participation in the A-95 review
and environmental impact statement process of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB).
Sensitive Areas: Federal participation in sensitive
areas protection has not been fully defined. As a minimum,
the u. S. Geological Survey (USGS) should attempt to
improve the current knowledge of regional groundwater hy-
drology, particularly the location, potential yield, and
vulnerability of aquifers. The U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture through its various agencies, should continue to
assist in the identification of prime agricultural lands.
All Federal agencies should cooperate with State and regional
efforts to identify and protect significant natural and
cultural areas.
Local planning Assistance: EPA should continue to pro-
vide funds to the Regional Planning Commission for assistance
-314-

-------
to local governments in improving their land use planning
programs and for coordinating water quality management
activities and plan update.
2. Water and Wastewater Facilities
A major Federal role is envisioned in the construction
of several wastewater facilities. Funding from the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) should be made available
as soon as possible for projects in Augusta, Gardiner, Rand-
olph, Farmingdale, Richmond and Hallowell. EPA should also
find wet-weather abatement measures for the urban areas
once its secondary treatment facilities are completed. This
would be coordinated through the Maine DEP. The Veterans
Administration should also study alternatives for improv-
ing its wastewater treatment facility at the Togus V.A.
Hospital in Augusta. Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)
should also continue and expand its role as a funding agency
for small community water and wastewater projects. As
stated previously, all involved Federal agencies should
participate in the planning of water and sewer extensions
and the evaluation of secondary impacts.
EPA, as the primary water pollution control agency
at the Federal level, should participate in various other
aspects of regional wastewater management. It should assist
in the monitoring of water quality impacts of stormwater
and combined sewer overflows. In remote, non-sewered areas,
EPA should encourage and fund cluster or community septic
systems as an alternative to traditional sewers. EPA
assistance should also be given to local and regional or-
ganizations on industrial pretreatment standards and improve-
ments of the Monmouth-Augusta trunkline sewer.
3. Water Quality Management
Lake Restoration: Federal concern for cultural eutro-
phication is clearly"defined in Section 314 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, administered
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since eutro-
phication has been identified as a primary water quality
problem in the region, EPA should provide necessary fund-
ing to the Cobbossee Watershed District to implement^vari-
ous 208 planning recommendations for phosphorus control ^
(specifically agricultural wastes management and nutrient
inactivation of in-lake sediments with alum). Further
assistance on the agricultural aspects of the lakes restor-
ation proposal should come from the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service.
-315-

-------
Water Quality Monitoring: Ongoing statewide monitor-
ing of lake and tributary water quality should be given
technical and financial assistance by EPA. The agency
should also support State developed standards for lake
water quality and trophic status as recommended elsewhere
in this plan. EPA should also carefully review the State
classification of the Kennebec River as Class C to deter-
mine the economic and technical feasibility of meeting
the 1973 Federal standards for "swimmable, fishable" water
quality (Class B-2).
Finally, groundwater quality remains an unknown factor
in regional water resources management. EPA and the U.S.
Geological Survey should cooperate with State and regional
agencies in identifying potential threats to groundwater
quality, the parameters that should be monitored in ground-
water, and the techniques, agencies and funding sources
to be utilized in any recommended groundwater monitoring
program.
4. Plan Impacts on Federal Agencies
Table 27 summarizes the key activities assigned to
various Federal agencies to carry out the plan. The fol-
lowing is a brief agency by agency assessment.
Environmental Protection Agency: EPA is being asked
to increase its funding, technical assistance and coordina-
tion activities for a number of items including cluster
systems, solid waste, stormwater management and local plan-
ning assistance. It is difficult to assess the national
costs associated with these recommendations since the problems
vary from region to region. However, as was pointed out
under the DEP discussion in the State Level section, a re-
emphasis by EPA may be all that is needed to deal with these
subjects. As point source abatement programs reduce in in-
tensity, larger emphasis can be placed on non-point source
problems as well as rural problems in general. Stormwater
and combined overflow problems will also become more apparent
once the nation's waters are cleaned of the dry-weather dis-
charges of industry and municipalities. It is therefore not
likely that EPA would have to expand to deal with these issues
effectively. The agency should, however, request larger
monies to grant to local agencies to develop and/or refine
areawide environmental management plans. This approach is
more cost-effective than Federal or even State level plans,
since the plans are developed close to the problem source.
Since these plans deal in preservation as well as improving
the environment, the benefits are far reaching.
-316-

-------
TABLE 27
FEDERAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
*—^Responsibility
Agency
Funding
Technical
Assistance
Education
Regulation and
Enforcement
Coordination
Planning
environmental
PROTECTION
AGENCY
-public waste-
water disposal
facilities
*-cluster septic
systems
~-solid, residual
waste disposal
-lake restora-
tion (includes
manure disposal)
-water quality
-management plan-
ning & coord,
-statewide water
quality monitor-
ing
*-stormwater
treatment
-public waste-
water disposal
facilities
(opera. & maint.
-industrial pre-
treatment
-lake restoration
~-solid, residual
waste disposal
~-stormwater and
combined sewer
systems

-solid, residual
waste disposal
-public waste-
water disposal
facilities
-industrial
pretreatment
-industrial
waste disposal
-water quality
standards
violators -
point & non-
point
-federal water
quality man-
agement ac-
tivities
~-facilities
planning and
local plan-
ning
-water quality
management
activities
-solid, resid-
ual waste
U. S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
-Soil Conserva-
tion Service/
Soil and water
Conservation
Districts

-manure disposal
facilities
-erosion control
(agric.
construction)
-sensitive areas
-conservation
planning
-forest mgt.
-soils suit-
ability
-others
~-soil and water
conservation
practices
~-agricultural
waste manage-
ment
~-stormwater
runoff

-non-point
source plan-
ning coordi-
nation
-statewide non-
point source
study
-statewide and
county con-
servation needs
-small watershed
plans
Agricultural
Stabilization &
Conservation
Service
-soil and water
conservation
practices
~-manure disposal
facilities



~-lake restora-
tion funding
-conservation
practices}
priorities
for funding
Farmers Home
Administration
-small water and
sewer systems
-loan assistance
for conservation
practices



~-facilities
funding and
local plan-
ning

Extension service

-agricultural
operations
-all facets of
agriculture
and conserva-
tion activi-
ties



U. S. DEPARTMENT
OF INTERIOR
-USGS (Geological
Survey)
-cost charing
for water
quality and
hydrologic
monitoring
-surface and
groundwater
water quality
monitoring
-floodplains &
water levels
management
-stormwater
runoff

~-groundwater
monitoring
program

OFFICE OF MANAGE-
MENT & BUDGET




-A-95 Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF
commerce
-Small Business
Administration
-funding of
pollution abate-
ment facilities
•-funding of agri-
aitSaitTSSlu.
ties





"Indicates new or expanded functions recommended by the 208 plan
-317-

-------
Department of Agriculture: The ASCS and SCS of the
USDA are being asked to contribute to the plan's imple-
mentation. The functions of these agencies are for most
part on-going with the largest expansions called for in
funding, technical assistance and educational fields. Fund-
ing of manure storage pits by ASCS, however, could be done
with existing rates of expenditures, only with a modified
cost-sharing formula. This point has been raised in the
plan many times. From previous discussions, this aspect of
non-point source pollution control is the critical water
quality factor for many of the region's lakes. it would
be desirable to increase the ASCS national budget to ac-
celerate the funding of manure storage pits since the cur-
rent level would take too long a time period to correct
the situation. This would also enable the continued fund-
ing of the other ASCS cost-sharing ventures.
SCS, along with the local conservation districts, is
being called upon to assist local governments to deal with
non-point source pollution control in their ordinance and
regulation implementation. This will probably require
additional staffing at the SCS county offices, although fee
structures could defray much of the costs. The increased
costs to the USDA, however, are easily justified since SCS
has the expertise in non-point source control and review,
and another new agency does not have to be formed. The
concept of local control of the non-point source ordinance
is another important benefit.
The other USDA agencies impacted by the plan, FmHA and
the Extension Service, are not called upon for new functions.
FmHA is, however, being asked to insure that its grants to
small communities for water or sewer projects are well plan-
ned and are coordinated with other local and regional plan-
ning efforts.
Department of the interior: USGS played a major role
in the water quality and hydrologic data gathering efforts of
the planning program. It is expected that USGS will continue
to assist and cooperate in these projects. The basic ex-
panded function of USGS, as recommended in the plan, is in
the area of groundwater monitoring. Whatever the costs are
to be for an initial program, the costs are likely to be a
50-50 match with the planning agency(ies). it is hoped
that USGS and the Maine Bureau of Geology will work closely
in the groundwater monitoring area.
-318-

-------
THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR

-------
THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR
A substantial responsibility has been assigned to
local, state and Federal agencies for the improvement and
protection of water quality in the region, but the pub-
lic sector cannot bear this responsibility alone. The
success of this plan is also heavily dependent upon the
active support and cooperation of the private sector -
the farming community, urban-suburban dwellers, lake
associations, developers and contractors, rural property
owners, sand and gravel operators, woodlot operators,
and industrial wastewater generators, as outlined below
and listed in Table 28. Solutions to remote wastewater
disposal problems, land use/non-point pollution problems
and water quality monitoring problems will involve the
private sector, as outlined below. A final section dis-
cusses social, economic and environmental impacts on this
sector.
1. The Farming Community
Animal waste management practices have been found to
be a primary source of pollution to lakes in the region,
as previously discussed. Thus a primary role has been
assigned to the farming communities to correct this problem.
The plan does not recommend regulation to reduce agricultural
pollution. Rather a voluntary approach has been selected
in which the farmers are being asked to commit themselves
to building winter manure storage systems if 50% to 75%
Federal funding is obtained. This may necessitate an in-
dividual farmer to expend from $2,000 to $10,000 in time
and money, depending on the size of the facility proposed.
Nearly 25 farmers in the critical lakesheds of the region
(Annabessacook, Cobbossee and Pleasant Pond) are being
asked to make this commitment over the next two years, 1977-
1978, provided Lake Restoration Grant monies are approved
by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Farmers are also being aske<3 to voluntarily insti-
tute best management practices for erosion and sediment
control on cropland, and to conform to the "Maine Guide-
lines for Manure and Manure Sludge Disposal on Land" with
the recommended changes (see Part I).
-319-

-------
Table 28
PRIVATE SECTOR WATER QUALITY MAH&GBMEHT RESPONSIBILITIES
"""---^Responsibilit}
Sector*"-—.	
Financial
Commitment
Time
Commitment
Change in Product
Consumption
Change in Resource
Utilization
voluntary use of
best management
practices within
capability of
resource
Compliance
with Regula-
tions
FARMING
COMMUNITY
-manure storage
facilities


-recycling of
poultry manures
in crop produc-
tion
-erosion con-
trol from
tillage

DEVELOPERS AND
CONTRACTORS
-additional
erosion and
runoff controls



-sensitive areas
protection with
easements, deed
restrictions,
etc.
-erosion and
runoff con-
trol
URBAN SUBURBAN
DWELLERS
(sewered)


-non-phos-
phate deter-
gents
-use of re-
cyclable goods
-water conserva-
tion
-composting or-
ganic wastes
-soils test prior
to lawn fertili-
zation
-sensitive areas
protection with
easements,
deed restrict-
ions , etc.

RURAL PROPERTY
OWNERS
(non-sewered)
-remote sewage
problems

-non-phos-
phate deter-
gents
-recyclable
goods
-water conserva-
tion
-composting or-
ganic wastes
-soils test prior
to lawn fertili-
zation
-sensitive areas
protection with
easements, deed
restrictions,
etc.
-septic
malfunctions
INDUSTRIAL WASTE-
WATER GENERATORS



-water conserva-
tion
-resource recovery
measures to re-
duce wastes

-pretreatment
requirements
-waste dis-
charge permits
WOODLOT OWNERS
AND OPERATORS




-erosion control
measures from
logging road,
skid trails

SAND AND GRAVEL
OPERATORS





-reclamation
controls
LAKE
ASSOCIATIONS
-lake
restoration
-monitoring





-------
2. Developers and Contractors
Runoff from developed areas, both during construction
and following its completion, has been found to be a sig-
nificant non-point source of pollution to lakes and streams.
This pollution can be minimized if appropriate erosion and
sedimentation controls and runoff management techniques
are utilized. Because only a few developers presently
utilize these techniques, at some economic disadvantage
to those who do not, the plan recommends that communities
require erosion and runoff control plans from all develop-
ers prior to development approval. Developers and con-
tractors are therefore being asked to comply with these
requirements in a spirit of cooperation working with the
communities and recognizing the importance of erosion and
runoff controls to water quality in the region.
Developers are also being asked to assume some respon-
sibility for the protection of lands which are sensitive
to disturbance and which cause water quality impacts when
disturbed. These sensitive areas include; wetlands, prime
agricultural lands, floodplains, steep slopes, etc. To
protect these areas, developers are asked to consider pro-
tective easements, land trusts, restrictions in deeds prior
to land transactions, or donations to conservation agencies.
3. Urban-Suburban Dwellers
Runoff from urban and suburban residences has been
found to contain a number of pollutants resulting from
leaf burning, grass cutting, lawn fertilization, car
washing, pet waste disposal, litter, etc. Residents are
asked to voluntarily reduce their pollutant contribution
to stormwater by composting leaves, pet wastes and grass
cuttings and by having a soils test prior to lawn fertili-
zation to avoid excessive phosphorus application and re-
sultant phosphorus runoff. They are also asked to reduce
their contribution of phosphorus to lakes by utilizing
non-phosphate detergents.
Urban-suburban property owners are also being asked
to assume some responsibility for the protection of lands
which are senitive to disturbance and which cause water
quality impacts when disturbed. These sensitive areas
include wetlands, prime agricultural lands, floodplains,
steep slopes, etc. To protect these areas, property owners
are asked to consider protective easements, land trusts,
restrictions in deeds prior to land transactions, or dona-
tions to conservation agencies.
-321-

-------
4. Rural Property Owners
Property owners located in areas remote from public
sewer systems must rely on on-site waste disposal systems
for domestic wastes. When a system fails, a health prob-
lem is created, a situation found commonly throughout the
region. To avoid this occurrence, rural property owners
are being advised to maintain their individual disposal
systems by checking yearly and pumping every three to four
years. The annual cost of this is approximately $25.00.
If a system fails, homeowners are encouraged to find
individual on-site solutions by consulting with a site
evaluator. Costs may be incurred by individual homeowners
from $1,500 to in excess of $4,000.
When a number of systems fail in close proximity to
one another, homeowners are being asked to consider a com-
munal solution - a "cluster" septic system which consists
of a single tank and leachfield serving a number of homes.
If the system qualifies for State and Federal grant assis-
tance, the individual homeowner may only pay 10% of the
total cost, or $100 to $150 per year over 20 years. With-
out assistance/ the annual costs could be as high as $300.00.
As discussed under "Urban/Suburban Dwellers", rural
property owners should also control pollutant contributions
to stormwater runoff by composting organic wastes, and
utilizing soils tests prior to lawn fertilization. They
should also use non-phosphorus detergents.
Finally, rural property owners are being asked to pro-
tect sensitive lands (wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes,
prime agricultural lands, etc.) through consideration of
protective easements, land trusts, restrictions in deeds
prior to land transactions, or donations to conservation
agencies.
5. Industrial Wastewater Generators
Industries that produce wastewaters other than sanitary
wastes are required by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
to treat their wastewaters to a prescribed level prior to
discharge to surface waters. Statler Tissue in Augusta is
the only major wastewater generating industrial firm in
the region that has its own treatment-discharge facility.
The mill recently started operation of a "best practicable
treatment" facility with a Kennebec River discharge. The
-322-

-------
facility removes from 85-90% of the organic matter as
described as BOD and solids. All the other firms are or
will be connected to publicly owned facilities. These
firms are required to pretreat their wastewaters to
levels prescribed by EPA and the local agency receiving
them. The Augusta Sanitary District receives pretreated
wastewaters from three textile mills (Globe Albany in
N. Monmouth, Carleton Woolen in Winthrop and Edwards Manu-
facturing in Augusta); two food processors (Lipman Poultry
until February 1978 and Kirschners in Augusta) and a pro-
posed milk producer and an electronics firm (Brewers Dairy
and Digital in Augusta). The City of Gardiner will receive
the already pretreated wastewater from Yorktowne Paper
in that City once it constructs its proposed regional
treatment and interceptor system.
All of the industrial firms must do their part in
ensuring that their facilities are operated properly to
ensure that the water quality of the region is improved
and maintained. Also, residuals must be properly dis-
posed of by complying with the Department of Environmen-
tal Protection and/or local regulations. This is especi-
ally true of hazardous substances or residuals which con-
tain high levels of metals, bacteria or nutrients.
Additional water quality protection measures which
should be on-going activities for all firms include water
conservation and recycling efforts. These activities
would assist both water quality and the economics of waste-
water treatment or pretreatment operations.
6. Woodlot Owners and Operators
Forest harvesting operations have not been found to
be a significant water quality problem at the present due
to limited cutting. However, unless proper management
techniques are utilized, this could become a major problem
in the future as forest harvest operations increase. The
plan does not recommend regulation to ensure this, but
instead suggests that woodlot owners and operators must
assume the primary role in instituting best management
practices for forest harvesting - including cutting dur-
ing the winter, when the soil is frozen and less subject
to erosion, selective cutting; and utilizating erosion con-
trols when logging roads are being constructed. If a vol-
untary approach fails to protect water quality in the future
the plan recommends consideration of regulation by State
and local agencies.
-323

-------
7. Sand and Gravel Operators
Sand and gravel mining can result in erosion and sedi-
mentation of water bodies and pollution of underlying
aquifers if improperly conducted and inadequately reclaimed.
The plan recommends that State and local governments regu-
late this industry to avoid adverse water quality impacts.
Sand and gravel operators are therefore being asked to
comply with these regulations with a spirit of cooperation,
recognizing the importance of these controls for water
quality protection.
8. Lake Associations
Lake Associations form a special interest group in
the private sector indicating a willingness to provide
services when appropriate to implement the plan. Because
of monetary limitations,the on-going water quality moni-
toring program proposed as part of the Plan is not feasi-
ble without the voluntary service of lake associations.
Lake association members are being asked to donate time
in the collection of visibility data, using a secchi disk.
One person on each lake must be committed to check visi-
bility on his or her lake at least once every two weeks
during the summer season, June-September.
In addition, several lake associations are being asked
to contribute substantial time and money toward a proposed
lakes restoration program for Annabessacook Lake, Cobbossee
Lake and Pleasant Pond, recently submitted by the Cobbossee
Watershed District to the Environmental Protection Agency
for Federal cost sharing.
9. Plan Impacts on the Private Sector
The social, economic and environmental impacts which
will result from implementating the Plan recommendations per-
taining to the private sector are complex. Table 7 sum**-
marizes the responsibilities assigned to a number of private
interests in the terms of financial and time commitments,
changes in product consumption habits or resource utiliza-
tion patterns, voluntary use of best management practices
and compliance with regulations. The impacts of these re-
sponsibilities on each interest group are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
-324-

-------
The farming community is being asked to construct manure
storage facilities if Federal grant assistance ranging from
50% to 75% of the total cost is available. As stated pre-
viously, this could cost an invididual farmer from $2,000
to $10,000, depending on the size of the facility. With an
average total cost of $12,000, the farmer's share would range
from $6,000 to $4,000. Approximatley 75 commercial dairy
and beef farmers would be affected in the Region. Since the
Plan recommends a voluntary approach, the farmer will not be re-
quired to expend funds beyond his or her capability.
In the short term, about 25 farmers in the Annabessacook
Lake, Cobbossee Lake and Pleasant Pond drainages may qualify
for Federal grant assistance ranging from 60% to 75% through
a proposed lakes restoration project which will combine EPA
and ASCS funding. Farmers in these drainages are being asked
to collectively spend about $176,000 of the total $266,000
needed for construction of manure storage pits.
Benefits derived from the construction of manure storage
facilities include improved water quality, especially in
the critical lakesheds; and more efficient farming opera-
tions. The latter includes more effective use of animal
manures, reducing the need for supplementary chemical ferti-
lizers, and a substantial savings in labor as daily spread-
ing or piling is eliminated.
The Plan also calls for farmers to voluntarily institute
best management practices for erosion and sediment control
on cropland. This might entail the construction of diver-
sions, grassed waterways, terraces, and other structures,
but generally 75 percent of the cost (up to $2500 per year)
can be covered by ASCS grants. Farmers can therefore im-
plement erosion control practices at a personal cost of
less than $1500 per year. Benefits include improved or pro-
tected water quality as well as the conservation of soil
resources.
Developers and contractors will be required to submit
erosion and stormwater controlplans to local planning boards
prior to obtaining construction permits, if the recommenda-
tions of the Plan are implemented. This may cost a de-
veloper an additional $500 to $2,000 per acre, plus engine-
ering costs and fees to the towns for technical review.
Thus for a typical development which would market h to 1
acre residential homes at $35,000 to $40,000, the costs may
be raised by a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per unit.
Obviously, these costs will be passed on to prospective
property owners. It is not likely that the added costs alone
will preclude purchase by any income group. Further, it is
an equitable way of distributing these costs since erosion
and stormwater control measures are for the protection of
prospective property owners as much as for the public good.
Without these controls, the public would pay a high price
-325-

-------
for impaired water quality; downstream flash flooding;
increased road ditching; replacement of culverts and re-
pair of roads; and eventually an expensive storm sewer sys-
tem costing roughly $3,000 per acre and more in lakesheds
where detention and settling would also be required to re-
move pollutants prior to discharge.
Developers are also being asked to protect sensitive
lands with conservation easements, restrictions in deeds,
or donations to conservation agencies. This would protect
sensitive areas from disturbance by individual property
owners upon completion of the development. These features
could be incorporated into a common open space area deeded
to the town or by the property owners of a development, and
could thus be an asset to the development and to the com-
munity.
Urban and suburban dwellers are asked to voluntarily
change product consumption habits and resource utilization
patterns to protect water quality. A soils test prior to
lawn fertilization is the only recommendation which would
impose a cost and this would amount to about $10.00.
Rural property owners are also asked to change resource
consumption and utilization habits. In addition, property
owners which rely on on-site waste disposal systems are
asked to have their systems checked annually and pumped
every 3 to 4 years at a cost of $25.00 per year to avoid
malfunctions. Costs for the correction of individual mal-
functioning systems range from $1,500 to over $4,000. When
a number of failures can better be solved communally with
a cluster septic system, costs would range from $100 to
$150 per year over the life of the system.
Industrial wastewater generators are asked to comply
with existing regulations governing pretreatment and dis-
posal of wastes. Proper disposal of residuals may neces-
sitate purchase and preparation of an appropriate disposal
site and added costs of transportation, particularly for
firms located in water supply lakesheds or near high yield
groundwater systems.
Woodlot owners and operators are asked to follow best
management practices. In some cases, this may mean reduced
short-term profits but in the long-run, increased overall
profits as the productivity of the forest is ensured and en-
hanced .
Sand and gravel operators are asked to conduct their
operations to avoid erosion and sedimentation of streams and
lakes; and to reclaim spent gravel pits. This will entail
some added costs for regrading, seeding and mulching, but
the benefits in improved land value, aesthetics and water
quality protection will be substantial.
-326-

-------
Lake associations are being asked to commit time
in the monitoring of lake water quality, and in some
cases, both time and money for the proposed lake restora-
tion project involving Annabessacook Lake, Cobbossee Lake
and Pleasant Pond. Up to 1,000 hours of effort and $5,000
to $10,000 in contributions to the project are requested
from the Annabessacook and Cobbossee Lake associations.
-327

-------
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT COORDINATION AND PLAN UPDATE:
THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

-------
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT COORDINATION AND PLAN UPDATE:
THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
A Regional Planning Commission under Maine law is a
voluntary association of municipalities. Commissions are
established to advise local governments and to provide
assistance in local planning activities. Commissions are
further established to act as a communications vehicle to
better facilitate intergovernmental relations between the
local, State and Federal levels of government. Finally,
the Commissions are established to provide a mechanism
for local governments to work together in areas of joint
concern.
The Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Com-
mission was designated in March, 1974 by the Governor to
carry out the initial two year planning phase of the
Environmental Protection Agency 208 planning program in
the lower Kennebec, Cobbossee and Thirty Mile River drain-
age areas. The planning program began in June, 1975. The
Water Quality Management Plan for the Southern Kennebec
Valley, which you are now reading, contains the results
of this planning effort. As a part of the plan, recom-
mendations for improved water quality management acti-
vities have been made; the agencies which should be
responsible for implementing the recommendations were
identified. In this portion of the plan are the activi-
ties which the S.K.V.R.P.C should perform in the implemen-
tation of an improved water quality management system
for this region.
1. Land Use Planning and Open Space
The Commission was established in 1967 with Federal
funding assistance through the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). The grants from HUD since 1967
have been primarily aimed at establishing a land use plan-
ning capability at the regional level. Area communities
have been using Commission land use data and planning
assistance in the development of their local land use
planning and land use control programs.
The emphasis on non-point sources of pollution found
in our water quality management study reinforces the need
to have adequate land use planning, control and enforcement
-328-

-------
at the local level. Non-point source pollution is the re-
sult of water running over the land and becoming polluted
in that process. The ways to minimize this type of pol-
lution call for an understanding of how to wisely use
land by proper siting of various land uses and by proper
design of their appropriate types of development. In some
areas no development should be permitted because of the
environmental hazards involved. The Commission has developed
open space plans suggesting non-development land uses for
outdoor recreational activities such as hiking and picnicing
along with suggestions for financing the purchase of such
lands.
Through the HUD planning program and the 208 Water
Quality Management program, the Commission has developed
a deepened understanding of land use issues. This capa-
bility must continue to develop in order to support water
quality management activities.
2. Water and Wastewater
As in the case of land use and open space, the Com-
mission has had a history of developing expertise in this
area. The Commission has been directly involved in the
creation of the Monmouth to Augusta trunkline and the
Gardiner, Farmingdale and Randolph interlocal arrangement.
In 1972 the Commission submitted a Water/Sewer Functional
Planning and Programming element for HUD certification.
This was a comprehensive facilities plan which prioritized
construction activities.
During the planning process, the Commission has
been able to further expand its level of understanding.
Through the work of the Cobbossee Watershed District, the
surface water supply lakes of the region have been closely
studied. Wastewater treatment facilities have been in-
vestigated on a town by town basis. The regional collec-
tion and treatment systems proposed since the 1960's have
been reviewed and suggestions for modifications are con-
tained in this plan.
It is recommended that in the(area of water quality
and wastewater managxnent, the Commission continue to
develop its expertise in order to be a resource for all
plan implementation agencies.
-329-

-------
3. Coordination
Communications have always been a difficult and time-
consuming activity. The Regional Planning Commission
has traditionally served as a vehicle for levels of govern-
ment to communicate. One important aspect of this activity
is translating Federal and State law and administrative
regulation into understandable activities for local govern-
ments to carry out. The communication channel also acts
in reverse to allow local governments to inform State and
Federal agencies of their problems and needs. Since water
quality management will require increased coordination be-
tween the various levels of government, the role of the
Commission must be maintained.
Another type of coordination is involved with inter-
local cooperation. Many water quality management problems
go beyond any single community's jurisdiction. As an
example, most major lake drainage areas encompass several
communities. Coordinated activities are necessary to
manage lake water quality. The protection of groundwater
which is used as the primary drinking water supply in rural
areas also requires coordination among several communities.
Again, the Commission has in the past acted in this capacity
and this activity must be maintained and expanded to meet
water quality management needs.
4. Technical Assistance
The plan which has been developed calls for improved
local performance in a number of areas. In order to achieve
this, municipalities will have to call on others with need-
ed expertise. As has been pointed out, the Commission
has developed expertise in the areas of land use and open
space planning and in water and wastewater planning. It
has also pointed out that the Commission is only an advisory
body and is therefore not empowered to implement directly
its recommendations. In order then to make the Regional
Planning Commission's recommendations meaningful, they must
be translated into actions by local governments. Technical
assistance is the vehicle for Regional Planning recommenda-
tions to become local action. Regional planners work with
the municipal officers and planning boards, acting as a
resource to provide data and examples of what other towns
are doing.
A second type of Commission technical assistance to
local governments is locating expertise in State and Federal
agencies for specific planning needs. These could include
-330-

-------
highway engineers, soils experts, livestock specialists,
as only a few examples. This outgrowth of coordination
was discussed earlier and greatly expands the capabilities
of local planning. Without increased technical assistance,
municipalities will not be able to perform at a level
adequate for water quality management as envisioned in
this plan.
5. Education
In order to plan and make changes in the way things
are done, there must be a general understanding on the
part of the citizenry as to what the issues are and why
the changes are proposed. Education is really an ongoing
citizen participation activity in which the Commission is
listening to the issues of concern to local people and
is explaining the Commission's planning recommendations.
During the plan's development, a number of new issues
have been raised. Manure handling practices, stormwater
control, and limiting sewer extensions are areas where
explanation and dialogue must proceed a change in cur-
rent practices. The public education process will have
to be continued if plan implementation is to be realisti-
cally expected. The Commission has begun this process
through interim reports, public meetings and newspaper
coverage. We intend to continue this effort.
6. Energy Conservation, Housing and Economic Development
Water quality management cannot be carried out without
an understanding of all the needs of the region. If only
water quality needs are taken into consideration, the total
environment may suffer. Energy conservation may require
intensive use of limited land areas. Communities may not
be able to maintain large lot requirements in the face of
diminishing or more highly priced energy resources. The
need for decent low-income housing also requires reduced
costs for large land areas and wide separation of housing.
Economic development goals may necessitate lower water
quality goals for certain wastes to accommodate job-pro-
ducing activities.
The Commission has done planning in these areas. By
using the technical assistance offered through the Commis-
sion, the balance between water quality and other regional
needs can be maintained.
-331-

-------
7. Plan Review and Update
Once this plan is approved and adopted at the local,
State and Federal level, it must be annually reviewed and
updated. As more information becomes available or condi-
tions in the region change, the plan must reflect the
changes or it will quickly be obsolete. The Commission,
through its implementation assistance and knowledge of
the orginal plan's development will be responsible for up-
dating the plan and having these changes reviewed and
approved.
8. Summary of Regional Planning Commission Activities
The plan calls for some fundamental changes in the cur-
rent management system. It suggests that an expanded role
be given local governments and that the State and Federal
governments support municipalities by providing funding and
technical assistance. The Regional Planning Commission is
important to this changing relationship between levels of
government through its traditional role as a coordinating
agency.
What has been presented in this portion of the plan is
the continuing activities of the S.K.V.R.P.C. as an agency
to help implement the plan through assisting groups with
specific responsibilities for areas of water quality manage-
ment and by continuing to update the plan as necessary. In
order to carry out this role, the Commission will need the
continued support of local government and financial assis-
tance from the State and Federal governments.
9. Plan Impacts on the Regional Planning Commission
The Water Quality Management Plan calls for the Plan-
ning Commission to continue to provide a number of services
to area communities which have been funded in the past
through Federal grants, State aid, and local contributions.
The extent to which the Commission can meet its responsi-
bilities in the future depends on the continuation of that
Federal and State aid as well as local financial support.
In order to provide technical assistance to the planning,
implementation and enforcement functions at the municipal
level, the Commission will need a minimum of two land use
planners plus drafting and secretarial support services.
-332-

-------
Approximately $40,000 annually will be required to support
this activity.
The Plan calls for improved local performance in water
quality management. The Regional Planning Commission is
the only source now available for providing much of the
technical assistance necessary for that improved performance.
Further, the Commission is the agency committed to the
totality of the Plan. Of 11 the implementation agencies
within the region, only the Planning Commission has the re-
sponsibility for assisting in implementing, monitoring, re-
viewing and updating all plan elements. The Commission is
in short, the keeper of the Plan; the agency committed to
the concept of areawide water quality management.
-333-

-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
AND
DRAFT E.I.S. PROCESS

-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DRAFT E.I.S. PROCESS
The purpose of this discussion is to describe the activi-
ties by which the citizens of the region were involved in
developing the 208 Water Quality Management Plan for the
Southern Kennebec Valley. A basic goal of the entire planning
effort was to produce a final document which could be adopted
by municipalities and other local water quality management
agencies and implemented through voluntary compliance with
the Plan's recommendations by these local groups. In order
to achieve this goal, three types of public participation
activities were undertaken; First, the creation and use of
a number of committees made up of a cross section of the
region's citizenry. Second, the direct involvement of munici-
pal officers in the planning process. Third, a public infor-
mation effort to inform the general public of 208 activities
and invite their individual participation in any and all
phases of the Plan's development.
The Committee System;
The committee structure used in the Plan's development
was based in part on already existing committees established
by the Regional Planning Commission. Through the H.U.D.
Water and Sewer Certification program and in the creation of
the Winthrop to Augusta trunkline as well as the Gardiner,
Randolph and Farmingdale interlocal agreement for sewage
treatment and interceptor sewers, the Commission had already
developed a strong Sewer and Water Committee. This Committee
was expanded and became the Commission's overseer of the plan-
ning process, receiving reports from the 208 staff, reviewing
interim reports by the staff and consultants and making recom-
mendations for policy decisions to the full Regional Planning
Commission membership. This Committee met monthly throughout
the two year planning period. Minutes of all meetings are
available at the Commission offices for review.
208 SEWER & WATER COMMITTEE
~Oliver Coulling (Chairman) - Augusta, City Engineer
~Everett Sidelinger, Jr. - Chelsea, Planning Board
~Richard Butler - Farmingdale, Planning Board
~Peter Murphy, Jr. - Farmingdale, Planning Board
Walter Hendrickson - Farmingdale Sewer Committee
James Lyman - Fayette
*Paul Hermann - Gardiner, City Manager
~Basil Payne - Hallowell# City Councilman
~Clarence Roth - Litchfield, Kennebec County SCS
~Ray Pomeroy, Jr. - Manchester Sanitary District
Ralph Watson *¦ Monmouth Water Association
-334-

-------
*Arthur Lang - Mount Vernon
Walter Ricker - Pittston
Linwood Pinkham - Randolph, Planning Board
*James Boyle - Richmond Utilities District
Robert Smutny - Chelsea
Joseph Wilkey - Vienna
Herbert Bristol - Wayne
Ranee Greeley - Windsor, First Selectman
Kenneth Morris, Sr. - Windsor, Selectman
*Scott Higgins - Winthrop, Town Council
Edward Marinetti - Statler Tissue, Augusta
Elwood Trask - Globe Albany, Monmouth
Elwin Paulhus - Sanitary Engineering Division, V.A. Center
Tyler Libby - Soil Conservation Service
Harry Jackson - Augusta Sanitary District
Gerard Laurin - Augusta Water District
Harry Bolster - Gardiner Water District
Charles Enman - Winthrop Water District
Tom Gordon - Cobbossee Watershed District
Donald Shepard - Carleton Woolen Mills, Winthrop
Peter Klachaney - Congress of Lakes Association
Stephen Sheperd - Hallowell
* Regional Planning Commissioner
Another already established Regional Planning Commission
committee, the Land Use Committee, reviewed the interim land
use reports, At these Committee meetings the 208 Land Use
Planner and the Non-Point Source Planner of the Cobbossee
Watershed District were able to discuss in detail the land
use background reports and initial land use constraints for
water quality management.
LAND USE COMMITTEE
~Gordon Stein (Chairman) - Litchfield
*Elmer Degon - Augusta
Wixon Street - Chelsea
~Daniel Towle - Farmingdale
~Charles Ham - Fayette
~Calvin Brown - Gardiner
~Anthony Masciadri - Hallowell
~Clarence Roth - Litchfield
Elmer Mitchell - Manchester
Bruce Tisdale - Monmouth
Charles Hudson - Mount Vernon
Kent Hotham - Pittston
John Bernotavicz - Litchfield
James Harley - Richmond
Coloman Von Graff - Vienna
Robert Clark - Wayne
Harry Pinkham, Jr. - Windsor
Robert Vickery - Winthrop
Tom Gordon - Cobbossee Watershed District
Kathy Sage - Cobbossee Watershed District
Brian Kent - Hallowell
-335-

-------
A Technical Advisory Committee was established made up
of State and Federal technicians to help advise the Sewer
and Water Committee in their review of interim products
The Technical Advisory Committee met with the Sewer and Water
Committee on a bi-monthly basis throughout the planning
period. Minutes of these meetings are also available at the
Commission office.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Charles Boothby - Soil & Water Conservation Commission
Charles Watson - New England River Basins Commission
Matthew Scott - Div. of Lakes & Biological Studies, DEP
Jerry Bates - Div. of Health Engineering, Dept. of'Human Services
Alec Giffen - State Planning Office, Resource Planning Div.
Robert Doyle - Bureau of Geology
Eugene Moreau - Dept. of Human Services, Div. of Health Eng.
Jane Stanley - Department of Army
Burton Anderson - State Planning Office, Water Resources Div
Russell Wagner - U.S.G.S.
Thomas cieslinski - Parks & Recreation
Kenneth Hendren - Bureau of Forestry
Redington Robbins, III - Office of Civil Emergency Preparedness
Mark Possidento - EPA
Edward Woo - EPA
William Stoddard - DEP
Tyler Libby - Soil Conservation Service
Richard Simcock - Franklin County ASCS
Herbert Babitske - u. S. Bureau of Mines
Clair Taylor - ASCS
Charles Ritzi - Inland Fisheries & Wildlife
Kenneth Anderson - Inland Fisheries & Wildlife
Dana Little - State planning Office
Jane Stanley - Department of Army, Corps, of Engineers
During the second year of the Plan's development, the
Sewer and Water Committee established a Management Planning
Committee to work with the staff in developing the list of
issues to be addressed and management alternatives to be
considered. This Committee met on a bi-weekly basis during
the periods of October - December 1976 and February - April
1977 to carry out its functions.
208 MANAGEMENT PLANNING COMMITTEE
Linda Dyer (Chairperson) - Cobbossee Watershed District
James Caswell - Augusta Sanitary District Trustee
Richard Foster - winthrop Sanitary District Chairman
*Paul Hermann - Gardiner City Manager
*Roland whittier, jr. - Randolph Planning Board Chairman
*Ray pomeroy, Jr. - Manchester Sanitary District
**Robert walker - Monmouth Sanitary District Chairman
Walter Hendrickson - Farmingdale Sewer Committee Chairman
Richard Batchelder - Hallowell Water District
Maxwell Marriner - Richmond
-336-

-------
Tyler Libby - Soil conservation Service
Brooks Newbert - Augusta water District
Wayne Frankhauser - Monmouth Water District
Robert Gingras - Cobbossee Watershed District
Chuck Jackson - Maine Municipal Association
**janet Ritzi - Readfield Planning Board
Edward Marinetti - Statler Tissue, Augusta (industrial rep.)
**Neala Jennings - Wayne (Thirty Mile River & Pocasset Lake Assoc.)
Bill Lalis - Wayne (Lovejoy Pond)
Merrill Danforth - Gardiner (Pleasant Pond)
Harry vanderweide - Augusta (Kennebec River)
Russell Gee - Chamber of Commerce
Harvey Farrin - Augusta (Togus Fish & Game Club)
Clement Smith - Monmouth (Farmer)
Bill Stoddard - DEP
Bill MacDonald - Consultant
* - Regional Planning Commissioner
** - Former Regional Planning Commissioner
A Citizens Advisory Committee was established to bring
together individuals beyond those already associated with the
Regional Planning Commission and water quality management
agencies. The purpose of this group was to have another
sounding board for developing the 208 Water Quality Management
Plan. Three meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee were
held; the last meeting in April of 1976. At that point, the
Committee decided that region-wide meetings were difficult to
attend and more selected presentations on a subregional basis
would be better. The committee was therefore disbanded; how-
ever, all persons on the Committee were kept on the commission
mailing list for newsletters and other periodic updates.
208 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Robert Chute - Mt. Vernon, Moose Meadow Fellowship Assn. and
Thirty Mile Stream Alliance
Christopher Dumaine - Torsey pond Association
John Castle - Fayette, Echo Lake Assoc.
James Catlin - winthrop, Code Enforcement Officer
C. M. Connor - Gardiner
Nancy Reynolds - Manchester
Franklin Glynn - Congress of Lakes Association
William Carrigan, Jr. - Annabessacook Lake Assoc.
Evelyn Morgan - Winthrop Conservation Comm.
Lawrence Irvine - Winthrop Conservation Comm.
Georgia wiesendanger - Winthrop Conservation Comm.
Patrick Faucher - Worronmontogus Fish & Game Assoc., Augusta
Eben Upton - Worronmontogus Fish & Game Assoc., Augusta
Clement Smith - Monmouth
George Jacobs - Winthrop, Annabessacook Lake Assoc.
Everett Savage - Ahnabessacook Lake Assoc.
Charles Thompson - Winthrop Conservation Comm.
Joyce Johnson - Gardiner Conservation Comm.
Neala Jennings - Wayne Conservation Comm.
-337-

-------
Charles Eichorn - Richmond Conservation Coirnn.
Priscilla Slack - Hallowell Conservation Coram.
Charles Elvin - Readfield Conservation Comm.
Charles Bradford - Manchester Conservation Comm.
Gerald Hoff - Mount Vernon Conservation Comm.
Margaret Eckman - Augusta Conservation Comm.
Gordon Stein - Litchfield Conservation Comm.
Robert Bergeron - Gardiner Conservation Comm.
William Taliaferro - Fayette Conservation Comm.
Thomas Lane - Wayne, Androscoggin Lake Improvement Assoc.
Clinton Carhart - Wayne, Androscoggin Yacht Club
David Hodson - Clary Lake Assoc.
Charles McCarthy - Cobbossee Yacht Club
John Annett - Paradise Pt. Assoc., Cochnewagon Lake, Monmouth
Rev. L. Thomas Moore, Jr. - Flying Pond Assoc., Vienna
Charles Allen - Kennebec Yacht Club - Augusta
Mrs. Gregory MacDonald - Kimball Pond Assoc.
Edward Haskell - Lower Narrows Pond Improvement Corp.
Richard White - Maranacook Lake Assoc., Winthrop
James Moore - Minnehonk Lake Assoc.
Mrs. Clayton Dolloff - Parker Pond Assoc.
Merrill Danforth - Pleasant Pond, Gardiner
Mike Murray - Pocasset Lake Assn., Wayne
Lawrence Merkens - Summer Haven Lakes Assoc., Augusta
William Rogers. - Tacoma Lakes Improve. Assoc.
* - Regional Planning Commissioner
** - Former Regional Planning Commissioner
Municipal Officers Participation:
Since this Plan is aimed at local implementation, the
comments of elected officials in the towns of the region were
felt to be of particular value. A special effort was there-
fore made to involve these officials in the planning process.
Some elected officials serve on the Regional Planning Commis-
sion or one of the committees described in the last section.
Beyond this, a meeting was held from the third to sixth month
of the planning time frame in each of the communities of the
region to inform elected officials and other interested citi-
zens of the proposed study, its interim outputs and its ulti-
mate goals. A mailing list for interim reports was developed
to send interested officials and citizens requested reports.
During the period from six months to twenty-one months,
maiiinaa were made to elected officials describing progress
in plan development. In March of 1977 a Draft B.I.S. was
sent to all municipal officers. In April, a preliminary set
of management recommendations was distributed for comment..
In Mav and June, a draft Final Plan was circulated and a
meeting was established in each municipality for the Draft
E I s and the draft Final Plan to be discussed. These meet-
lngs formed the basis for the final Sewer and Water comittee
and Regional planning Commission decisions on the final draft
presented in mid-June.
-338

-------
Technical Assistance:
Because of the emphasis on non-point sources of pollu-
tion in the Southern Kennebec Valley 208 program, an impor-
tant area of public participation focused on the interaction
between the Commission staff and local Planning Boards and
Conservation Commissions. These two local government
agencies have a prime responsibility for planning and con-
trol of land use activities.
Throughout the two year study period each town was
offered the services of a Commission staff land use plan-
ner. The planners attended as many Planning Board and Con-
servation Commission meetings as possible. Towns were
assisted in developing comprehensive plans and land use
ordinances. The planners worked under the direction of
local officials in providing these services. The planners
were also able to bring t6 the attention of these local
people the developing recommendations of the 208 planning
effort. By providing this information, the Commission was
provided with immediate feedback on suggested alternatives
under consideration. Through their information, town plan-
ners were also provided with new water quality considera-
tions to consider in performing their land use planning and
control activities.
Public Information;
The Commission was concerned throughout the planning
process that as many people as possible be aware of the 208
activities and felt that their comments and suggestions
should be sought after and welcomed. The major resource was
the Daily Kennebec Journal. This Augusta-based newspaper
has a circulation area covering the entire planning juris-
diction of the 208 study. The average daily circulation of
the KJ is approximately 18,000 copies. The Journal assigns
a reporter to cover Commission activities. During the Plan's
development, all meetings of the full Commission, the Sewer
and Water Committee and the joint Sewer and Water Committee -
Technical Advisory Committee were covered and reported. Beyond
this, the Journal prepared articles describing a number of
interim outputs as they were released by the Commission. In
April of 1977, just before the E.I.S. hearing, the Journal
prepared a nine-part series on the issues and alternatives
presented in the Draft Enfironmental Impact Statement. The
Journal also gave full coverage to the Draft Pinal Plan re-
leased in May 1977 and the schedule of town-by-town meetings
to discuss the Final Plan.
-339-

-------
Another type of 208 news story appeared often in the KJ's
town news section. Town reporters covered planning board meet-
ings where 208 land use planners were assisting local planners
in the development of improved plans and ordinances. These
articles alerted citizens to the impact of the 208 process in
their town communities. The Lewiston Sun, with a circulation
area including several communities in the western portion of
the planning area, was also active in covering these meetings.
In September of 1976 the Commission instituted a news-
letter entitled The Resource Forum to reach an audience of
approximately 450 persons. The mailing list included Regional
Planning Commissioners, elected officials, planning boards,
conservation commissions, members of Commission committees
and other interested citizens. Five issues were published.
They covered progress in the planning process, lists of avail-
able interim reports, issues of special significance such as
agricultural practices and storm runoff, and finally as an
invitation and information vehicle for the Draft E.I.S. hear-
ing.
The 208 staff made special efforts to involve other area
citizens through making presentations before area groups and
associations. The Cobbossee Watershed District made 208
presentations before lake associations to discuss the infor-
mation gathered by the 208 Plan and indicated the types of
management recommendations being developed. The farmers of
the region, through the County Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service, had an opportunity for input into
the agricultural management recommendations. The Southern
Kennebec Realtors Association invited 208 planners to explain
the non-point source and land use control recommendations
being developed. Review and comment from the developers and
home builders was also sought. This outreach effort by the
208 staff broadened significantly the range of comments which
helped shape the Final Plan.
Because of the numerous interim reports which were
developed in accordance with the project and because of the
widespread publicity accorded the interim reports, citizens
of the region had numerous occasions to comment on the final
recommendations as they were developed. Both interim and
final reports were rewritten to reflect these comments.
-340-

-------
The Draft E.I.S. Process:
An Environmental Impact Statement was not a part of
the initial 208 Project Control Plan. However, in the fall
of 197 6, the Regional Planning Commission and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency jointly decided that a full
Environmental Impact Statement process would be beneficial
as a method of further assuring citizen involvement in the
Plan's development. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement
was finished in January of 1977. In March, this Statement
was widely distributed by the Commission, and a public hear-
ing was held on April 13, 1977. At the end of April, the
E.I.S. was published and distributed by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The distribution of the Draft E.I.S. and the public
hearing was the first step in the development of the Final
208 Plan. The Commission's 208 Management Committee used
the Draft E.I.S. as a vehicle to distribute the statement
of water quality management issues that were to be addres-
sed in the final plan and the management alternatives for
each issue. The Draft E.I.S. was, therefore, the basis of
the Final Plan developed between May and December of 1977.
In May and June 1977, fifteen meetings were held
throughout the study area to discuss the Draft E.I.S. and
the first draft of the Final Plan. Table 29 lists the
schedule of meetings.
Table 29
DRAFT E.I.S. AND FINAL PLAN PUBLIC MEETINGS
Date
May 9
Community
Manchester
Richmond
Randolph
Litchfield
Winthrop
Mt. Vernon & Vienna
West Gardiner
Windsor & Whitefield
Readfield & Fayette
Chelsea
Gardiner
Wayne
Monmouth
Hallowell
Augusta
12
16
16
17
17
18
19
23
23
June 6
6
8
13
13
-341-

-------
At each meeting the Commission presented an overview of
the 208 program and then discussed specific recommendations
having the greatest impact on the particular community or
communities represented.
Some significant public comments were received at these
meetings in the towns. In the Manchester and Winthrop meet-
ings the major point of discussion was the trunkline sewer.
The questions centered around the trunkline's integrity and
the cost of improvements. In both communities the citizens
agreed that improvements in the line had to be made in order
to protect the major lakes in the two towns. The final
plan reflects the high priority placed on this activity by
the citizens in that area.
In the towns of Pittston and Richmond the major concern
was the quality of the Kennebec River. The citizens of these
two communities made it clear that they wanted nothing less
than fishable-swimmable water. The Commission responded by
making that degree of water quality the goal for 1983 south
of urban Gardiner.
In the City of Augusta the City Council objected to
suggestions that the combined stormwater and sanitary sewer
system might need extensive separation and that stormwater
after separation might need some form of treatment in
order to upgrade the conditions of the Kennebec River. Al-
though the final plan was careful to stress that more testing
was necessary after major point sources of pollution were
abated and that cost-benefit analysis should be done before
undertaking any sewer rebuilding projects,the City Council
was still insistent that all references to this issue be
removed from the plan. The Commissioners/however, voted to
keep the recommendations since fishable-swimmable conditions
might be jeopardize by there omission.
Written Comments on the Draft E.I.S.
Six written comments were received concerning the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. These communications are in-
cluded in Appendix 3.
In a letter from William Patterson, Regional Environ-
mental Officer for the U.S. Department of the Interior
several issues are raised. Exception is taken to the recom-
mendations that all sand and gravel pits of over 5 acres be
reclaimed pointing out that in some cases reclamation might
have a detrimental effect on groundwater. In response to
comments the section on sand and gravel mining was rewritten
to include suggestions for determining effects on groundwater.
In another subject area, the letter questions whether the
State Historic Preservation Officer has been asked to review
the Impact Statement. This was in fact done.
-342

-------
Joseph L. Ignozio, Chief of the Planning Division, New
England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers points out
the Corps role under Section 404 of the Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments (PL 92-500) and also Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 18 99.
Daniel Webster, Jr. of the Maine Department of Trans-
portation had a number of comments. In the area of road
salting,he found conflicting statements on the extent of the
problem. The final plan reflects salting operations as a
potential problem but not a widespread current problem. Mr.
Webster also points out that the DOT has no control over local
salting operations. In the area of storm drainage, Mr.
Webster indicates that on site retention may not always be
the best method of water quality protection. The final re-
port suggests on site retention wherever practicable leaving
room for other alternatives when appropriate. The MDOT's
sand and gravel mining activities are also clarfied in this
letter and the final plan reflects this clarification.
A letter from Herbert R. Babitzke, Maine Liaison Officer
for the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines indicates
the mineral resources of the area and protective measures
which might be appropriate. Mr. Babitzke also indicates the
sand and gravel mining discussion is adequate.
William H. Parker III of the New England Water Pollution
Control Association brings up a number of technical comments
which were acted upon by the 208 staff. The letter also
questions whether a Regional Planning Commission should play
a role in implementing the 208 plan. The Commission's role
is one of coordination and plan update and is within the area
of its legally permitted activities.
A letter from Clyde D. Walton of Fayette, Maine was re-
ceived along with a petition containing 275 signatures
opposing the transfer of the State Health Engineering Divi-
sion from the Department of Human Services to the Department
of Environmental Protection as called for in the Draft Plan
and Draft E.I.S. The Commission voted,however, to retain
this recommendation. The vote was based on the Commission's
desire to see a single agency with regulatory control of all
wastewater disposal methods and the DEP's regulatory and fin-
ancial assistance capabilities.
-343-

-------
APPENDIX 1

-------
Facilities Issues
1.	Sewer extension plans for the next 20 years are a
208 planning requirement. It is presently uncoordin-
ated although it has large land use implications.
2.	Storm water management is an important water quality
issue. In the Kennebec River Corridor the amount of
pollution contained in the storm drainage system may
keep the river from meeting a high standard of water
quality. Storm water management is also important in
the village areas away from the urban core of the re-
gion since the pollution from storm water will find
its way into lakes and streams. Winthrop village is
the largest problem area away from the Kennebec.
3.	Combined sewers mix sanitary waste with storm water and
increase the problems discussed in # 2 above. In
Augusta, where primary treatment is now available,
the combined sewers create a situation in which a
lot of sanitary sewage is not treated during storm
periods since the volume of storm water forces the
sewer system to overflow directly to the river before
reaching the treatment plant. Gardiner, Richmond,
Randolph and Hallowell all have combined systems that
may have to be separated before waste treatment is
started.
4.	In some areas too remote from existing sewer systems,
individual treatment and disposal of liquid waste may
not be feasible. In these areas, such as rural vil-
lages or groups of lake cottages, cluster systems may
be necessary. The financing, design and management
of such systems should be considered.
5.	Industrial pretreatment is a water quality management
issue. This pretreatment assures that the industrial
wastes which enter the public sewers is of a condition
which can be handled effectively at the treatment plant
and sewer systems themselves.
6.	The Monmouth to Augusta trunkline is extremely impor-
tant to the maintenance of water quality in the Cob-
bossee drainage. The integrity of the system and its
capability to withstand emergency conditions must be
assured.
-1-

-------
Water yuality Issues
1.	Eutrophication is the primary water quality problem
in this region. Eutrophication is lake enrichment
through addition of phosphorus. Area lakes that are
eutrophic include:
Annabessacook Lake
Cobbossee Lake
Pleasant Pond
Little Cobbossee Lake
2.	Cert, n of the region's lakes are especially sensitive
to the addition of phosphorus. Lakes that are shallow
and/or slow flushing cannot tolerate phosphorus inputs
that another lake might tolerate easily. Area lakes
that have a low assimilative capacity include:
Carleton Pond
Cochnewagon
Lower Narrows
Torsey Pond
Parker Pond
Togus Pond
3.	Different uses of lakes may necessitate different stand-
ards of water quality. For example: phosphorus levels
for maintenance of cold water fisheries may vary from
levels permissible for recreational use or water supply.
4.	Lakes that are used as public water supplies are: Upper
Narrows (Winthrop); Carlton (Augusta, E. Winthrop, part
of Manchester) ,• Jamies (Hallowell); Pleasant Pond (Gardin-
er, Farmingdale, Pittston, Randolph). Secondary water
supplies are: Cobbossee Lake (Augusta Water District)
and Hutchinson Pond (Hallowell Water District). Most
of these lakes are multi-use waterbodies.
As water supply lakes become more eutrophic, it may be
necessary to increase the treatment of the water before
distribution. Currently, Pleasant Pond is the only
eutrophic water supply lake.
5.	The State has established water quality standards for
rivers and streams. The Kennebec River in this region
is recognized as carrying a large amount of municipal
and industrial effluent and is therefore not expected
to meet the standards for water contact activities
such as swimming. The 1983 federal goals for water
quality, however, would require a much higher level
of water quality in the Kennebec. Whether this higher
level of water quality is desirable and achievable real-
istically is an issue for 208 management planning.
2-

-------
6.	Water quality problems arise from contaminants other
than nutrients. There is no information for the re-
gion concerning pollution of groundwater or surface
water by contaminants such as heavy metals, pesticides,
et al.
7.	Monitoring of in-lake water quality is useful in docu-
menting the lakes response to various activities in
the watershed; monitoring of tributaries can aid in
the detection of sources of pollution. No long range
monitoring program for the Region's waters presently
exists.
-3-

-------
Non-Point Source Issues
Agriculture is the second largest land use and the
single most significant non-point source of pollu-
tion in the Southern Kennebec Valley Region.
a- Manure disposal is the primary source of agri-
cultural pollution at present. Winter disposal
and manure piles located near drainage ways are
the major problems.
Tillage practices are not a significant activity
at present; a statewide trend to tilled crops
from hay production could change this. Erosion
control is critical.
c' Clearing of marginal land is increasing with com-
petition for land by other users. This is not
significant at present but is likely to be in the
future. Erosion control is critical and difficult
due to rocky shallow soils, wet soils or steep
slopes on these marginal lands.
d. The extent of nitrate contamination from agricul-
tural activities on groundwater sources is unclear.
Residential and commercial developments are presently
a source of non-point pollutants from both surface and
subsurface runoff.
a.	The primary impact of these developments results
from surface runoff during construction, causing
sedimentation of waterways, and from runoff from
established developments from lawns, streets, drive-
ways, etc.
b.	When unsewered, these also may be a source of
groundwater pollution which could impact nearby
surface waters, but more importantly at present,
could cause human health problems if wells become
contaminated, particularly with nitrates. It is
difiicult to recommend controls, however, lacking
base data on the groundwater resource.
c.	Urban and suburban land uses grew by 76% between
1966 and 1974; the control/of pollutants from
these land uses will undoubtedly, then, continue
to be a major concern in longe range planning.
Landfill dumps are the sole means of disposing of solid
wastes in the region. Contamination of the groundwater
with bacteria, metals, chlorides and BOD is likely given
their frequent adverse geologic settings (many are lo-
cated in depleted sand and gravel pits where percolation

-------
of the leachate would be maximized). Phosphorus is
not found to be a major constituent of landfill leach-
ate however, and hence landfills are probably not
affecting eutrophication of nearby surface waters.
4.	Disposal of municipal and septic sewage sludges is a
primary concern due to the' high phosphorus and nitro-
gen content of these. Runoff into surface waters from
these sludges could cause eutrophication, while leach-
ing of nitrogen into groundwaters could cause public
health problems.
5.	Disposal of industrial sludges and wastes is of concern
as runoff from these could impair water quality in a
number of ways, depending upon the nature of the wastes.
Food processing wastes would be likely to have BOD prob-
lems; textile mill wastes are more chemical in nature.
6.	Forest management practices do not constitute a water
quality problem at present. The pollutant of concern
is sediment, but little evidence of long-term erosion
due to logging is found in the region, with a few ex-
ceptions. The degree of impact from forest management
activities is related to the amount of harvesting oc-
curring in any given year. Although less than 3% of
the forested land in the region was harvested in 1974,
a substantial increase is not unlikely in the future.
Since 75% of the region is forested, there is a poten-
tial for future harvesting operations to cause signi-
ficant water quality impacts.
Sand and gravel mining doubled in the region between
1966 and 1974. Since this resource often serves to re-
charge groundwater aquifers, protection from activities
which could cause contamination of these aquifers may
be desired. The extent to which groundwaters may be
affected presently by sand and gravel operations or
subsequent uses is unknown.
Roa<3 salt and salt storage is not perceived as a signi-
ficant threat to water quality in> the region at this
time. Monitoring of tributaries in the winter of 1975-
1976 showed little evidence of chlorides. An exception
may be the Upper Narrows drainage which receives run-
off from a salt storage area on the Metcalf Road and
direct runoff from Routes 202 and 135. Local contamin-
tion of wells exists now and will be a continuing problem.
Lake botton sediements could be a major source of phos-
phorus to Annabessacook Lake, given its history of re-
ceiving municipal and industrial wastes which would en-
rich the sediments, and the loss of oxygen in the bottom
waters which allows the release of phosphorus from sedi-
ments are a major non-point source in other lakes in the
region.
-5-

-------
10. Malfunctioning septic tanks are a source of phosphorus
around lakes and also pose a potential health hazard.
Research to date indicates that lake enrichment from
failing septic tanks may not be as major as once thought.
-6-

-------
Land Use Issues
1.	The application of land use controls can have a direct
effect on water quality. Many of the issues discussed
in the Water Quality, Non-Point Source and the Facili-
ties sections have land use control implications.
2.	The level of municipal land use controls vary within
the region. A systematic interdisciplinary approach
for proper assessment is needed.
3.	Nutrients generated by land uses adjacent to lakes and
tributaries have a much greater impact on the actual
loadings to the lake. That is, nutrients generated in
more remote areas of the watershed tend to be lost be-
fore reaching the water. Cumulative land use impacts
in the lakeshed need to be evaluated.
4.	Not enough consideration has been given to the sec-
ondary effects of some water quality management acti-
vities. (For example, the building of a new sewer
line, the improvement of transportation networks, and
the expansion of new housing developments.)
5.	An ever expanding number of local committees and other
bodies are working independently and are in need of in-
ternal coordination. A workable mechanism for such
bodies, as well as appropriate avenues for citizen
participation needs to be established.
6.	Most of the housing development is taking place on
the geographical fringes of the region. The quantity
and quality of the groundwater supply have not been
determined. Protection of aquifers should be in-
cluded in the 208 Plan.
7.	High value farmland is being used for housing, placing
remaining farm acreage under increased pressure. This
can lead to overuse with resulting erosion problems.
-7-

-------
APPENDIX 2

-------
DEFINITION OF SELECTED TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASCS	Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
BOD	Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CWD	Cobbossee Watershed District
DEP	Maine Department of Environmental Protection
DUE	Division of Health Engineering, Maine Department
of Human Services
DHS	Maine Department of Human Services
DO	Dissolved Oxygen
°C	Degrees Centegrade or Celsius
oF	Degrees Fahrenheit
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FmHA	Farmers Home Administration, U.S. Department
of Agriculture
HUD	U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
ha	hectare = 2.47 acres
gpd	Gallons per day
I/I	Infiltration/Inflow
JTU	Jackson Turbidity Units
KCSWCD	Kennebec County Soil and Water Conservation
District
kg	Kilogram
kg/ha/yr	Kilograms per hectare per year
lb/day	Pounds per day, also ppd
LPI	Licensed Plumbing Inspector
m	meter
MGD	Million gallons per day

-------
mg/1	milligrams per liter
ml	milliliter
0/B	Overflow/Bypass
ppb	parts per billion
ppm	parts per million
pH	Negative logarithm of Hydrogen Ion (a
measure of acidity and alkalinity)
ppd	pounds per day, also lb/day
SBA	Small Business Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce
SCS	Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
SKVRPC	Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Com-
mission
SWCC	Soil and Water Conservation Commission, Maine
Department of Agriculture
S.S.	Suspended Solids
T	Temperature
T/day	Tons per day
T/mi^/yr	Tons per square mile per Year
USDA	U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS	Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the
Interior
-2-

-------
APPENDIX 3

-------
I UN 2 7 19/ 7
United States Department of the Interior
NORTHEAST REGION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
In reply refer to:
ER-77/436
*MX* ttftXXXKKtttftitbUtfc xQUKKX
c/o U, S. Geological Survey
raCBSMXXXKxMxJoflc
Room 1304
150 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
June 22, 1977
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Policy Coordination Office
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Sir:
This is in response to your request for Department of the Interior
comments on the draft environmental statement for Areavide Water
Quality Management for the Southern Kennebec Valley of Maine.
The management plan seems praiseworthy in its attempt to consider
all sources of pollution in the study area. However, we suspect a
greater final success might be achieved within a more precisely
defined hydrological unit, for example, the Kennebec River drainage
The staff recommends (page 172) that all aand and gravel operations
larger than 5 acres must be regraded, covered with topsoil nnrf
revegetated. The purpose is to protect groundwater advance contaml
nation. We suggest, however, that the recommendations should ???«~
include determination of difficult effects on aquifers- should
consider post operational restrictions and options; and should
involve studies of the types, sources and availability of	,
to be used for backfilling and regrading. Use of some typITof
materials could create more damaging excavations elsewhere iind
could result in increased impacts on recharged and quality ground
water in the original excavation. Simple skinraing of surrounding
basin.
^o^,T'0/v
•<
u


-------
Regional Administrator
soi1 for backfilling and grading in some areas might result in
disturbing incidences on groundwater resources and with the
exposure of clean sand and gravel in the pit itself.
The chapter dealing with '"Mitigating Measures" pages 99-113 does
not include involvement by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries
and Wildlife nor the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The State
Fish and Game Agency should be involved from the standpoint of
siting and construction as well as approval for operation of any
developed waste treatment plants. This also applies to the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service where Federal funds are provided. This
can be ndequntely expressed under Chapter 4 by adding an additional
item as follows; 7. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. This
Act states that wildlife conservation shall receive equal consid-
eration and be coordinated with other features of water resources
development programs. It applies to all types of water resource
projects undertaken either directly by a Federal Agency, or under
a Federal permit or license. It requires these agencies to provide
for planning, participation by the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the State Fish and Game Department, and to respond specifically to
their reports and recommendations for mitigation and enhancement of
fish and wildlife resources.
We find no specific conflicts with regard to cultural and natural
sites known to the National Park Service. However, by the fact
that both natural and cultural sites are addressed and listed as
"special value resources" (p, 39-45) ;md that the laws and regis-
tries for their protection are stated (p. 103-105), the intent
and commitment for follow-through on existing procedures as neces-
sary should also be stated. These procedures are primarily em-
bodied in 36 CFR 800. In addition, it is our customary advice to
consult with qualified archeologists to determine the probability
of Huch resource values in areas where physical works emanating from
this program could destroy such resources. It muy be that specific
implementation projects and physical works will require subsequent
Environmental Protection Agency actions whereupon the more detailed
cultural resource protective efforts would be undertaken.
While the State Historic Preservation Officer normally nominates
sites for listing on the National Register, it can also be EPA's
responsibility to request eligibility determinations from National

-------
Regional Administrator
Park Service, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation,
Washington, D. C. for such listings of sites identified in
fulfillment of the project's environmental impact evaluation
(ref. 36 CRF 800) and fulfillment of Executive Order 11593 (as
adjunct to the Acts recited on p. 103-104).
We see no indication that the State Historic Preservation Officer
is being asked to review this Draft Environmental Statement. That
Officer should review this document and his comments should be
displayed and discussed in the Final Environmental Statement.
With respect to recreational resources, the statement could be
improved with a fuller discussion of public boating facilities In
the area. A map showing the location of recreational facilities
would help. The site map should be keyed to tables. A more de-
tailed table of contents is also desirable.
The practicality of spray irrigation as an alternative disposal of
effluent to control induced growth of the community should be
discussed.
Mineral resources are considered in this report. Therefore, we
find that the statement is adequate insofar as these resources
are concerned.
Sincerely yours,
William Patterson
Regional Environmental Officer
- 3 -

-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS	^
424 TRAPELO ROAD	j\)\- ^ 0
WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02154
hfply to
A T TfNTI ON OF:

NEDPL-R	8 July 1977

Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Sir:
We have received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment for Areawlde Water Quality Management, South Kennebec Valley,
Maine.
Please note that mention should be made of the Corps of Engineers
regulatory permit responsibilities and jurisdiction. Under "Wetland
Patterns", page 21 and "Mitigating Measures", section 2 - "Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments (PL 92-500)" on page 100, the Corps
regulatory responsibility under Section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments should be addressed. These permit
responsibilities are for those activities Involving the discharge
of dredged or fill material 1n navigable waters, including conti-
guous or adjacent wetlands, as well as Inland rivers, lakes and
streams and their contiguous or adjacent wetlands.
In addition, a Corps permit 1s also required for all work below the
mean high water line 1n the navigable waters of the United States
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Future impact statements addressing specific alternatives towards
Implementing this management program should Indicate these respon-
sibilities and the Corps jurisdiction. If permit actions are
expected, Information detailing the Impacts of those actions should
be presented 1n the Impact statements.
.iOVAJT/Qa,
V — -
''Ve-tui*'

-------
NEDPL-R
Regional Administrator
8 July 1977
If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Mr.
McCarthy of my staff. Thank you for the opportunity to review
this Impact statement.
Copy furnished:
General Counsel
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, NW
Washington, DC 20006
DAEN-CWP-V
Southern Kennebec Valley
Regional Planning Commission
16 Bangor Street
Augusta, Maine 04330
Sincerely yours
'OSEjTHf L. IGNASiq
;h1er/ Planning 0
2

-------
ROGCR L. .MALLAR
Committionrr
	 »¦
STATE OF MAINE
D€PARTM€NT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING	AUGUSTA. MAIN€	04330
July 11, 1977
Project Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Sir:
, ,	!°Tent3 ^f31"8 Wt ^romental Impact Statement
for Areavide Water Quality Management prepared by EPA and the Southern Kennebec
Valley Regional Planning Commission, January 1977,
Although the Maine Department of Transportation is specifically mentioned
several times in the DEIS, we were unaware of this document	+vT me^ione°[
availability appeared in the Federal Register of May 31 1977 u. ® notice °f its
requested a copy. Because of the lifted reviev tLfo^'L^en VtT^Tr Led
to matters of immediate concern to MDOT.	re3tricx,ea
Roadsalting and sanding are listed on page 2k among those activities
accompanying development that "have considerable impacts upon water quality" In
light of the finding on page 172 that road salt and salt storage are not significant
threats to water quality in the region, we suggest it might be better to indicate
that the previously mentioned activities have potential for impact rather than
domonrstrated impacto ud written.
The statement on page 8U regarding superhighway construction and soil exposure
represents an extreme that has probably never been reached in Maine and likely never
will be. While ve do not dispute the potential for sedimentation from construction
activities (indeed we have an active erosion/sedimentation control proi.hr,
presentation of an example more typical of Maine would appear preferable
On page 133 it is stated that "...a closer working relationship with state
agencies such as the Department of Transportation must be maintained because of
the impact roads have on storm drainage". We certainly endorse cooperation a£d
coordination among agencies having mu ual interests but also feel it sho id b
noted that roadside activities outside of our control can have significant impacts
upon highway drainage systems.	F
A statement is made on page lU8 regarding the lack of	j
pollution of groundwater. We would like to note that MDOT does have sone0^1"11 °g
on the subject in its Well Claims unit that it Would be willing to aha™?
(next page)

-------
EnTir0nmenU1	Agency,Jnc Blag.,Boston .Mass.
On pope l60, the statement is made that "The State Department of Trannporta-
tion in their (sic) road construction activities does not consider adequately
the pollution from storm runoff". We would appreciate an expansion of this
statement and an opportunity to discuss it with the authors.
On pope 172, the recommendation made to require all pits larger than 5
acres to be reclaimed by covering with l.opsoil and revegetatin^. We feel t,htn
\y recommendation is too inflexible. For example, creation of ponds and of wetlandn
in old pits have proven successful alternatives. This section on page 172 also
*--> incorrectly indicates that pits "mined" by MDOT are exempted from State regula-
tion. Actually pits "regulated" by MDOT are exempted from the Site Location of
Development Act (38 MRSA U81et seq.). MDOT actually "mines" few pits itself but
"regulates" many. Such regulation includes reclamation measures.
The statement on page 173 regarding continuance of MDOT assistance programs
to towns might imply to some that this department has some sort of regulatory
authority governing salt handling, storage, and application by local governments,
while MDOT continually strives to improve its own procedures in this regard and
has distributed recent EPA publications on the subject to communities, we have
no pertinent regulatory powers over local governments.
On putft'a 3 87-189 there are statements made cone i nlriK utomiwutur muiuwinenl.
thut uut'gcot storm drains and sewers always have adv^rtu; environmental impacts
while various types of retention basins are in cont.riui uniformly beneficial.
In the table on page 189, on-site infiltration basins are said to recharge ground-
water but no comments are made to possible pollution hazards as alleged on page
95 for similar ponding in pits. In any case, such basins require additional
'	land and may result in environmental, economic, and social changes that are not
always desirable. Basins should be viewed as possible stormwater management
tools worthy of consideration but certainly detention or infiltration of stormwater
on every new development site should not be mandated as on page 187.
Finally, there are statements throughout the DEIS such as "...studies to date
and the literature supports that stormwater runoff is a major source of phoophorun
lri the lake areas" (page 187) that are not accompanied by any data or by
literature citations. Such statements should be supported an they are vital to
w ^dotermjnlntf whether or not regulatory programs with accompanying impacts are required
under the 208 process.

I hope these comments prove of bom* v.i„.	.	,¦
future discussion.	y°u that they/wi: | stimulate
Very truly yours,
/Q&o'tu/
Daniel Webster,Jr.'
DW:WFR:pb	Coinm^sfioner
ccs Southern Kennebec Valley Beglonal Planning^omissSn"1""*10"
Maine Department of Environmental Protection

-------
United States Department of the Interior
Liaison Office
Ma ine
BUREAU OF MINES
P. 0. Box 228
Augusta, Maine 04330
April 26, 1977
Mr. John B. Forster
PI anner-AdmIn i strator
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional
Planning Commission
16 Bangor Street
Augusta, Maine 04330
Dear Mr. Forster,
1 reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
proposed 208 Water Quality Management Plan for the Southern Kennebec
Valley of Maine. It was a pleasure attending the Technical Advisory
Committee meetings during the last year. These meetings helped me
to understand the 208 Water Quality Management Plan and 1 can
appreciate the complex task the Commission has undertaken.
Although Maine is not a major producer of minerals, it is
Important to the state and its economy. Many inactive mines, quarries
and mineral prospects have been described In literature. Deposits
occur at specific locations which Is one of many factors limiting
mineral production. State and federal controls on mining allow the
use of mineral resources, whereas, local zoning often does not. Once
zoning allows land to be put to a different use, there Is little chance
to retrieve "lost" minerals. No significant substitutes appear likely
for such basic construction materials as sand, gravel and stone. The
Commission should be aware of the granite and limestone quarries In
the region. Although no stone has been quarried In the Southern
Kennebec Valley for several years, the resource exists and provision
must be made to permit future mining.
The western Kennebec Valley has noted occurrences of pegmatite.
These occurrences may not be of commercial significance now, but
mining may be done In the future as the market and demand develops.
Pegmatites are mined for their mica, feldspar, or for gems and other
accessory minerals. Most of the mining of feldspar Is taking place In
Oxford County.
The section In the report dealing with sand and gravel mining
was adequate. Consideration was given to the need and to the economics
where transportation over long distances would result In unjustified
costs. State law already controls sand and gravel operations larger
than five acres.

-------
John B. Forster
April 26, 1977
Page 2
Reclamation techniques have Improved to such an extent that
land values have Increased. The mining Industry Is now aware that
In order to keep operating, certain steps need to be taken during
the mining operation to protect the environment and that mined lands
need to be reclaimed for future use.
HERBERT R. BAB fTZKI
HERBERT R. BABfTZKE
USBM Liaison Officer—Maine
cc:
Charles D. Hoyt
Robert D. Thomson

-------
f \C » C l"\ •-> ¦' /•' C-C
nice U/^vS'Ctk** b-ry tsrilx-v-'-U ' h '/<-'&(
t ;/¦ O'
f\ (/ , t'-—-* '¦> '	?	O
'W ,^'A tc: Tit*- -to"KC l	—•	ff^-r*^tci.
7
Juno 8/1977
Mr. Hdv?aid Kbv.sc £, President
Kaw EuglfiivJ Uatar Pollution Control
AohocIi^lcm
P.O. no*; 138
Hcwlay, IIA. 01969
D«ar Ed <
A«	Jr yot. t h»<	th. *nviron»«t.X i»pa«t snt«»t
tor	« adlQ fe„3g(wcne. H, contents .« Sww>rl««d
tfilow. yle«M bo assured that while I am •osjewiut faiailiar »<4 th rho
SKVRPC Btudy 1 have triad to ba cowpletcdy unUasL
1.	Th. «Mm EI3 a»pMr,, to b« « (.Unnteg report, I.e.,
fttatcaftAtS and colored eapa,
2.	Too meh omphaet* is pieced on "staff v»f «««„«. j-h i- »
n<..i ~	,,, ,r	„ BCBl1 t®conmtmdntiona arwl too
?luwS <,Ui,ntlty th*	<•*
*64»diRf5» wctft obta nwd, frequency of eampllnp, rimeff r*t
-------
d. Pago 7.1 - "Upgrading th« clftaoification to a "P" could con-
ceivably jnaan no nc%r eourcea of wastewater can bo added to the
Kenmvbec'." This ifl not practical vlth projeeted growth In the
ore;u Therefore, there have to bo alternatives ttuch aci ANT,
reduction of nonpoiut runoff, etc'. Wluat are these and what
are thtiir impacts?
a. Chapter 3 - Thero aro gGuar&l statements concerning pollutants
(i.e., kg/hs/yr) but no -quantlfication. Also, thera In no
idvssiciflc&t£o& of potential areas to be affected and no samp-
ling data Co flubutantiete it.
it, CUc]i£6r 5 - A» diacuw.cwl above, the riwvviicude of the pollution
problem fran each potential sourca is not quantified in Chap-
tor 3. Therefore, the roeonimendatioiio in thin Chapter are
msftaioglesQ*
g, Page 153 - "Where practices in conf ox-usance with the guidelines
are not practical due to financial limitations..." Who makeo
such determinations?
h. Pfefto 167 - "Require treatment of septage sludges at « treat-
ment facility*" It should bo noted that the impact of auch
practice may degrade the effluent quality of the treatment
system. gach generalisations should bo made vlth caution.
9
i* Page 173 - naKwaont Alteraatlvea ... A. Regional Planning
—, Coiamioeion.'1 I believe that the function of planning agencies
In thia state are to plan not implement.
Ed, there ar« Just a £«* of «7 cement a, but I think they aro sufficient
to point out my concern.
After you've reviewed the comments they should be forwarded Immediately
to EPA a« they are due early next week.
I'll see you next week.
Sineerely, f J
U)i4r
Wiriiam H. Parker III
Director
WHP/dJr
eci Thomas L. Lothrop
Aldena Gordon

-------
April 13, 1977
Liverraore Falls, Me,
Southern Kennebec Regional Planning Commission
16 Bangor Street
Augusta, Maine
01*330
Dear Sirs*
reviewing your Draft Environmental Impa,:. tatement on the Proposed
onfi Water Ouality Management Plan dated March 19V' - t am impressed with the
rml of the study. Many assumptions reinforcing the goals stated herein
+« be based on reasonably sound facts. However, I am opposed to some of
^n^v^roBOsals relative to Private Sewage Disposal. lfcey include 1.) transferring
SiLte Sewage Disposal functions from Health Engineering to DEP, 2.) Mandatory
maintenance inspections and 3.) requiring community acceptance of model code
regulations as a prerequisite to federal aid assistance in correcting malfunct-
ioning systems.
a historical and comprehensive study of our present external plumbing code
r6Veal it ia working veiy well under its present administration. The
program is technically and administratively sound, working in partnership with
state and local governments.
Moreover I have reservations about concentrating direct land use police
":8 to -Jy single state asrvay. This could provide more coordination of
nrotrrams for administrative cunvenience at the expense of affecting the widest
5mi.ce of alternatives. For example, the single agency approach to increased
«t»te zoning and subdivision control activity may be strongly dependent on a
more stringent plumbing code that would overshadow other protection elements or
vice versa.
Transferring additional enforcement powers to state government from local
"rnM+ifis does not guarantee program security. Experience leads me to be-
lerels will »inl™l and fluctuating with
ii-, let to successfully reaching the goals assigned to them. For example, how
'1. .x-xg employees do we need to police malfunctioning septic systems? How
maSr systems are actually malfunctioning? What kind of a budget can an agency
a mandatory inspection program? What about public reaction to the
legislature? These are some real questions that must be addressed with regard
to your proposed private sewage disposal changes.
Attached herein are petition copies from this area being presented to the
108th Legislature opposing passage of ID 680. They also address issues concerning
the single agency approach to land use regulation.
t«	I suggest you solicit coordination with our State Pesticide Control
ttoJS The new pesticide regulations provide strict controls for product registrat-
* viator certification and training programs. Possibly, the pesticide
problem discussed in your draft statement may not be as serious as anticipated.
Yours truly,
CiydfrP. Walton (Fayette)


-------
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.	Land Use, Socio-Demographic and Economic Data
Reports
2.	Land Use Planning and Controls Reports
3.	Structural Wastewater Facilities Reports
4.	Water Quality and Hydrologic Reports

-------
LAND USE, SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DATA REPORTS
Barringer, Richard. 1972. Maine Mainfest. The Allagash
Group, Bath, Maine.
Clark, N.D. 1975. Municipal valuations, rates, ratios
and equalized tax rate. Maine Bureau of Taxation,
Augusta.
Clough, Garrett C. and Paul R. Adamus. 1976. Draft of
types of critical areas in Maine, Phase I report. Cen-
ter for Natural Areas, South Gardiner, Maine. For the
Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine.
Connors, James A., Sterling Dow III, and Dean B. Bennett.
1975. A handbook: How to make a natural resources
inventory for your community. For the University of
Portland-Gorham.
Connors, James, Ann Friedlander, and Charles March. 1973.
An environmental analysis for Winthrop, Maine. For the
Winthrop Conservation Commission.
Dearborn, Vance E. 1974. Population estimates for 1974.
In Resource Development Highlights. Volume IX, Number 5.
Dearborn, Vance E. and Molley R. McBreaity. Kennebec County
statistics. Coperative Extension Service, University
of Maine at Orono.
Dearborn and Daigle. 1972. Maine population changes from
1960-1970. Cooperative Extension Service, Department
of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of
Maine at Orono.
Ferguson, Roland H. and Neal P. Kingsley. 1972. The timber
resources of Maine. Northeastern Forest Experiment
Station, U.S.D.A., Upper Darby, Pennsylvania.
Hasbrouck, Sherman. 1975. Indicators of housing in Maine.
University of Maine at Orono.
Maine Bureau of Taxation. Biennial reports, 1959-1960,
1969-1970, 1973-1974.
	 1974. Unpublished data, sales and use tax.
Maine Department of Commerce and Industry. 1974. Maine
buyers' guide.
-1-

-------
Maine Department of Commerce and Industry. 1973. Maine
economic data book 1973.
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game. 1973.
Wetlands inventory for use in shoreland zoning.
Maine Department of Manpower Affairs. 1976. Abbreviated
initial smaller area report for area classification.
Augusta labor market area.
	 1973. Census of Maine manufactures.
Department of Transportation. June 1975. Augusta—Gardiner
area Transportation Study.
		 October 1975. Highway and bridge con-
struction program.
	*	 November 1974. 1974 highway sufficiency
X cpOL L> •
.......	October 1969, December 1971. National
highway functional classification study.
siid^: "interim repor"5' Passen9er transportation needs
phase ii!' piannin^volume^75' RaU tra"sP°"ation plan,
trrportfion plan>
evaluation report.	inventory and line
^975. State of Maine road mileages.
data'from'various9years?5' Unpublished traffic count
Maine Historic Preservation Commission 1974
historic resources inventory. n* i9'4. Maine
Maine State Planning Office iq-7/i e,
system for land cover in*Maine.' AuguSta^ classificatl°n
for land is4'Mdin"in Maine^ASgustaf1""0" SySte"'
revised draft. ?5' Maine's critical area program,
Maine Townsmen. Pebruarv lq-n
Maine.	*	Associated Industries of
	 JUly 197S" Education finance law.
-2-

-------
Maine Townsmen. June 197 4. Education, local control and
finance.
	 February 1975. Education subsidy com-
mission report.
	 February 1973, April 1974, June 1975.
Full value tax rates.
	 July 1975. Legislative round-up.
	 June 1972. Maine educational finance.
	 August 1972. The Elderly Household
Tax Relief Act.
Moriece and Gary of Maine, Inc. September 1974. Feasi-
bility study, Kennebec River greenway. For, Maine
Bureau of Parks and Recreation. Augusta.
McCall, Cheryl A. 1972. Manual for Maine wetlands inventory.
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game, Augusta,
Maine.
Miller, Ed. 1975. The changing Maine economy. Maine
Department of Manpower Affairs.
Ploch, Louis A. 1974. Maine, a growth area. In Resource
Development Highlights. Volume IX, Mumber 5.
Reed and D1Andrea. 1972. Natural areas inventory. For
the Natural Resources Council of Maine, Augusta.
Reed, William C. and Katherine Sage. 1975. Merrymeeting
Bay. Reed & D'Andrea, South Gardiner, Maine. For the
Maine Department of Conservation, Augusta, Maine.
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission.
November 1975. Economic Conditions in the Southern Ken-
nebec Valley. Augusta.
	 January 1976. Demographic Trends and
Projections. Augusta.
	 February 1976. Transportation Analysis.
Augusta.
	 March 1976. Land Use Trends and Pro-
jections. Augusta.
	 June 1976. Preliminary Land Use ^Con-
straints. Augusta.
-3-

-------
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission.
February 1976. Land Use Evaluation Areas - Selection.
Augusta
	 197 5. Draft, Kennebec County overall
economic development program. Augusta.
	 June 1973. Housing report for the SKV
region. Augusta.
	 November 197 4. Open space and outdoor
recreation in the Southern Kennebec Valley. Augusta.
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission and
North Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission. 1975.
Kennebec county overall economic development program.
Augusta.
Stich, Alda. 1975. Acreage calculations, 1966/1974 regional
land use comparisons for SKVRPC.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1974.
Census of Agriculture, Preliminary report for Kennebec
County.
	,*	 1969. Census of Agriculture, county data,
Kennebec County, Maine.
	 1972. Census of Manufactures. Maine.
	 1972* Census of Retail Trade. Maine.
' Maine	 1972. Census of Selected Service Industries
Veazie, Carl E. 1971. Inventory and analvsis of hoimina
and the economy of the Kennebec Valley, phase I Public
Affairs Research Center, Bowdoin College, Brunswick.
o"tie sSS^eKc^Lf phase"?!•
Public Affairs Research Center, Bowdoin College; Brunswick.
ti°n in each municipilit^in^in!* itll "ubli^Af fairs"
State^lannin^Of f ice?*" C°lle*e'	Maine
"i99ol" Public* Affairs Research	to
Brunswick for Maine State Planning Office R College,
projections' 1.975-2020. "SE5S wSf	„
Bowdoin College, Brunswick.	Research Center,
-4-

-------
LAND USE/NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION REPORTS
Anderson, Henry W. 1975. Relative contributions of
sediment from source areas and transport processes.
In present and prospective technology for predicting
sediment yields and sources. Proceedings of the
Sediment-Yield Workshop, USDA Sedimentation Laboratory,
Oxford, Miss. Nov. 28-30, 1972. pp. 66-73.
Bormann, F.H. and G.E. Likens. 1966. Comparative nut-
rient losses in solution and in particulate matter
from an undisturbed northern hardwood ecosystem. Bull.
Ecol. Soc. Amer. 47(3):115.
	 1969. The watershed-ecosystem concept
and studies of nutrient cycles, pp. 49-76. In: G. Van
Dyne (ed.). The Ecosystem Concept in Natural Resource
Management, Chapter IV. Academic Press, New York.
Bormann, F.H., G.E. Likens and J.S. Eaton. 1969. Biotic
regulations of particulate and solution losses from a
forested ecosystem. Bio-Science. 19 (7):600-10.
Bormann, F.H., G.E. Likens, D.W. Fisher and R.S. Pierce.
1968.	Nutrient loss accelerated by clear-cutting of a
forested ecosystem, pp.187-195^ In: Symposium on Pri-
mary Productivity and Mineral Cycling in Natural Eco-
systems. University of Maine Press, Orono.
Bormann, F.H., G.E. Likens, T.G. Siccama, R.S. Pierce and
J.S. Eaton. 1974. The export of nutrients and re-
covery of stable conditions following deforestation
at Hubbard Brook. Ecol. Monogr. 44 (3):255-277.
Brezonik, P.L., W.H. Morgan, E.E. Shannon, H.D. Putnam.
1969.	Eutrophication factors in North Central Florida
lakes. Water Resources Res. Center Publ. No. 5, Uni-
versity of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
Cate, Bill. ed. 1972. Groundwater pollution. Directory
Press. St. Louis, Mo.
Colston, Newton V. Jr. 1974. Characterization and treat-
ment of urban land runoff. For U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, EPA-670/2-74-096. U.S. Govt.
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 158pp.
Dillon, P.J. 1974. A manual for calculating the capacity
of a lake for development. Limnology and Toxicity
Section, Water Res. Branch, Ontario Ministry of the
Environment. Unpublished paper, 66p.
-5-

-------
Dillon, P.J. and W.B. Kirchner. 1974. The effects of
geology and land use on the export of phosphorus from
watersheds. MS, Dept. of Zoology, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Dornbush, James N., John R. Anderson and Leland L. Harms.
1974. Quantification of pollutants in agricultural
runoff. For Office of Research and Development, U.S.
EPA, Report No. 660/2-74-005. Washington, C.D. 149p.
Dudley, John G. and David A. Stephenson. 1973. Nutrient
enrichment of groundwater from septic tank disposal
systems. An Inland Lake Renewal and Shoreland Manage-
ment Demonstration Project Report for Upper Great Lakes
Regional Commission. Envir. Res. Unit, University of
Wisconsin Extension, Madison. 131p.
Ellis, B.G. 1971. Gull Lake investigations: Nutrient in-
put studies.. Report to Kalamazoo Nature Center Kel-
logg Biolog cal Station, Hickory Corners, Mich!'17p?
		 1974. The soil as a chemical filter.
In Conference on recycling treated municipal wastewater
through forest and cropland, Ed. W.E Sonnpr t t
Aaencv" WasMna£"'' Vs' ^iroS^lroiection
Agency. Washington, D.C. pp. 47-72,
Friur4lCEXDe?imeAtUq?S"'"iSheS data' Conn®cticut Agricult-
ural Experiment Station, New Haven, Conn.
Gosz, J.R., G.E. Likens, F.H. Bormann, 1970. Intrasvstem
nutrient cycling from litter fall ™ ii. « CP f £ *
Exnerimpntai pnroef n , tall on the Hubbard Brook
Experimental Forest. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 51(2)s27.
.................1973. Nutrient release from decomposing
leaf and branch litter m the Hubbard Brook Forest,
New Hampshire. Ecol. Mongr. 43(2):173-191
Wa*er Quality degradation by sep-
Orono drainage. Environmental Studies Center, UMO,
Hobbie, J.E. and G.E. Likens. 1973. The output of phos-
phorus , dissolved organic carbon and fine Particulate
carbon from Hubbard Brook watprahQ^„ ' r • Pa^t;L^ulate
Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 734-742	edS- Llmno1" Oceanogr.
Hornbeck, J.W. and R.S. Pierce iqth	, ,
changes following forest	• S£°rm hydrograph
15th IUFRO ConarPQo n . ear}n9 m New England. Proc.
15th. IUFRO congress, Gainesville, Florida! March.
lization' on" streamfiow^^in^Fores^p"	ferti"
posium, Proc. USDA Forest ServiceSyT
NE-3, p. 79-87.	service Gen. Tech., Report
-6

-------
Hutchinson, F.E., R.A. Hoffman and R.F. Jeffrey. 1972.
Effect of animal wastes applied to soils on surface
and groundwater systems. U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Office of Water Resource Res., Washington, D.C.
Klausner, S.D. and P.J. Zwerman. 1974. Water quality as
influenced by the management of land applied dairy
manure. Agronomy Mimeo 74-32. Dept. of Agronomy,
Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.
Kluesner, J.W., and G.F. Lee. 1974. Nutrient loading
from a separate storm sewer in Madison, Wisconsin.
J. Water Pollut. Con. Fed. 46: 920-936.
Lee, G.F., E. Bentley, and R. Amundson. 1971. Effect of
marshes on water quality. University of Wise., Madi-
son Water Chem. Progress Report.
Likens, G.E., F.H. Bormann, N.M. Johnson, D.W. Fisher and
R.S. Pierce. 1970. Effects of forest cutting and
herbicide treatment on nutrient budgets in the Hubbard
Brook watershed-ecosystem. Ecol. Monogr. 40 (1):
23-47.
Likens, G.E., F.H. Bormann, R.S. Pierce and D.W. Fisher.
1971. Nutrient-hydrologic cycle interaction in small
forested watershed-ecosystems. In L. d'Andigni de Asis
(Ed.), pp. 553-63. Productivity of Forest Ecosystems.
Proc. Brussels Symp., 1969. UNESCO Publ.
Likens, G.E. and F.H. Bormann. 1974. Linkages between
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Bio-Science 24(8):
447-456.
Lee, G.F., E. Bentley, and R. Amundson. 1971. Effect of
marshes on water quality. Univ. of Wisconsin - Madison
Water Chem. Progr. Report (mimeo). 25 pp.
Loehr, Raymond C. 1975. Non-point pollution sources and
control. In Water Pollution Control in Low-Density
Areas, William J. Jewell and Rita Swan, eds. University
Press of NE, Hanover, N.H. pp. 269-299.
Lunin, Jesse. 1971. Agricultural wastes and environmental
pollution, In Advances in environmental science and
technology, ed. by James N. Pitts Jr. and Robert; L.
Metcalf. Volume 2. Wiley-Interscience, New York. pp.
215-261.
Lynch, James A., W.E. Sopper and D.B. Partridge. 1972.
Changes in streamflow following partial clearcutting on
a forested watershed. Proceedings of a Symposium on
Watersheds in Transition, held at Ft. Collins, Colorado,
June 19-22. pp. 313-320.
-7-

-------
McGauhey, P.H. and R.B. Krone. 1967. Soil mantle as e
wastewater treatment system. Sanitary Engineering
Publ^L^h C°1^ege °f Engineering and School of
Health, Unxv. of Calif., Berkeley. 201 p.
MaiWater^Oualitv ?f fvfonifental Protection, Bureau of
Water Quality Control. 1975. Non-point source
SSr ss rer 9uality in MainL Me-
Miller, David W. , p.a. DeLuca, and T.L Tessi^r 1Q74
Fo?US rtEnvi?o^?afSn in the "iate"
74-056 ' s ir . ?®'™ Agency. EPA-660/2-
338 p	^ Office, Washington, D.C.
Minshall, Neal E., Stanlpv a ^ ¦,
1970. Stream enrichment from	M6rle S' Nicho1?'
of the Sanitary Engineering ml* ™ °Perations. Journal
the Amer. Soc. of Civil Pn^-i	°n: Proceedings of
or civil Engineers, pp. 513-524.
sewage sludge'whe^applie^I°f trace elements in
literature Lvlew s?Sdy For	lands, a
Development, U.S. Emri^A™, f Office of Research and
Report EPA-670/2-74-005	Protectior» Agency,

-------
Schneider, William J. 1970. Hydrologic implications of
solid waste disposal. Geological Survey Circular 601 F.
U.S.G.S., Washington, D.C. 10 p.
Shaheen, Donald G. 1975. Contributions of urban roadway
usage to water pollution. For U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development. Report 600/2-75-004.
Washington, D.C. 118 p. & app.
Shannon, Earl E. and P.L. Brezonik. 1972. Relationships
between lake trophic state and nitrogen and phosphorus
loading rates. Envir. Sci. and Tech. V. G. "No. 8.
p. 719-725.
Shawney, B.L. and Hill, D.E. 1975. Phosphate sorption
characteristics of soil treated with domestic waste-
water. Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 4, No. 3,
pp. 342-346.
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission.
1976. Nonpoint Sources of Pollution. Augusta, Maine.
	 1977. Lakeshed Study Reports for Anna-
bessacook Lake, Cobbossee Lake, Pleasant Pond, Carlton-
Narrows Ponds, Jamies-Hutchinson Ponds, Togus Pond,
Lovejoy-Pocasset Lakes.
	 1977. Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment. Augusta, Maine.
	 1977. Non-Point Sources of pollution to
Lakes. Augusta, Maine.
Sopper, William E. and Louis T. Kardos. 1974. Conference
on recycling treated municipal wastewater through forest
and cropland. For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1973. Silvicultural sys-
tems for the major forest types of the United States.
USDA, Agricultural Handbook No. 445, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Groundwater
pollution from subsurface excavations. EPA-430/9-73-012.
U.S. Supt. of Documents, Govt. Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 217 p.
	 1973. Methods for identifying and evalu-
ating the nature and extent of non-point sources of
pollutants. EPA-430/9-73-014. U.S. Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 261 p.
	 National Eutrophication Survey. 1974.
Relationships between drainage area characteristics and
non-point source nutrients in streams. Working Paper No.
25. NES, Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Labor-
atory, Corvallis, Oregon.
-9-

-------
Uttormark, Paul D., John D. Chapin and Kenneth M. Green.
197 4. Estimating nutrient loadings of lakes from non-
point sources. For Office of Research and Monitoring/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-660/3-74-020.
U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 113 p.
Wadleigh, Cecil H. 1968. Wastes in relation to agricult-
ure and forestry. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Misc.
Publication No. 1065. Washington, D.C. 112 p.
-10-

-------
LAND USE PLANNING AND CONTROLS REPORTS
Allaway, W.H. 1968. Agronomic controls over environ-
mental cycling of trace elements. Advan. Agron. 20-
235-274.
Becker, Burton C., Michael A. Nawrocki and Gary M. Sitek.
1974. An executive summary of three EPA demonstration
programs in erosion and sediment control. For U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development. EPA-660/2-74-073. U.S. Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Bosselman, Fred, David Callies, John Banta. 1973. The
taking issue, an analysis of the constitution limits of
land use controls. U.S. Governmental Printing Office.
Washington, D.C.
Bryant, R.G. 1972. Land: private property, public con-
trols. Harvest House, Montreal.
Davis, Richard, C.T. Lindblom, and John J. Rheinfrank, III.
1971. Flood plain management: An approach for Ohio.
For the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, pp.1-64.
Goodall, Clifford, Esq., and Southern Kennebec Valley
Regional Planning Commission. 1977. A Model For
Maine Towns: Regulations For The Review of Subdivi-
sion Applications with Explanatory Comments.
Greater Portland Council of Governments. 1976. All Land
Is Not Created Equal: A Handbook For the Protection Of
Environmentally Sensitive Lands.
Haussman, Richard F. and E.W. Pruett. 1973. Permanent
logging roads for better woodlot management. USDA,
Forest Service, Upper Darby, Pa. 45p.
Hornbeck, J.W., G.E. Likens, R.S. Pierce and F.H. Bormann.
1975. Strip cutting as a means of protecting site and
streamflow quality when clearcutting northern hardwoods.
In Proc. North American Forest Soils Conference. Quebec,
Canada. (In Press.)
Hough, Stansbury and Associates Limited. No date. Design
guidelines for forest management, prepared for the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto,
Johnson, Craig. 1966. Practical operating procedures for
progressive rehabilitation of sand and gravel sites.
National Sand and Gravel Assoc., Silver Spring, Md.
-11-

-------
Juneja, Narendra. 1974. Medford. Performance requirements
for the maintenance of social values represented by the
natural environment of Medford Township, New Jersey,
pp.11-36.
Kline, Elizabeth. 1975. Protecting Open Sapce, A Guide
to Selected Protection Techniques. Society for the
Protection of New Hampshire Forests.
Kusler, Jon A. and Thomas M. Lee. 1972. Regulations for
flood plains. American Society of Planning Officials,
pp.1-10.
League of Women Voters. 1975. Land Use, Can We Keep
Public and Private Rights in Balance.
Maine Soil and Water Conservation Commission and others.
1972. Maine guidelines for manure and manure sludge
disposal on land. Misc. Rpt. 142. UMO, Orono, Me. 21p.
	*!	 1974a. Maine guidelines for septic tank
sludge disposal on the land. Misc. Rpt. 155 U.S. Aq.
Exp. Sta., UMO, Orono, Me. 20p.
............. 1974b. Environmental quality handbook,
Maine, Erosion and sedimen control on commercial, indus-
trial, residential, recreation, governmental and con-
struction sites. Me. Soil and Water Cons. Comm., Augusta.
			 1975. Maine guidelines for municiDal
sewage treatment plant sludge disposal on the land. Me.
Soil and Water Conserv. Comm., Augusta. 21p
Maine State Planning Office. 1973. Maine guidelines for
16b!01 shorelana z°ning ordinances. SPO, Augusta
Peskin, Susan. 1976. Guidincr Grow-t-h ou
Porcella, D.B., A.B. Bishon. j r
A.B. Crawford, VJ.J. Grenney* d t	°'W* AsPlund'
W.D. Lewis, E.J. Middlebrooks 'r'm'51 ^' J,J* Jurinak'
Comprehensive management of water vrnt1^ngshaw« 1974*
SSS>S=7Sf"Sa. Report
SairtagrI;0uitU^!3Vo^^n:f-e^l for keeping land.
Council Proceedings.	Northeast Agric. Economics
-12-

-------
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission.
1976. Legal-Institutional Arrangements for Area-wide
Waste Treatment Management Planning. Augusta, Me.
	 1976. Preliminary Report on Develop-
ment Goals. Augusta, Maine.
	 1977. Regional Management Study.
Augusta, Maine.
	 1977. Preliminary Land Use Constraints.
Augusta, Maine.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Reilly, William K., ed.
1973. The Use of Land: A Citizen's Policy Guide to
Urban Growth.
Thronson, Robert E. 1973. Comparative costs of erosion
and sediment control, construction activities. For
Office of Water Program Operation, U.S. EPA Report No.
430/9-73-016. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 205pp.
Thurow, Charles, William Tower and Duncan Erley. 1975.
Performance controls for sensitive lands: A practical
guide for local administrators. For U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Trimble, G.R., Jr. and R.S. Sartz. 1957. How far from
a stream should a logging road be located? Journ.
Forestry. 55(5): 339-341.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1972. The regulatory flood-
way. Guideline for reducing flood damages.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1975. Soil suitability guide for land use planning
in Maine. Misc. Publ. 667(Rev.). SCS, Augusta, Maine.
	 1975. Standards and specifications for
soil erosion and sediment control in developing areas.
USDA, SCS, College Park, Md.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Methods and
practices for controlling water pollution from agricul-
tural non-point sources. Washington, D.C.
1973. Processes, procedures, and methods
to control pollution resulting from silvicultural
activities. Washington, D.C.
1973. Processes, procedures and methods
" to'control'pollution resulting from all construction
activity. Washington, D.C.
-13-

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Water quality
management planning for urban runoff. Office of Water
Planning and Standards, EPA 440/9-7 5-004. Washington,
D.C.
	 197 5. Compilation of Federal, state
and local laws controlling non-point pollutants. For
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, EPA Report
440/9-7 5-011. EPA, Washington, D.C.
	 1975. Performance Controls for Sensitive
Lands: A Practical Guide for Local Administrators.
EPA #600/5-75-00.
Wren, E.J. 1973. Preventing landfill leachate contami-
nation of water. For U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development. NTIS,
Springfield, Va. 49p.
-14-

-------
STRUCTURAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES REPORTS
C.E. Beal Associates. December 1976. A Study on the
Wastewater Management of the Town of Monmouth, Maine
for the Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning
Commission. Augusta, Maine.
	 June 1973. "Report on proposed pollution
abatement system, Wayne, Maine."
	 November, 1970. "Report on proposed
sewerage system, Monmouth, Maine."
Dale E. Caruthers, Inc. July 1974. Combined sewer over-
flow needs survey. Southern Maine, for Maine Dept.
of Environmental Protection, Augusta, Maine.
Herbert R. Doten, Consultant Engineer. January, 1976.
A study of the Storm Water Management System of the
Town of Monmouth, Maine for the Southern Kennebec Re-
gional Planning Commission.
A.E. Hodsdon, Consulting Engineer. December 1976. Non-
Sewered Areas Wastewater Disposal Problems, Phase II
of III, prepared for Southern Kennebec Valley Regional
Planning Commission.
E.C.Jordan, Inc. January 1975. Water pollution construc-
tion grant program: an assessment, for Maine Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Augusta, Maine.
SEA, Inc. February 1977. "Cost-effective analysis and
environmental assessment for Gardiner, Farmingdale
and Randolph, Maine regional sewerage system."
	 January 1977. Report on Areawide Water
Quality Management Plan for Gardiner Subregion Waste
Management Systems prepared for SKVRPC.
	 December 1975. "I/I analysis for Gardiner,
Farmingdale and Randolph, Maine, regional sewerage sys-
tem. "
	 July 1975. "Proposed financing alter-
natives, sewerage system, Farmingdale, Maine."
	 February 1975. "Sub-regional wastewater
system (Gardiner-Farmingdale-Randolph)," for SKVRPC,
Augusta, Maine.
-15-

-------
James W. Sewall, Inc. December 1976. Report to SKVRPC
on An Analysis of the Hallowell Water District Waste
Management System with Regard to Storm Sewers, Sewer
Service Area Extensions and Water Quality Problems.
	 June 1967. "Cost study report to City
of Hallowell and the Water Improvement Commission 1967
on the proposed sanitary system on Hallowell, Maine and
Hayford Heights, Farmingdale, Maine."
	 June 1974. "Report on proposed sewer-
age system for City of Hallowell, Kennebec County,
Maine, Part I."
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission.
March 1977. Publicly owned facilities. Augusta, Maine.
	 January 1977. "Non-Sewered Areas Waste-
water Disposal Problems." Phase III of III.
	 June 1976. "Non-Sewered Areas Wastewater
Disposal Problems, Phase I of III."
	 January 1976. Industrial waste overview.
Augusta, Maine.
	 June 1970. "Water/Sewer functional plan-
ning and programming certification," Augusta, Maine.
Carroll E. Taylor and Associates. October 1976. 208 Study,
Winthrop, prepared for SKVRPC.
	 February 1977. 208 Study, Manchester,
prepared for SKVRPC.
Whitman and Howard. January 1977. "Report on water pol-
lution abatement, Bond Brook area, Augusta, Maine" for
Augusta Sanitary District.
	 December 1976. Final Report to Southern
Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission, Water
Quality Management Plan, Augusta Sector.
	 August 1976. Final Report to SKVRPC and
the Inter-Community Group, Inter-Community Trunk Line
Analysis.
	 December 1974. "I/I Analysis, Winthrop
Water District."
		 September 1974. "I/I Analysis, Augusta
Sanitary District, Augusta, Maine."
-16-

-------
Whitman and Howard. August 1969. "Report on proposed
sewerage system, Manchester, Maine.
	 June 1968. "Feasibility study, connection
to Augusta Sanitary District system, Winthrop, Maine."
Wright, Pierce, Barnes and Wyman. September, 1976. Report
on Facilities Planning Update, Urban Runoff and Storm
Drainage, Future Sewer Service Areas, Sedimentation/
Erosion and Sludge Analysis; prepared for SKVRPC.
	 June 1973. "Preliminary study and report
for the Richmond Utilities District."
	 August 1971. "Preliminary sewer study,
Togus Pond area, for SKVRPC, Augusta, Maine.
-17-

-------
WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGIC REPORTS
Ad Hoc Commitee on Problem Lakes. 1970. Cultural eutro-
phication of Maine's lakes. UMO, Land and Water Resources
Center (Environmental Studies Center), Orono.
Bailey, J. 1975. Proposed trophic classification of the
great ponds of Maine. Dept. of Environmental Protection.
Augusta, Maine 23pp.
Browman, M.G., R.F. Harris, D.E. Armstrong. 197 3. Lake
renewal by treatment with aluminum hydroxide. Draft
manuscript. 117pp.
Carlson, R.E. Unpublished. A trophic state index for
lakes. Limnol. Res. Center, Univ. of Minn.
Caswell, W. Bradford and Woodrow B. Thompson. 1976. Recon-
naissance of groundwater resources and surficial geology
of the Southern Kennebec Valley Region. For the SKVRPC.
Cooper, Gerold P. 1941. A biological survey of lakes and
ponds in the Androscoggin and Kennebec River drainage
systems in Maine. Fish Survey Report #4. Maine Dept.
of Inland Fish and Game. Augusta, Maine.
	 1941. A biological survey of lakes and
ponds in the central coastal area of Maine. Fish Survey
Report #5. Me. Department of Fish and Game. Augusta, Me.
Cortell, J.M. 1970. Year end report, Algae control program,
Lake Annabessacook. Allied Biological Corp., Wellesley
Hills, Mass.
Cortell, J.M. et al. 1973. Improving water quality and con-
trolling algae in eutrophic lakes, Togus Pond, Augusta,
Maine. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine.
Dillon, P.J. and F.H. Rigler. 1974. A test of a simple
nutrient budget model predicting the phosphorus concen-
tration in lake water. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31:1771-
1778.
Dillon P.J. 1975. The application of the phosphorus load-
ing concept to eutrophication research. Sci. Ser. 46,
Can. Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ont., 14pp.
	 1974. A manual for calculating the capacity
of a lake for development. Limnology and Toxicity Section,
Water Res. Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Unpublished paper, 66pp.
-18-

-------
Dunst, R.C. et al. 1974. Survey of lake rehabilitation
techniques and experiences. Tech. Bull. No. 75, Dept.
of Nat. Res., Madison, Wise.
E.C. Jordan . June 1975. Water quality surveys of the
Kennebec and Sebasticook rivers, 1973-74, prepared for
the Maine DEP. Portland, Maine.
Freeman, R.A. and W.H. Everhart. 1971. Toxicity of alum-
inum hydroxide complexes in neutral and basic media to
rainbow trout. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. pp.644-658.
Hall Millard, 1972. Cultural eutrophication of Lake Anna-
bessacook: Causes, consequences, correction. A report
to the Cobbossee-Annabesacook Authority. (Cobbossee
Watershed District), for Environmental Engineering Ser-
vices, Inc., Orono.
	 Artificial mixing experiment and water
quality monitoring program. Lake Annabessacook, Maine.
Env. Study. Ctr., UMO, Orono.
Higgins, B.P.J, et al. 1976. Lake treatment with fly ash,
lime and gypsum. Journal WPCF 48:2153-2164.
Kenney, W.L. and others. 1973. Measures for the restora-
tion and enhancement of quality of freshwater lakes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Kirchner, W.B. and P.J. Dillon. 1975. An empirical method
of estimating the retention of phosphorus in lakes.
Water Resour. Res. 11:182-183.
Larsen, D.P. and H.T. Mercier. 1976. Phosphorus retention
capacity of lakes. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33:1742-1750.
Lee, G.F. ed. 1970. Factors affecting the transfer of
materials between water and sediments. Univ. of Wise.
Madison. Water Resources Center., Eutrophication Informa-
tion Program. Literature Review No. 1.
Leopold, L.B. 1968. Hydrology for urban land planning -
a guidebook on the hydrologic effects of urban land use.
Circ. #554, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C.
Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 1977. Maine
water quality status. Augusta, Maine.
	 January 1976. Kennebec River basin water
quality management plan. Augusta, Maine.
	 1975. Maine lake water quality strategy.
Augusta, Maine.
-19-

-------
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game. 1971.
Summary of pond reclamation in Maine through 1971.
Augusta.
Maine Water Improvement Commission (DEP). 1965. Classifica-
tion violation report; evaluation of Carleton Woolen
Mills and Winthrop Sewerage Treatment Plant in relation
to Mill Stream and Annabessacook Lake. Augusta, Maine.
1967. Annabessacook Lake study —
Eutrophication and fertilization. Augusta, Maine.
Nichols, S.A. 1974. Non-chemical techniques for aquatic
plant management. Inland Lake Demonstration Project
Report, Wise. Dpet. of Nat. Res. Tech. Bull., Madison,
Wise.
Nickerson, George and Robert Chute. 1968. A study of the
growth factors relating to the over abundance of algae
in Lake Annabessacook, Monmouth and Winthrop, Maine dur-
ing the 1968 summer. Bates College Biology Dept.
Lewxston, Maine.	^ v
Norton, Steven A. and D.R. Sasseville. 1974 Fiux of
nutrients by diffusion ttrough the lake siaiment-hypolim-
lakeS ln Maine' USA" Department
of Geology. UMO, Orono, Maine.
Peterson, J.O. et al. 1973. Nutrient inactive on hv
chemical precipitation at Horseshoe Lake Wisconsin
Technical Bulletin No. 62 Denar?L^ i J!1!00 ? 2*
sources, Madison, Wisconsin !opp	'atUral
Peterson, S.A. et al. 1974.	.
lake restoration procedure labor a tor tivation as a
EPA Ecological Series EPA 660/3-74_0^2investl9atlons•
Peterson, S.A. et al. 1976.
nutrient inactivation compounds for^aklNation of
Journal WPCP 48:827-831.	lake restoration.
^Ta^'s^is "i^ir £&£*£report no. 4, ground
of Interior, Geologic^e*^^ Si.""8'
Schindler, D.W. 1971. Carbon
and the eutrophication of freshwaS? Vt PhosPhor?s* ,
7, 321-329.	£resnwater lakes. J. Phycol.
................. 1974. ElltrnriVi i j_ •
Experimental Lakes: IirrolirSt-tS	and Ret=overy in
Science 184. pp. 897-99. lons for Lake Management.
Schindler, D.W., P.A.J. Armstrong q v « i
Brunskill. 1972. EutroDhinHl-	Holmgren and G.J.
urrophication of lake 277, Experi-
-20-

-------
mental Lakes Area, North-western Ontario, by addition of
phosphate and nitrate. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 28,
1763-1782.
Scott, Matthew. 1971. The estimated nutrient budget of
Annabessacook Lake. Paper presented for the Workshop
and Conference on Reclamation of Maine's Dying Lakes.
University of Maine, Orono.
	Lake eutrophication in Centra] Maine. Un-
published data, Maine Department of Environmental Pro-
tection, Augusta, Maine.
Shannon, Earl E. and P.L. Brezonik. 1972. Relationships
between lake trophic state and nitrogen and phosphorus
loading rates. Envir, Sci. and Tech. 6, 8, 719.
Southern Kennebec Valley Regional Planning Commission.
April 1977. Water quality overview, and data appendix.
Augusta, Maine.
	 October 1975. Water resources data
availability. Augusta, Maine.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency, National Eutrophi-
cation Survey. 1974. National Eutrophication Survey,
Methods for lakes sampled in 1972. Working Paper No. 1.
NES. Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Corvallis, Oregon.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services.
1975. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Tech.
rel. #55. Washington, D.C.
	 1973. A method for estimating volume
and rate of runoff in small watersheds. TP# 149.
Washington, D.C.
Viessman, W. 1971. Estimation of lake flusing rates for
water quality control planning and management. In:
Proceedings, Workshop-conference on reclamation of
Maine's dying lakes. Mar. 24-25. Univ. of Maine, Orono.
Water Resources Center, pp.50-66.
Vollenweider, R.A. 1968. Scientific fundamentals of the
eutrophication of lakes and flowing waters, with partic-
ular reference to nitrogen and phosphorus as factors
in eutrophication. Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev., Paris.
Tech. Rep. DAS/CSI/68.27:159 pp.
	 1975. Input-output models with special
'reference to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology.
Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 37:53-83.
-21-

-------
Wallace and Strunk. 1974. Inventory of lake studies in
Maine. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine.
Wiswall, K.C. and K.S. Shumate. 1976. Stormwater manage-
ment design: a manual of procedures and guidelines
Roy F. Weston, Inc., w. Chester, Pa 9
^ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 702-119/aaa
-22-

-------