[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
STATE OF MAINE [NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT REPORT COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER t*11RON A%@ gig. ....... ..... ... ......... @N- . . . . . . . . . . . . w C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:: . . . . . . . . . . . -@ ......... ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1989 Department of Environmental Protection Dean C. Marriott, Commissioner Bureau of Water Quality Control Stephen W. Groves, Director TD224 M25M37 1989 MAINE NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT REPORT Prepared by: Maine Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Quality Control 1989 Property of CSC Library U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2 INTRODUCTION 4 2.1 AUTHORITY FOR DEVELOPING NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM 2.2 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT REPORT 2.3 SECTION 319 REQUIREMENTS 3 METHODOLOGY 7 3.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 3.2 DATA COLLECTION 3.3 WATERBODY IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM 3.4 WATER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 4 STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY 17 4.1 POLLUTANTS CAUSING NON-SUPPORT OF DESIGNATED WATERBODY USES 4.1.1 Nutrients 4.1.2 pH 4.1.3 Sediment 4.1.4 Pesticides 4.1.5 Organic Enrichment 4.1.6 Toxics, Organic and Metallic 4.1.7 Petroleum and Byproducts 4.1.8 Salts 4.1.9 Other Pollutants 4.2 CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES OF NONPOINT POLLUTION SOURCES 31 4.2.1 Agriculture 4.2.2 Silviculture 4.2.3 Construction 4.2.4 Urban Land 4.2.5 Resource Extraction 4.2.6 Waste Disposal 4.2.7 Other Sources 4.3 IDENTIFICATION OF NONPOINT SOURCE IMPAIRED AND THREATENED WATERBODIES 84 4.3.1 Rivers and Streams 4.3.2 Lakes and Ponds 4.3.3 Estuarine and Marine Waters 4.3.4 Groundwater 4.3.5 Wetlands 4.3.6 Interstate/International Waters SECTION PAGE 5 -STATE AND LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAMS FOR CONTROL OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION 130 5A PROGRAM COORDINATION 5.2 STATE AGENCIES 5.2.1 Department of Agriculture 5.2.2 Soil and Water Conservation Commission 5.2.3 Board of Pesticides Control 5.2.4 Department of Economic and Community Development, office of Comprehensive Planning 5.2.5 Department of Conservation 5.2.6 Department of Environmental Protection 5.2.7 Department of Human Services, Division of Health Engineering 5.2.8 Department of Transportation 5.2.9 State Planning Office 5.2.10 University of Maine Cooperative Extension Service 5.3 REGIONAL AGENCIES 5.3.1 Regional Planning Organizations 5.3.2 Resource Conservation and Development Areas 5.3.3 Soil and Water Conservation Districts Cobbossee Watershed District 5- 4 LOCAL AGENCIES 5.4.1 Municipal Planning.Boards 5.4.2 Municipal Code Enforcement Officers 5.4.3 Municipal Conservation Commissions 5.5 NEW INITIATIVES 5.5.1 Program Coordination 5.5.2 Information and Education 5.5.3 Enforcement 5.5.4 1ncentives 5.5.6 Program Evaluation 6 PROCESS FOR INDENTIFICATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ASSOCIATED STANDARDS 188 LIST OF REFERENCES 191 APPENDIX A MAINE WATER CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM APPENDIX B GROUNDWATER METHODOLOGY APPENDIX C GROUNDWATER RESOURCES NOT ATTAINING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS DUE TO NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Nonpoint Source Pollution Survey Form 9 Figure 2. Statewide Maps of River Basins 12 Figure 3. Annual Inputs of Pollutants from Highways 40 Figure 4. Annual Inputs of Pollutants from Runoff 46 Figure 5. Annual Loading from Combined Sewer Overflows 51 Figure 6. Number of CSO's Entering Marine and Estuarine Waters by Municipality 52 Figure 7. Amount of Material Dredged in Last 10 years 80 Figure 8. Statewide NPS Pollution Map - Rivers & Streams 90 Figure 9. Statewide NPS Pollution Map - Lakes & Ponds 99 Figure 10. Statewide NPS Pollution Map - Marine Waters 116 Figure 11. Statewide NPS Pollution Map - Groundwater 120 Figure 12. Areas of Immediate Interest for Study of Nonpoint Source Pollution in Marine Waters 82 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Maine Designated Surface Waterbodies .................... 15 Table 2. Summary of Classified Uses .............................. 16 Table 3. Maine Attainment Status: Rivers and Streams ...................................... 91 Table 4. Maine Attairunent Status: Lakes and Ponds ......................................... 100 Table 5. Lake Vulnerability Index ............................... 102 Table 6. Maine Attainment Status: Monitored Waters ........................................ 86 iv SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The clean water in Maine's rivers and streams, lakes, coastal waters, wet- lands, and groundwater is a precious resource, a source of pride for Maine residents, and a critical component of the natural environment that is so attractive to visitors. It deserves our best efforts for protection. Two types of pollution'threaten our water quality: Point Sources and Nonpoint Sources. Point Sources are the easier of the two to identify because they are direct discharges to waterbodies, mostly by way of pipes. Examples include discharges, usually licensed, from sewage treatment plants and facto- ries. For the past 15 years Maine has made steady progress in cleaning up Point Source pollution. One dramatic result has been the return of gamefish to several large rivers along which manufacturing and sewage treatment facilities are located. Nonpoint Source (NPS) pollution is more difficult to identify: it is broad-based and generally landuse related. It results when large numbers of the same human activities,contribute pollution in diffuse manners after spo- radic storm events. Individual sites may contribute relatively small doses of pollutants, but the cumulative loading from all sources in a watershed is devastating to water quality. NPS sources addressed in this.report are agri- culture, silviculture, construction, resource extraction, urban runoff, waste disposal, and some other minor sources. The principal pollutants contributed by these sources are nutrients, sediment, pesticides, organic enrichment, toxic substances, petroleum and its by-products, salts, and hydrologic and thermal changes. -1- Despite the progress in cleaning up Point Source pollution, degraded water quality persists in a number of waterbodies in, the state, and there are many other waterbodies that are threatened with nonattainment of their designated uses as the result of Nonpoint Source pollution. Currently, 1017 miles of Maine's rivers and streams do not support their designated uses; that is, one or more uses are impaired because of NPS pollution. There are 35 lakes and ponds, totalling over 37,000 acres, for which the Department has documented data, that do not support their use standards. There are 34,000 additional acres of lakes considered to be impaired for which the information source was professional and public input. Threatened lake acreage, from public input and monitoring data, equals about 53,000 acres. In addition, NPS pollution has caused an estimated 187,000 acres of groundwater aquifers to fail to meet their safe drinking water standards. It has also impaired the uses of several estu- aries along Maine's coast. The impact of NPS pollution on Maine's wetlands has not been studied in detail and is therefore not well-known at present. These statistics underscore the urgent need to address NPS pollution through a state- wide program. The purpose of this Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report is to: � describe the role of federal, state, regional, and local agencies regarding clean water and NPS pollution control � assess the water quality of Maine's waterbodies � explain the principal NPS pollutants, their sources, and their impacts on water quality � describe existing programs for controlling NPS pollution and introduce initiatives for accelerated control � describe Maine's proposed process for identifying best management prac- tices (BMPs) for controlling NPS pollution -2- BMPs are the building blocks of an NPS pollution control program. A BMP is a conservation practice or a way of performing an activity such that water quality is protected. Although this report identifies the process for defining' BMPs, a secondreport, the Nonpoint Source Management Plan, will integrate all BMPs into-a comprehensive, statewide program. The term "water quality" in the context ofthis report derives its meaning from the concept of "designated use". The Maine Water Classification System, included in Appendix,A of this report, assigns designated uses to waterbodies of the state. As detailed above, declining water quality 1 eads to the failure of a waterbody to support its designated uses. The success of Maine's NPS Pollution Control Program will be measured by the degree to which the impaired uses of Maine's waterbodies are restored. At the time this document went to press additional comments were received from the NPS Advisory Committee members and from other reviewers. Because of the late date these comments couldn't be incorporated into the report. They will be included in future revisi ons. -3- SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Authority for Developing Nonpoint Source Program The 1987 Amendments to the federal Clean Water Act authorized a new direc- tion and focus for water quality efforts by each state. Nonpoint Sources of water pollution, typically diffuse.and not resulting from a discharge at a spe- cific, single location such as a pipe have been recognized as impediments to meeting the goals of the Act. The Act establishes as a national policy tha t a program for the control of Nonpoint Sources of pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to attain the goals of the Act. The Amendments represent a comprehensive revision of the Clean Water Act and mandate that a number of new state water pollution control initiatives be carried out. Section 319 of the Act, which provides the basis for implementa- tion of Nonpoint Source control programs, identifies the requirements which a state must satisfy in order to qualify for financial assistance under the Act. Two documenes must be completed by Maine and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: the "Maine Nonpoint Source Assessment Report" and the "Maine Nonpoint Source Management Program". The Management Plan will be printed under separate cover. 2.2 Scope of the Assessment Report The Assessment will cover; (1) Data collection and public input; (2) Effects of@pollutants on aquatic ecosystems; (3) Categories and subcategories of NPS pollution sources; (4) Water quality status summary of Maine's waterbodies; (5) Inventory of state, regional, and local agency programs for NPS pollu- tion control with analysis of limitations and the need for new initiatives; -4- (6) Proposed processes for identifying and revising Best Management Practices. 2.3 Section 319 Requirements Section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act specifically describes the con- tents of the State Assessment Report: (1) Contents of the Report The Governor of each state shall, after notice an d opportunity for public comment, prepare and submit to the administrator for approval, a report which: a) Identifies those navigable waters within the State which, without additional action to control Nonp@oint Sources of pollution, cannot reason- ably be expected to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or the goals and requirements of the Act; b) Identifies those categories and subcategories of Nonpoint Sources or, where appropriate, particular Nonpoint Sources which add significant pollution to each portion of the navigable waters identified above in amounts which contribute to such portion not meeting such water quality standards or such goals and requirements; c). Describes the process, including intergovernmental coordination and public participation, for identifying best management practices and measures to control each category and subcategory of nonpoint sources and, where appropriate, particular nonpoint sources identified under the previ- ous subparagraph for reducing, to the maximum extent practicable, the level of-pollution resulting from such category, subcategory, or source; and d) Identifies and describes state and local programs for controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to, and improving the quality of, each such portion of the navigable waters, including but not limited to -5- those programs which will receive federal assistance. (2) Process The necessary steps to complete the Assessment Report were: a) Obtain and utilize existing data and water quality information; b) Evaluate the quality and reliability of data and information c) Catalogue the surface and ground waters of the state into a "Wat- erbody System" to be used for planning purposes and for tracking water quality information. d) Identify waterbodies which do not meet use standards and water- bodies that are threatened with non-attainment; e) Identify the pollutants causing impairments and the sources of the pollutants. -6- SECTION 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Information on the water quality of Maine wa s gathered from written repor ts and interviews with water quality professionals and the public. Over 300 people were contacted including biologists, wate'r resource inves- tigators,, chemists, soil scientists, permit specialists, foresters municipal officers, and lay person,s with water-oriented interests or expe Iriences, such as members of Trout Unlimited, Soil and Water Conservation Dis tricts, local fish and game clubs, boating clubs, lay monitoring groups, lake associations and other similar environmental organizations. During June and July of 1988, the Maine Department of Environmental Protec- tion Bureau of Water Quality Control conducted a Nonpoint Source Pollution Survey (Figure 1). Approximately 1044 survey forms were sent out to 495 munic- ipalities, 400 lake associations, 126 sportsmen's clubs, the State's 16 Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the State's 7 Regional Fisheries Biologists of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIF&W) and others such as the Soil Conservation Service, and citizens who reported NPS pollution inci- dents. Accompanying each survey form was a list of waterbodies which were not attaining classification standards due to NPS pollution. It was explained that the purpose of the survey was to obtain information on NPS problems that the DEP did not know about. Of the 495 municipalities surveyed, 241 (49Z) responded. Of those munici- palities that responded, 85Z reported that there were no significant NPS pollu- tion problems in the municipality. This overwhelming "no problem" response from the State's municipal officials is a clear indication that: 1) The survey needs to be revised and redone for future assessments, and -7- 2) public awareness of NPS pollution needs to be heightened. Of the 400 lake associations sur veyed, 23 (6Z) responded. Of those asso- ciations responding, 44Z reported that there are significant NPS pollution problems within their respective waterbodies. of the 126 sportsmen's clubs, only 6 (5Z) responded. Of those responding, 83Z reported that they knew of no significant NPS pollution problem. All of the' Soil and Water C onservation Districts responded. Thirteen of the districts (81Z) reported that there were additional NPS problems within their Districts. All 7 Regional Fisheries Biologists reported that there were additional NPS problems in their regions. Because the NPS survey was administered at a time of year when Regional Fisheries Biologists are very busy doing census work and because their input to this process was considered extremely important, a spe- cial effort was made to collect responses from this group. The waterbodies identified by these groups for which there are no existing data from monitoring by the Department of Environmental Protection appear in Tables 3 and 4 and are indicated as "Evaluated" waterbodies. an Im so 1", 00 00 so go.. No Figure 1. Maine's Survey Form on the Effects of Nonpoint Source Pollution. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU: OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION SURVEY Completed By: Affiliation: Date: Address: Phone: Do you know of any waters significantly impacted by nonpoint source pollution which are NOT listed in the draft assessment of nonpoint soufce-impacted waters? YES - Please complete entire form No - Please stop here and return questionnaire If you went to report nonpoint source pollution problems on more than one water body or groundwater location. this form can be photocopied or additional copies can be obtained from the Bureau of Water Quality Control. 1. Name of water body or location of groundwater: 2. Use(s) impacted: Drinking Water Supply; Swimming; Boating. Fishing; Wildlife Habitat; Aesthetics; Other 3. Observed nonpoint pollution effects: Muddiness; Sediment Deposits; Odors; Lack of Transparency Due to Algae; Fish Kills; Absence of fish; Other 4. Rate (f rom 1 to 5; 1 = minimal & 5 =severe) the overall severity of the problem: 5. What are the sources of the nonpoint pollution causing the problem? 6. Additional comments and/or suggestions: 3.2 DATA COLLECTION Data were obtained from special reports furnished by the Soil Conservation OF Service, various records from the State Department of Environmental Protection, LE Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) plans, the State 304(b) Report. Data were also derived from the following ongoing and special state monitoring programs and studies were used: -Acid Precipitation Monitoring Program -Ambient Biomonitoring Program -Assimilation Capacity Studies (ASCAP) -Bioaccumulation Monitoring Program -Biological Toxins Monitoring Program -Compliance Monitoring -Dioxin Monitoring Program -Hydroelectric Monitoring -Lake Diagnostic Studies -Lake Modeling Studies -Lake Planning and Management Studies -Marine Monitoring Program -Phosphorus Monitoring Program -Primary Monitoring Network -Shellfish Sanitation Monitoring Program -Toxicity Testing -Volunteer Monitoring Program For a complete listing of published sources consulted in the Nonpoint Source Assessment refer to LIST OF REFERENCES at rear of text 3.3 WATERBODY IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM The computer software system used to manage river and stream water quality information was the Environmental Protection Agency's Waterbody System (WBS). Waterbody-specific information was provided for assessed surface waters of the state using WBS coding forms. The seven major river drainage basins of the State were further divided into 64 minor river basins (See Map 1). Table 1 presents, by river basin, the four types of waterbodies found in Maine. Information obtained on the quality. of each river and stream waterbody was entered into the computerized "waterbody system" software that has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection _10- Agency (USEPA). The categories of information that were obtained to assess each waterbody,and that are stored on the "waterbody system" have been,refer- enced in Table 2. The Wate"rbody System was used to manage the extensive amount of information generated by the Assessment and includes water quality data for waterbodies (rivers and lakes). The information specifies whether the assessment of use support was based on monitoring or on indirect evaluation of water quality. it also contains an evaluation of whether the available information permitted a reliable assessment (and, if not, a strategy for completing the assessment), the source(s) of nonpoint pollution to the waterbody, the availability of pos- sible control methods or programs, and any recommendations concerning improve- ments to control methods or programs (assessment information regarding the remaining lake and pond waterbodies is being maintained in a separate data base). Specific comments relating to the impaired segments of each waterbody were included to indicate the length/area of impairment, the use(s) which were not being supported or threatened, and the causes and sources of pollution. The entire Assessment data base has not been included in this report but is refer- enced under Appendix F of this report, Persons interested in reviewing this information may do so at the offices of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Region I or at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. "Monitored waters" were those waterbodies for which the Assessment was based on current (no more than five years old) water quality monitoring data. "Evaluated waters" were waterbodies for which the Assessment was based on information other than current site-specific monitoring data, such as land use information, surveys of fisheries biologists or citizen compliants. The per- centages of assessed river miles and lake acres either evaluated or monitored have been summarized by river drainage basin in Figures and _, respectively. Fieure River Ba-;inr- and Drainapp ArpAs 3 2 4 % 9 7,C,:,- 47, 10 46 27' 20 4? 12 19 28 -29 13, 49 21 to 22 14 'I- @-- 51 23 33 @A 36 36 1 32 31- 56 It STATE OF 59 MAINE 57 142. 39 26 40' go Ic 4'3@ 42 PA'. 44 41 In 43 64 MINOR RIVER BASINS & DRAINAGE AREAS 44 -12- STATE OF MAINE Department of Environmental Protection MAIN OFFICE: RAY BUILDING, HOSPITAL STREET, AUGUSTA 0 F MA MAIL ADDRESS: State House Station 17, Augusta, 04333 207,289-7688 JOHN R. McKERNAN, JR. GOVERNOR DEAN C. MARRIOTT COMMISSIONER September, 1989 Dear Reader: This Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Assessment Report for the State of Maine has been developed .pursuant to Section 319 requirements of the 1987 Federal Clean Water Act. The document is the result of input from over 300 environmental professionals, public comments, extensive staff time at th4--Maine Depatment of Environmental Protection, as well as the efforts of the Maine Nonpoint Source Pollution Advisory Committee. Please note that maps denoting NPS impacted and threatened waters have been inserted in the back cover of the document. This document, along with the NPS Management Plan, which will be mailed under separate cover in the near future, represent the foundation of Maine's efforts to address NPS Pollution during the next four years and beyond. Please contact us at (207) 289-7659 if you have questions or comments. Sincerely ' I S1 WNJ ::@Rona Raymond J Vo er, Jr. ld E. Dye NPS Coordinator DEP/SCS Liaison @?oe Portland REGIONAL OFFICES Bangor Presque isle Figure 2- State of Maine: Surface Water Quality Attainment Status MAJOR RIVER BASINS A ST. JOHN B ST CROIX C PENOBSCOT D KENNEBEC E ANDROSCOGGIN F PRESUMPSCOT G SACO H PISCATAQUA A 0 C B D 0 A A 0 E A A, Coto 0 0 ID 0 10 20 3D iG ce 1 2000000 A@ NONATTAINMENT WATERS Estuarine and Marine @00 0 = Lakes and Ponds A= Rivers, Streams and Brooks 3.4 WATER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Water quality assessments for each surface waterbody were made on the basis of the state surface water classification system and the uses designated for each class by the Maine Water Quality Standards (Class AA, A, B or C for streams, for example -See Table 2). In the event that water quality of a sec- tion of stream, river, lake or pond was such that one or more designated uses were not possible, the mileage or acreage of that impaired section of stream, river, lake or pond was considered to be "Not Supported" for the defined use. If one or more designated uses were only partially impaired, the section was defined as "Partially Supported." If all designated uses were possible but a threat to water quality clearly existed, the.section was assessed as "Fully Supported but Threatened." EPA's "Criteria for Designated Use Support Classifi- cation" was used as a guideline for determining use support status (Appendix B). Designated uses for a waterbody were presumed to be supported in the absence of negative data or information. (See Appendix _ for more information on Maine Classification System) Water quality assessments for groundwaters were based on the single desig- nated use for groundwater in Maine: drinking water. -14- TABLE 1. MAINE DESIGNATED SURFACE WATERBODIES Rivers & Streams La.kes And Ponds Marine land Estuarine Waters Ground@KAter Wetlands -15- Table 2. SUMMARY OF CLASSIFIED USES Class A: water quality uniformly excellent contact recreation when compatible public water supply with disinfection high quality waters with significant ecological value Class B: water quality consistently exhibits good aesthetic values swimming and recreation public water supply with filtration and disinfection high quality habitat for aquatic biota, fish and wildlife irrigation and other agricultural uses Class C: minimal contact recreation and other uses where water ingestion is not probable irrigation of crops not consumed without cooking habitat suitable for aquatic biota, fish and wildlife compatible industrial uses Totals -16- SECTION 4 STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY 4.1 POLLUTANTS CAUSING NON-SUPPORT OF DESIGNATED WATERBODY USES Nonpoint Source Pollutants are agents whose presence in a stream, lake or other surface or underground waterbody causes the.specific,waterbody to fail to meet the standards of use by which it has been classified. By definition, therefore., point and nonpoint source pollutants are the same. Only the method of introduction of the pollutant is different: nonpoint sources are diffuse, their origins may be hard to identify, and quantitative'assessment and control are difficult. 4.1.1 Nutrients Nitrogen and phosphorus are the two major nutrients bringing about conditions that degrade water quality. All plants require these two elements in relatively high quantity, although nitrogen is present in plants.at levels roughly ten times those of phosphorus. In a fresh water environment low con- centrations of these nutrients usually limit plant growth. Nitrogen and phosphorus generally are present in natural waters at levels below 0.3 and 0.05 mg/l, respectively. When these nutrients are introduced into a lake or stream, aquatic plant productivity may increase dramatically. This process is called eutrophication. The presence of algal blooms may render waters unfit for swimming and also may change the habitat of the lake, perhaps rendering it unfit for bottom-dwelling fish as the oxygen levels in the colder bottom waters are depleted by aerobic bacteria that degrade dead organic matter. In addition to eutrophication, excessive nitrogen causes other water quality problems. Dissolved ammonia at concentrations above 0.3 mg/1 may be toxic to fish. Nitrates in drinking water are potentially dangerous. Blue -17- Baby Syndrome, in which nitrates are converted to nitrites in the gut of new- born humans and livestock, the oxYgen-carrying capacity of hemoglobin is reduced , resulting in brain damage or even death. 4V Nitrogen is present in soils in several forms: 1) organic nitrogen that is bound up in plant and animal residues and only released by,the decaying pro- cess; 2) water-soluble nitrates; 3) ammonia; and 4) atmospheric nitrogen in the soil pore spaces. Nitrate and ammonia are the two forms usab'le,by plants. They are also the forms most easily lost from the soil. Nitrate, since it is water- soluble and negatively charged, is easily transported by@soil water or surface M runoff. The ammonium ion, on the other hand, is positively charged and is, adsorbed onto soil particles, and is transported with sediment. Atmospheric nitrogen is also fixed by species of blue-green algae common among the nuisance species of eutrophic lakes. For this and other reasons, phosphorus is more frequently the limiting nutrient in eutrophication of fresh- water systems. The natural source of phosphorus in soils is phosphorus-containing miner- als and phosphorus recycled from detritus and animal wastes. Phosphorus is found in dissolved, particulate, or colloidal forms; only the soluble., inor- ganic form is avail for plant growth. The phosphorus content of soils is usu- ally low, between 0.01 and 0.2 percent by weight. Most of this is unavailable for plant uptake. Manures and fertilizers are used to increase the level of available phosphorus in the soil. Inorganic phosphorus can be either dissolved or associated with'sediments. Much of the sediment-held portion acts as if it were permanently fixed on the soil, but it can be released in soluble form under certain conditions. Eutrophication-of Lakes and Ponds. The trophic state of a lake or pond may be derived from measurements of transparency,.and chlorophyll and phosphorus content:of a lake or pond. The function of trophic state determination is twofold. It functions-as.an early warning system for threatened lakes and ponds where quality is deteriorating as a result of human activity.. A trend of increasing trophic state in a Maine lake is a violation of Maine's Class GPA water quality standard and is a justification for more intensive control of nonpoint source pollution in the watershed. The second function of the trophic state determination is to moni- tor water quality trends in lakes which have periodic algal blooms and which are being managed for restoration of water quality. One of the physical symptoms of eutrophication is a phenomenon known as an algal bloom. This occurs when a lake or pond develops high nutrient concentra- tions (phosphorus > 15 ppb) through inputs of suspended soil particles and their associated nutrients. During an algal bloom the phytoplankton community has very low diversity and the dominant species becomes so abundant that water transparency is reduced to six feet or less. The water looks green or blue (sometimes olive or black when the algae are dying) and may have a soupy appearance. If an algal bloom occurs in a public water supply, it may give the water an unpleasant odor or taste. Lake Vulnerability Index Because phosphorus is the usual limiting nutrient in Maine's lakes, it has been possible to develop a method for predicting lake vulnerability on the basis of changes in nutrient conditions. The functio n of the Vulnerability Index (VI) is to identify lakes and ponds which are very susceptible to condi- tions of increasing trophic state. The VT is a predictive model which relates a 1ake or pond's hydrologic characteristics and rate of watershed development _19- (1984 to 1986) to the length of time in years it will take for phosphorus con- centrations in the lake to increase by 1 part per billion. Using these data will provide a focus for future assessment and make it possible to control nonpoint pollution before it leads to cultural eutrophication. -20- 4. 1.2 Of pH is the relative measure.of the concentration of hydrogen ions. In Maine pH by itself is not tox ic, but in aquatic systems low pH leads to the mobiliza- tion of metals such as aluminum, lead, and zinc. These metals in solution can be toxic to aquatic life. Low pH also keeps mercury mobile in aquatic systems. -21- 4.1.3 Sediment Sediment is a generic term for'soil that has.been moved by erosion and deposited by water.. . I :@. I 4.1.3.1 General Effects of Sediment on Water Quality Sediment can dramatically reduce water quality., This pollution occurs when soil particles, which often carry chemicals and nutrients, fill streams, reservoirs, lakes, wetlands, and estuaries. Sediment increases flooding by decreasing the capacity of streams and drainageways, increases costs for treating public water supplies, diminishes the recreational value of waterbodies, and affects aquatic habitats. Sediment is a contributing factor to eutrophication (See discussion in Section 4.1.1). Measures to control sedimentation,,particularly retention or sendimentaiton basins in new urban developments which retain the "polluted" water may be a threat to groundwater which often underlies the basins in sandy soils. Evalu- ations of these measures and their effects will be considered in Maine's NPS Management Plan. 4.1.3.2 Sediment Yield to Surface Waters Not all eroded soils reach area water bodies. Much is deposited in depres- sions or is filtered out by natural barriers such as woodland or grass strips. Road ditches also can collect large volumes of sediment from adjacent cropland. The percentage of the sediment from all sources (including gullies, roadsides and streambanks) reaching a point in a stream system is referred to as the sediment delivery ratio. When this ratio is known or can be closely approxi- mated, the sediment yield is estimated by computing gross erosion and multiply- ing by the sediment delivery ratio. Since no two watersheds are exactly alike, the amount of sediment reaching surface waters varies. A study in Fort Fairfield by SCS and the Northern Maine -22- Regional Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission estimated that over a 10-year period; 15 to 18 percent of soil eroded from two heavily'cultivated watersheds (drain@Ze areas of 3,350 and 1,800 acres) reached area water bodies. Several factors influence the amount of sediment that is delivered to wat- erbodies: 1) rainfall, 2) drainage area, 3) soil erodibility, 4) stream gra- dients, and 5) proximity of eroding areas to waterways. 'The size of the drain- age area is important in sediment transport because the distance to downstream points is greater in larger watersheds and the opportunities for deposition are more numerous. 4.1-3.3 Effects of Sediment on Fish and Wildlife Sediment deposits and turbidity can reduce the ability of a lake, stream or wetland to produce fish and other aquatic organisms in the food chain. This happens when primary plant productivity, which includes the growth rate of the microscopic and filamentous algae that are the foundation of the food chain, is .impaired by reduced light penetration due to suspended solids. Fish habitat can be destroyed when sediment buries spawning areas. Young fish can be killed outright when s,ilt-laden wateris drawn through the gills. Sediment-caused reductions in the number of aquatic insects that live and reproduce on the stream or pond bottoms limit the primary food source of salmon, trout and bass. Over long periods of time, some species of fish may grow more slowly or disap- pear entirely from a waterbody. Poor fishing discourages fishermen, causing a subtle but important economic impact on an area. Sediment has numerous detrimental effects on the aquatic life of a stream, including decreases in production of plant life due to less transparent water, and a decrease in the feeding effectiveness of trout and salmon resulting from less light penetration. The abrasion of fish gills by suspended solids can cause fish to be more susceptible to disease. As sediment accumulates, other -23- permanent damage becomes evident. This includes destruction of spawning beds, nursery areas for fry, and destruction of habitat for such fish foods as aquatic insects. Wetlands can protect lakes and,ponds from sediment and nutrients by trap- ping and filtering runoff. However, excessive deposits in the wetland itself can put serious limitations on the value@of the area for nesting and breeding. Waterfowl, songbirds, and furbearers are among the wildlife affected. Wetlands can also be groundwater recharge areas, and when sedimentation occurs, drinking water supplies may be jeopardized. -24- 4.1.4 Pesticides Pesticides,.which include herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, miticides, and nematocidgs, are used extensively in agricultural,,silvicultural, and increasingly in urban applications. These chemicals may endanger surface and ground water quality as they are lost from fieldsand lawns and gardens by leaching and by removal in runoff water or in runoff sediments. Pesticides or their degradation products may persist and accumulate in aquatic ecosystems. Bioconcentratio.n occurs if an organism ingests more of a pesticide th an it excretes. When the organism is eaten by another animal higher up the food chain, the pesticide will then be passed to that animal and to other animals higher in the food chain. Herbicides in an aquatic environment can destroy the food source for higher organisms, which may then starve. Because many pesticides are readily adsorbed by soil, the pesticide concen- trations of sediments are generally higher than that of runoff water. As might be expected, pesticide runoff varies directly with rainfall intensity and inversely with time elap�ed after pesticide application. Photochemical and microbial degradation of pesticides vary widely with pesticide formulation, soil texture, and soil water chemistry. Half-life of pesticides in soil sys- tems rangp� from less than 20 days to greater than 100 days. An estimated 2.1 million pounds of active pesticide ingredients are us,ed.in Maine each year. Many of these pesticides break down rapidly after application but breakdown products may also produce harmful effects. Much more research on the effects of pesticides on human health and aquatic life is necessary if meaningful assessments of the severity of pesticide pollution in this state are to be made. By definition, many commonly used pesticides are hazardous materials. Any infiltration of pesticides which contaminates groundwater and, consequently, -25- drinking water supplies is a high priority for nonpoint source pollution control. The pesticide aldicarb provides a good case study on groundwater contamina- tion by pesticides in Maine. In 1980, the manufacturer of aldicarb found that about 170 domestic wells (50Z of all those sampled) adjacent to treated potato fields contained aldicarb. About 25 wells exceeded the federal drinking water standard of 10 ppb. Filtration of the unpotable water provided a stop-gap measure while corrective actions were initiated. In 1984, the Board of Pesti- cides Control restricted the use of aldicarb by: (I)Establishing an application setback of 500 feet from wells (2)Prohibiting application during the@spring groundwater recharge period (3)Allowing fields to be treated only in alternate years, and (4)Reducing allowable application rates. At the recomme ndation of the State's Groundwater Standing Committee, the Legislature funded a three year pesticide sampling program to determine the nature and extent of the problem of pesticide contamination of groundwater. The study was begun in 1985 by the Maine Geological Survey. It focused on wells in, or adjacent to, fields where pesticides were applied, the following pesticides were detected, most at very low concentrations: alachlor, al.dicarb, arsenic, atrazine, chlorothalonil, dicamba, dinoseb, endosulfan, ethylene thiorea, hexazinone, metribuzin, methamidophos, and pichloram. Methamidophos (Monitor) was the pesticide most frequently found, and dinoseb (now banned) was the only pesticide found in concentrations exceeding established drinking water standards. While ETU, the breakdown product of Maneb and Mancozeb were found, the unrealiability of the detection methods makes it difficult to quantify the problem. -26- 4.1.6 Toxics, Organic and Metallic Toxics are pollutants that are dangerous in relatively small quantities, that is, in parts per million or parts per billion (ppm. or ppb). They come in a bewilderingly large and growing variety of forms that are frequently hard to detect. Many toxic substances do not readily decompose. Some such substances, including PDT, mercury, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) concentrate as they are passed up the food chain; concentrations of dangerous chemicals in fish can thus be thousands of times greater than those in surrounding waters, thus making them unsafe for human consumption. Hazardous Substances A substance is considered to be hazardous if it appears on any of four lists of hazardous wastes that are contained in the Hazardous Waste Management Rules of the Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Oil and Hazar- dous Waste. Included in the lists are over 400 wastes known to contain toxics harmful to human health and the environment. Substances posing a very high risk are classified as "acutely hazardous" and are subject to lower levels of tolerance. For example, a substance is considered hazardous if it contains PCBs in concentrations greater than 50 ppb. -27- 4.1.7 Petroleum and Byproducts Contamination of groundwater with petroleum products, especially gasoline and its additives, is a continuing problem in,Maine, with hundreds of documented cases of fouled well water. It takes very little gasoline to destroy a water supply. A concentration of one ppm can render water unsuit- able for drinking. Thus, one gallon of gasoline can seriously pollute one million gallons of water. Most of the reported cases of petroleum contamina- .tion in Maine have been caused by leaks from underground storage tanks. Con- tamination may also result from aboveground spills as well as from highway runoff. Gasoline can travel quickly through soil into groundwater. Conditions underground prevent the rapid breakdown of petroleum products, and these may remain in the soil and groundwater for years as a plume that travels through the earth in the direction of groundwater. Gasoline and its additives can cause severe illness and even death when respired or absorbed through the skin. Fortunately, the most common first indicator of exposure is odor, and this prompts most people to investigate the problem. Long-term exposure to very low concentrations of gasoline and its additives may increase the risk of developing cancer. The State Toxicologist has set 50 ppb as a safe level in well water for periods of use up to two years in duration. -28- 4.1.8 Salts Some salts commonly encountered in Maime are compounds.containing Sodium (Na), Calcium (Ca)., Potassium (K), or Magnesium (Mg) that are bound to,Chlo- rine. These compounds appear in common items such astable salt and road salt (NaCI). Salts are highly soluble and become nonpoint spurced pollutants when they are used on a large scale for snow and ice-melting, dust control, and water softening. The solubility leads to transport of salts by surface runoff or by leaching. The chloride component of salts has no known health effects when high con- centrations of it are found in drinking water. However, high concentrations do impart salty taste to water and also shorten the lifespan of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Sodium has been shown to cause high blood pressure in humans, which in turn increases the risk of heart disease. Drinking water with high levels of sodium may expose people to risk levels that cannot be managed by diet alone. -29- 4.1.9 Other Pollutants 4.1.9.1 Hydrologic Modifications Section to be developed at next revision. 4.1.9.2 Thermal Modifications Section-to be developed at next revision. -30'- 4.2 CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES OF NONPOINT POLLUTION SOURCES This section of the Assessment describes the categories and subcategories of nonpoint source pollution which appear to have the most significant impacts on water quality in Maine. It is intended to provide basi .c information on the nature of these sources in Maine and allow comparison with the sources described in other states' Assessments. For information about which waters in Maine are affected by these nonpoint pollution sources, see Tables 2-5 and Appendixes I-V. 4.2.1 Agriculture 4.2.1.1 Cropland and Other Land Uses a) Soil Erosion Maine has approximately 1.2 million acres of cropland, according to the 1987 Study of Nonpoint Agricultural Pollution. Only 25 percent (302,000) of these acres is used for row crops in fields 10 acres or larger. Some of this cropland is continuously farmed in row crops, and the remainder is planted in rotation with grain or hay. Soil losses from sheet and rill erosion vary widely. The average annual soil loss rate by sheet erosion for Maine 's 302,000 acres of land used for row crops is 3.8 tons per acre per year. Tolerable soil loss for most Maine soils, as established by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), is an average of 3 tons per acre per year over the crop rotation cycle. This limit represents the rate of the natural soil-building process. Thus, the average annual soil loss for the State's cropland is about 25Z'higher than the suggested tolerable limit. This does not include soil losses from gullies or eroding streambanks and roadside banks and ditches. Approximately two-thirds of the acres in row crops a re under good soil and -31- water conservation management, with soil losses held to tolerable limits (as defined by the USDA-Soil Conservation Service). The average soil loss rate on the remaining 175,000 acres in row crops is about 7.8 tons per acre per year -two and one-half times the suggested limit. Erosion on these 110,000 acres could be brought to tolerable levels through one or more conservation prac- tices. In addition to creating off farm pollution problems, depending on soil conditions, fields with severe erosion problems experience reduced productivity over a long period of time. According to the 1987 Study of Nonpoint Agricul- tural Pollution (SNAP Report) there are several dominant factors that determine erosion rates: 1) long, steep slopes; 2) planting crops in rows that run up and down slopes; 3) crop rotations that leave the soil surface exposed for extended periods especially during the winter months. The complexity of estimating sediment yield to streams makes it difficult to generalize about delivery ratios. However, the amount of sediment from cropland reaching streams is assumed to be greater in the heavily cultivated areas of Aroostook County than in other parts of Maine. This assumption is based on the high cropland density and high average erosion rates. Soil texture, topographic relief, and intensive farming practices also lend support to this assumption. Local field conditions in other parts of Maine have also yielded high rates of sediment delivery to streams. For example, nearly 10OZ of the soil eroding, from a particular field can eventually be delivered directly to a stream sys- tem if the runoff encounters no obstructions and there is no flattening of the land slope. On the other hand, a wide expanse of forest, wetlands, or other dense vegetative cover below the eroding area may filter out essentially all of -32- the sediment. b) Fertilizers Over 58,000 tons of chemical fertilizers are applied to-agricultural lands in Maine each year. Runoff and infiltration of nutrients .from chemical fertilizens can cause the same nonpoint source pollution problems'as ' ' nutrients from animal wastes. Chemical fertilizers are used by most farmers to maintain agricultural productivity. A serious pollution problem with the use of chemical fertilizers in Maine is that they can be moved from the fields where they are applied to water- bodies. Phosphorus-laden soil particles can be moved into lakes and ponds by soil erosion. The nitrogenous components of chemical fertilizers which are readily dissolved-by water can be transported by surface runoff or by leaching to surface or groundwater resources. c) Pesticides Chemicals to control weeds, insocts,and fungi are considered by-their users to be very important topls in production agriculture. They help to assure quantity and quality of products delivered to markets. -Weed control assures that the crop planted will not have to compote with weeds for available nutrients and moisture, thus enabling the maximum production possible. Insect control assures that the crop produced is clean and bug-free. Fungi control is important since some high-value crops such as fruits and vegetables are extremely susceptible to damage by fungi. Some fungi are so damaging to host plants that whole fields must be de.stroyed to eradicate a fungal infestation. Their are proponents in Maine of alternative forms of agriculture in which chemicals are not used. Biological and mechanical pest control methods are substituted for pesticides, and nutrients from organic sources are used. Intensive labor inputs and the differences between the relative economies of -33- 01 scale are factors that will affect the wideslYread adoption of organic and other farming methods. Most herbicides are used on annual crops such as corn, potatoes, and other vegetables. The first application is usually pre-emergent, that is, applied before weed germination. In some crops a selective herbicide may be used after germination has occurred. Insecticides are applied while the crop is growing if field checks indicate that threshold levels of the target pest are exceeded. In orchards the types and frequency of application of chemicals is very weather-dependent. In dry weather the "sticker" that binds the chemical to plant surfaces keeps the chemical where it does its job. During rainy periods frequent applications may be necessary. Not all pesticides are problems. They vary greatly in their affinity for soils (that is, how strongly they are attracted and held), the length of time that they remain active, and their toxicity. Pesticides, like other substances applied at the soil surface, become a nonpoint source pollution problem when they are transported from application sites to receiving waterbodies. Trans- port is water-dependent, and so it only occurs after a rainstorm of sufficient intensity to cause leaching or runoff. 4.2.1.2 Animal Wastes Agricultural operations in Maine produce approximately 2.1 million tons of manure each year. The vast majority (71.62) of these animal wastes are produced by dairy farming. Poul try production accounts for 17.12 of the State's animal waste. Beef cattle produce 6.87 of the total. Horses, hogs and sheep combined produce only 4.5Z of the total tonnage. Animal waste production is distributed quite unevenly across the State. Virtually no agriculture exists in the forested northwestern third of the -34- State. Agriculture in the northern and eastern areas of the State is largely dedic.ate,d to raising crops -rat-her than.animal husbandry. It is in the southern and central regions ofMaine thatmuch of the State's animalwaste is produc.ed. The lo.wer-Kennebec River Basin, for example, contains over 362 of Maine's dairy herd, acic,ounting for 2-6Z of all the manure produced from all sources in theState. Similarly, 17.42 of Maine's dairy herd is located in the lower Penobscot River Ba,s,in and 12.@22 of th4 herd is located in the lower Androscoggin River Basin. About half of the chicken manure in Maine is pro- duced in the lower Androscoggin River Basin. Animal wastes are sources of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus. Also, the presence of these organic wastes in waterbodies leads to decreased dis- solved oxygen levels as the organic components are decomposed by bacteria. There are several reasons why animal wastes represent a nonpoint pollution source. First, over the years many farmers have discounted the nutrient content of manure. Many have spread enough commercial fertilizers to provide all of their crop needs in addition to spreading several tons per acre-of manure. This results in overapplication of nutrients. Second, distri- bution of the manure produced in the state each .year is localized. Increasing herd sizes and large concentrations of livestock on individual farms make it difficult to spread optimum amounts of manure on all available acres. 'Fields closest to the sources of the manure tend to receive large amounts of manure year after year. Lastly, there is a lack of storage facilities needed to store manure during the months outside of the growing season. The high capital costs of these structures as well as eligibility for and applicability of traditional cost-sharing funds frequently determine whether a structure is included in a farmer's expansion plans. -35- 4.2.2 Silviculture About 89Z of the land area of the state, or 19 million acres, is forested. Annually, 286,000 acres of trees are harvested (5-yea'r average, 1982-1986). It is estimated that one-half of the logging activity takes place in the unorgan-n- ized towns of the State. Silvicultural activities are.analogous to those of production agriculture. Crops (trees) are harvested; seedbeds must be prepared for planting new trees; pests such as weed species, insects, and fungi are controlled both mechanically and chemically. The scale of forestry activities in the state can result in the production of NPS pollutants such as sediment, pesticides, and hydrologic and thermal alterations. A common opinion regarding the impacts of silvicul- tural activities (and of otherland uses, too) on water quality is that these impacts are temporary, and therefore not significant. The fact is that the impacts are cumulative, especially with regard to nutrients and stream bed- loading. Previous drafts of this Assessment Report contained a synopsis of two studies carried out with 208 funds in the late 1970's. These studies focused on erosion and sedimentation problems associated with logging in Maine. The synopsis and the studies documents are available from either the NPS Coordina- tor or the Department of Conservation/Maine Forest Service. 4.2.2.1 Harvesting Harvesting is the cutting and removal of trees. Removal is performed by skidders which skid (drag) the trees to a landing (clearing) where th e logs are loaded onto trucks. The act of operating heavy equipment and dragging heavy logs in the forest can disturb the soil surface. The result is a surface very vulnerable to erosion when hard rains occur. Throughout forests, as with any other land cover, there are numerous chan- -36- nels and streams'which may need to be crossed to gain access to the areas to be harvested. Where roads cross streams, culverts or bridges-are.installed. Skidd ers may also cross small channels where the channels are small enough to cross without culverts or bridges. There is potential for hydrologic alter- ations of small streams where multiple crossings are made, and impairment of aquatic habitats may result. Very small streams are frequently reproductive areas for many.aquatic species. As opposed t o agriculture where the same fields are harvested annually and access has been established, timber harvesting often requires the installation of new roads. These woods roads plus the landing areas and areas disturbed by their installation can be sources of sediment if not stabilized with permanent vegetation. The associated road ditches intercept stormwater and direct it to channels and ultimately to waterbodies. The performance of timber h.arvesting activities near small streams can have significant impacts on their aquatic habitats. Removal of the canopy results in more of the sun's energy reaching the ground, and thus raising its temper- ature. Cutover forest land also results in increased runoff volume and peak discharge after a rainfall event. The net result.is the delivery of additional heat energy and sediment to nearby streams. Because of the low volume of small streams, it takes relatively small amounts of heat to significantly raise water temperature. In other words, small streams have very little buffering capacity with regard to temperature changes. Therefore, logging operations that do not maintain adequate buffer strips around small streams can have serious impacts. 4.2.2.2 Reforestation Like agricultural fields, plantations that have been cleared and scarified in preparation for planting have potential for erosion to occur. -37- New plantings usually require control of sprouting and invasion of unwanted species. This is usually done with chemicals. A rainstorm that occurs shortly after herbicide application can,result in discharge of chemicals to receiving waterbodies. Insect control is sometimes necessary to maximize the number of trees in a plantation that will survive or reach maturity without serious defects. Most insecticide application on forests is done aerially. This can result in the delivery of chemical.s directly to streams. 4.2.3 Construction 4.2.3.1 Public Roads and Bridges One construction activity with potential for significant impacts on water quality is highway construction and maintenance. Since roads run long dis- tances, there are usually many streams and intermittent drainages which must be crossed. In some cases, segments of streams must be channelized or straightened with the result that, at least for the short-term, sediment is generated. Building roads at acceptable grades involves cut ting into hills and filling depressions. Often borrow pits near the right-of-way must be used to provide fill or base material. Borrow pits may be difficult to stabilize because of steep slopes and a lack of topsoil. Stabilizing borrow pits often requires regrading, trucking of topsoil, liming and fertilizing, and seeding with perma- nent grasses. When new and expensive roads are built, state and local governments have vested interests in maintaining their safety and quality. Maintenance includes such activities as road salting, re-paving, ditch and bank cleaning, metal cleaning and painting. Road salting and the associated sand-salt storage piles can deliver significant amounts of sediment to surface water and salt to -38- groundwater. The scraping clean of roadbanks and ditches without re- stabilizb@tion c*an 1ead to significant erosion and delivery of sediment directly to waterways. Road construction als,o includes drainage systems for the disposal of storm- water. The'se sys@tems can include manholes, stormsewers, open ditche-s, and pipes. Becaus-e-the surface within a highway right-of-way is almost completely impervious, nearly all of the rain that falls on it becomes runoff. Water control structures &re designed to convey stormwater as it is generated without causing flooding of road surfaces that would be a public safety hazard. The drainage systems act as conduits for sediment, litter, applied sand and salt, and oils and greases and other suspended or dissolved pollutant,s associated with vehicular traffic. Storrhwater runoff from highway's is considered to contribute significantly to the total pollutant load of PAHs, lead and zinc. Annual estimates of runoff pollutants from highways is given in the following figure (Hoffman et al., 1985). In this study, the highway occupied 1-62 of the land area examined or approximately 6 miles. This is similar to the length of Interstate 295 in Portland. -39- FIGURE 3 Annual Inputs df Pollutants fiorn Highways Petroleum Hydrocarbons .Pr- 7 31.7 Zinc Iron 1Z4 Lead 6.3 Manganese Qopper PAH's, 0.34 C@jdmjum 0.028 .0 10 20 @O 40 ton3/yOar 2.4 is I- 5 0 @34 0.028 -4 0- 4. 2.3.2 Land Development As the number of people living and working in Maine increases, so'does the needfor new.,homes and businesses. Consequently, the problems associated with nonpoint source pollutants from construction activities also intensify. On a statewide baais the water quality degradation caused by construction acti- vities-is@ not as great as the amount caused by other major nonpo-int sources, since new development tends to-occur near existing urban centers.- along the coast, and in the southernmost counties. However, local impacts on water quality may be severe because of the high unit loads involved. Erosion rates from construction sites typically are ten to twenty times that of agricultural and silvicultural lands, and runoff rates can be 100 times higher. Thus, even a small amount of construction may have a significant impact on water quality at the local level. Runoff rates are greatly increased in developed areas because'of the amount of impervious surface area which prevents infiltration of rainfall or snowmelt into the soil. Reduced groundwater recharge rates are another result. Although difficult to assess, this impact should be addressed when NPS Manage- ment Plans and BMP's a re developed. Construction site erosion rates are highly variable because of different site characteristics. Time of year, soil type, slope length and steepness, the amount of area disturbed, and the type of construction activity being conducted are all involved. In Maine, construction is often started in early spring when the ground is thawing, rainfall and runoff are at their peak, soils may be saturated, and the growth of vegetation has not yet resumed. Rough grading of commercial and industrial sites can expose large areas to rainfall or snow melt, which, even on gentle slopes, can carry sediment. Heavy equipment can further aggravate the situation by compacting soil, thereby making it more -41- impermeable and consequently increasing the amount of runoff and erosion. Construction sites also generate pollutants other than sediment, including: (1) Nutrients from fertilizer, such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and other nutrients, that can be attached to sediment particles or dissolved in water; (2) Petroleum products; (3) Construction chemicals, such as cleaning solvents, paints, asphalt, acids and salts; and (4) Solid wastes, ranging from litter to trees and stumps, scrap building materials, and demolition debris. Large scale developments such as industrial sites,.shopping centers, subdi- visions, roads, electrical transmission lines and'pipelines have a significant potential to impact the water quality of Maine whether they occur in urban or rural settings, primarily because of the amount of land area exposed to erosive forces. Although such sites are usually rapidly stabilized after completion of construction, because of permanent drainage systems and large paved areas, off-site impacts may be long-term because of increased stormwater runoff, its potential to erode downstream areas, and the direct discharge of pollutant- bearing runoff to receiving waterways. -42- 4.2.4 Urban Land 4.2.4.1 Urban Developmen-t As forested or other open land is converted to residential,commercial, or industrial use, both the volume and the quality of surface runoff change, pre- senting a potential threat to water resources. The ratio of impervious sur- face areas to total drainage area greatly increases as roofs, driveways, park- ing lots and roads are placed over previously permeable soils. In addition to reducing groundwater recharge the irregularities of the forest'floor are flat- tened out for lawns and gardens, thus reducing the surface storage area. Natu- ral drainage ways are straightened and runoff is concentrated in ditches. These changes combine to significantly increase the amount of water leaving the site as runoff. Small scale construction usually does,not include any erosion and sedimen- tation control provisions dur ing the building period and is not typified by storm draina ge systems.. A single small construction project may not have a major impact on downstream hydrology. However, with the present growth rate in Maine, there will be serious cumulative impacts. That is, many small scale construction projects may have an additive hydrological impact which is as significant as major construction projects. If the trend in Maine toward extensive development in previously rural areas continues, particularly since the clearing of forest land is involved, the potential for sediment and phosphorus export to surface waters will inevitably increase. The overall impact of new construction on export of sedi- ment and nutrients to surface waters in Maine is a function of the amount of development within a; watershed, the types of construction (single"-family, clus- tered multi-unit, commercial); the soils, length and steepness of slopes, areas disturbed, timing of construction; and the degree of implementation by contrac- -43- tors of the erosion & sedimentation control plans prepared by engineering con- sultants. 4.2.4.2 Stormwater Runoff One major concern for stormwater runoffin developed areas is the variety of pollutants that it conveys to receiving waters. In Puget Sound, a two year runoff sampling program detected arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead and zinc in all samples and nickel in over fifty percent of the samples. Levels of. cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc were considered to be elevated (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1988). Stormwater also contains suspended sol- ids, nutrients, bacteria, oil and grease including PAHs, PCBs and pesticides. Another concern is the hydrologic changes that urbanization causes to areasdownstream, from the growing area. As Maine's coastal population grows, the acres of impervious surfaces such as streets, parking lots,, highways, roof- tops and driveways also increases. The net change is that both the volume and MW discharge rate for runoff increase for every storm. In rural areas rainfall is first intercepted by vegetation. The leaf surfaces must,be wetted before it drips, collects, and runs onto the ground surface where it is absorbed by the soil. In developed areas the impervious surfaces are wetted quickly and surface runoff occurs much earlier during the storm. In order to prevent,flooding, water is directed into drains. Storm drains direct water into streams, lakes, rivers and coastal waters. No estimate of pollutants in stormwater in Maine has been made.. The fol- lowing graph depicts annual estimates, of pollutants (in tons/year) from storm- water runoff into the Pawtuxet river in Rhode Island which is believed to be the representation of Maine marine waters. The situation here is likely to be similar to that in Maine's Marine Waters., -44- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 -45- I . I FIGURE 4 Annual Inputs of Pollutants from Runoff OF Petroleum Hydrocarbons 163 Zinc 38.8 Iron 28.6 Load 9.3 Manganese 5.5 Copper 42 PAH's 0.42 Cadmium 0.056 0 100 200 tons/year r 2 9 .3 5 5 -46- With the reduction of industrial discharges and the addition of secondary treatment plantsi the relative contribution of storinwater runoff to the pollu- tion loa:d is incre'asing. In fact, oil and grease concentrations in an urban runoff study in Richmond, California, 1 984), were frequently greater than the 15 mg/liter allowdd in Maine's industrial discharge licenses. Although parking lots and commercial property accounted for only 11Z of the land area examined in kichmond, CA., it was predicted that controlling discharges from these areas would reduce the oil atid grease emission by over 50Z Storarwater runoff has been found to contain higher levels of fecal coli- forms in other parts of the U.S. than the maximum allowed to be discharged by sewage treatment plants in Maine. In Baltimore, Maryland, pathogens and enter- oviruses were found in storm sewer runoff. Two surveys in Canada found that 5-13Z of the houses had illegal sanitary connections to storm sewers. It can- not be assumed that Maine is free from the problem of sewage contamination in stormwater drains; howeveri the Bangor and Portland areas are currently deal- ing with this problem. Storaiwater runoff from highways is considered to contribute significantly to the total pollutant load of PAHs, lead and zinc. Annual estimates of runoff of pollutants from highways is given in the following figure (Hoffman et al., 1�85). In this study, the highway occupied 16Z of the land area examined or approximately 6 miles. This is similar to the length of Interstate 295 in Portland. -47- As is apparent,in the preceding figure; lead, zinc and PAH runoff from highways can be a major component of the-total stormwater runoff. Many of the pollutants found in stormwater are associated.with suspended solids. For example , 81 to 962 of the hydrocarbons are associated with sus- pended solids. 1984). Also, in a stormwater runoff study of nine urban areas, the suspended sediments contained one thousand times-higher concentrations- of metals than the liquid fraction. Reduction of the suspended solid load in stormwater runoff can help reduce metal and hydrocarbon pollution associated with runoff. Stormwater runoff, whether in storm drains or in combined sewer overflows is clearly one of the next environmental issues to be addressed in Maine. Addressing the problem should include monitoring to identify problem areas, creative engineering and planning, treatment, public education and enforcement where necessary. Maine's Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program will focus on these issues. While wastewater treatment facilities exist in many municipalities, a common goal of Maine municipalities is to have separate sanitary and storm sewers. The need to keep urban runoff out of conventional wastewater treatment plants rsults from the excessive quantities of water involved and the rapid rate of flow which cause A "shock load" which usually cannot be treated. In@municipal- ities with old, combined sanitary and storm sewers (CSO's), urban.runoff mixes with sanitary wastewater and is often bypassed directly into the local river, lake, or estuary as a (point source) discharge from a combined sewer overflow. Further complicating the problem is the fact that conventional treatment plants are not very effective in treating some types of pollutants (such as heavy metals) that are contained in urban runoff. Rainwater running off roofs, lawns, streets, industrial sites and other -48- I areas contributes most of the liquid flow to urban runoff. From the moment it hits urban surfaces, rainwater s,tarts picking up contaminants. 'Even roofs can contribute significant amounts of pollutants which have accumulated as dust between rain storms. A large volume of urban runoff is comprised of sediment and debris from decaying pavements and buildings-which can clog waterways, reducing hydraulic capacity (and thus increasing the chance of flooding) and degrading aquatic habitat. Heavy metals and inorganic chemicals (including .copper, lead, zinc, phosphorus, nitrate, ammonia and cyanide) from transporta- tion activities, building materials and other sources are significant pollu- tants. Nutrients are added to urban runoff from fertilizers applied around homes and in parks. Petroleum products from spills and leaks, particularly from gas stations and storagetanks, as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocar- bons from petroleum combustion are important components of urban runoff. Path- ogens from animal wastes and ineffective septic tanks are other important urban contaminants that may affect@groundwater as well as surface water. Of equal importance is the sheer volume of stormwater leaving urban area s. When natural groundcover is present over an entire site, approximately 10 per- cent of the stormwater runs off the land,and into nearby surface waters. When paved surface s account for 1OZ-20Z of the area of the site, 20Z of all storm- water becomes surface runoff. As the percentage of paved surfaces expands, the volume and rate of runoff, as well as the corresponding pollutant load also grows. As population increases in Maine, so will the problem of urban runoff. As urban runoff increases, the inadequacy of local stormsewer systems is likely to become more apparent. The first phase of urban wastewater management was to provide treatment for sanitary wastewater. The second phase is currently underway and seeks to eliminate combined sewer overflows. The third phase will -49- I address the treatment of stormwater, where,necessary, to attain Maine's water quality standards. While the costs of planning for growth often seem prohibi- tive to local officials (such as building a stormwater treatment system large enough to handle infrequent and seemingly harmless stormwater flows) such mea- sures could prevent costly water cleanups in the future. When considering the use of stormwater management structures, it is'important to consider potential impacts on the groundwater due to increased infiltration in areas under the basins, due to possible concentration of runoff pollutants. 4.2.4.3 Combined Sewer Overflows Combined sewers are pipes which carry both sewage and stormwater. During, storms the volume of discharge may reach a level which cannot be handled by the sewage treatment plant. The excess, a mixture of stormwater and sewage, ov er- flows untreated into downstream waters, frequently a harbor or estuary. There is a common misconception that bacteria is the only problem associ- ated with combined sewer overflows. Runoff from CSOs contains high levels of metals and organic pollutants (e.g., PCBs and PAHs) as well as high concentra- tions of bacteria nutrients and suspended solids. Metals and organic poll u- tants can concentrate in sediments and accumulate in bottom dwelling animals and then be passed up the food chain to fish, birds and man. Fecal coliform bacteria discharged in the CSOs may result in closures for contract recreation such as swimming and sailboarding and for the harvesting of shellfish. In Puget Sound and in San Francisco Bay, the bottom dwelling animal community living near the CSOs was found to have reduced numbers of species and individu- als at the stations closest to the GSOs. The following graph depicts an estimate of annual CSO hydrocarbon and metal pollutant discharges for Maine as estimated by EPA/N,OAA,(1987). -50- FIGURE 5 Annual Loading from Combined Sewer Overflows MERCURY 0.9907 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS 0.5432 IRON 0.414 LEAD 0.01 a5 ZJNC 0.0103 CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS 0.0053 CHROMIUM 0.004 COPPER 0.004 CADMIUM 0.0003 ARSENIC 0.0003 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 PERCENT OF TOTAL LOADING PER YEAR 0 0-.0 0 1 1 0* 5 2 11.414 5 3 0 3 8@3 0 -005 100 0 4 0.004 0.()00 0.0003 FiIGURE 6 Number of CSO's Entering Marine and !Estuarine Mkters by Municipality PortlaM South Podand Biddeford Saco Boothbay Harbor lais Bath Bar Harbor Kittery C aamr &de n Eastport Thomaston Rocidard Yartnouth Ogunquit Machias Bocks'pdrt Cap=in=th Belfast 0 10 20 30 40 -52- Elevated levels of lead and PAHs associated with hydrocarbon pollution have been found in sediments near CSOs in Portland, South Portland, Camden, Belfast and Rockland. No sampling has occurred in the vicinity of other CSOs. A monitoring program to assess CSO pollutant input is a critical need in Maine. Portland, Westbrook and South Portland have been asked by the DEP to submit plans for monitoring their CSOs. -53- Re@source'Extraction' 4.2.5 4.2.5.1 'Gravel Pits The commercial mining operations presently'a'ct'ive'dnrMaine produce-s-and and gravel, clay, dimensional stone, crushed stone, lime'st6n'e','t6psoll, peat, and gravel. There are also small-scale, hobby-type activities of gold panning and gem mining in Maine. These activities may affect surface water-quality, groundwater levels and groundwater quality. Sand and gravel mining is by far, the most extensive mining activity in Maine (estimated at 7,200,000 tons/year). Approximately thirty monitoring wells have been placed in gravel pits as part of the sand and gravel aquifer mapping program. Most have demonstrated acceptable groundwater quality. Most ground- water quality problems associated with gravel mining historically have not been the pits themselves, but subsequent use of the pits after mining has ceased. Pits have become illegal dumpsites as well as locations to store road salt. There are many municipalities in Maine where the local gravel pit has become the local landfill. Most gravel pits are excavated in glacial outwash deposits which are com- posed of coarse sands and gravels. These deposits have large pores between particles which allow water to percolate through very rapidly. The pores can make up as much as 50Z of the total volume, and therefore these deposits have tremendous storage capacities. This is where sand and gravel aquifers are located. Since most gravel pits are located over aquifers or within their recharge areas, there is some risk of contamination to the groundwater by the mining activity itself. The first step in opening a new pit is the stripping of top- soil. This removes the organic cap which has the ability to remove some sus- pended and dissolved contaminants. Removal of the sand and gravel overburden -54- reduces the distance between the surface and the top of the.water table, resulting in lessfilte.ring capability. pperation of heavy equipment which is dependent upon petroleum products and other chemicals carries the.risk of spills or leaks which result in discharge of hazardous pollutants to ground- water. 4.2.5.2 Other Mining Activities There has been sporadic..metal mining activity in Maine for almost a century and-a-half, including at least three boom periods. Mines in Maine have pro- duced iron, copper, zinc, gold, silver and other metals. All of these mining operations, however, have tended to be small in scale, and transitory. There has been no metal mining in Maine since 1977 when the Kerr-American copper mine ceased operations in Blue Hill. The discovery, in 1978, of a massive cop- per/zinc deposit near Bald Mountain in Aroostook County in northern Maine has renewed interest in metal mining. This discovery not only located one of the largest and highest-grade copper deposits in North America, but it also sug- gested that other major mineral resources might be hidden under the mantles of Maine's soils and vegetation. This discovery, along with the emerging legacy of pollution from abandoned- mine tailings, has fueled concern about future mining in Maine. The Kerr- American Copper Mine, a bedrock shaft mine, left behind tailings which have caused heavy metal contamination problems in Carleton Stream and Salt Pond. This NPS pollution has impacted aquatic life and resulted in Salt Pond being closed to shellfish harvesting. With proposals now being discussed for an open pit mine 2,800 feet wide and 800 feet deep at Bald Mountain, the necessity for, modern metal mining technology and planning becomes apparent. At the Bald Moun- tain Mine there would be two wastewater control systems - one having to do with ore processing, the other having to do with general site drainage and the mine -55- pit. Ore wastes ("tailings) would be carried by water to a tailings impoundment. Snow and rainfall entering the pit along with some groundwat er seepa.ge wo uld be treated for exposure to the sides and bottom'of-the mine and the resulting discharge regulated by license as a point source of pollution. Although exploration for minerals in Maine is not very intensive at pre- sent, ten years ago there were 18 different firms spending $4 to $5 million per year for mineral exploration in Aroostook, Hancock and Washington counties. If metal prices increase, it is likely that knowledge'gained during those studies will result in new mines being established. The nonpoint source pollution of groundwater and surface waters through metal mining is not a reality for today, but a potential problem in the near future. 4.2.6 Wa-ste Disposal 4.2-6. 1 Wa@ste e'r Treatment Facilities a') S-EPTII,C,. _S-YSTEMS A ffia@functioning septic system has a serious potential to pollute sur- ftee waters. Som6times a malfunctioning s,eptic system will just create a pond of contaminated wifte't-'OVe@r the leach field only during the spring. Usually, however, the Problem becomes progressively more chronic and results in wa:stew- ater running into surface,waters. Although septic systems installed since 1974 (when a modern system for the regulation of subsurface disposal of wastewater was adopted) sometimes "break out", it is the-hodgeriodge of substandard systems installed prior to 19-74 that pose the greatest threat to the State's waters. Oftdn these outdated systems are densely clustered in old shorefront develop- ments. It is difficult to assess the extent of discharges to surface waters from malfunctioning septic systemim;@. Usually, it is only when a neighbor or pas- ser-by complains toc municipal or State officials that action is initiated to eliminate this nonpoint source of pollution. on a Statewide basis, septic systems, even if properly functioning, seem to be the larges@t single cause of uhpotable groundwater. This contamination from septic systems is a significant threat when the systems are not installed according to the rules for subsurface disposal of wastewater. Septic systems can also have a cumulative effect on groundwater quality when there are too many of them in a given area orwhen they are clustered by design. It is in densely settled, largely unsewered counties such as Sagadahoc and York that the greatest potential exists for cumulative impact. With there being at least 230,000 septic systems in the State and the present groundwater problem attrib- uted to them, their long-term threat to subsurface watersupplies merit further study. Historically, the highest priority for water pollution control efforts has been given to the municipalities and urban areas of.Maine. The traditional engineering approach has been to construct a network of sewers to convey was- tewater to a central location for treatment, with subsequent discharge into surface waters. In suburban and rural areas of the State, the cost of con- structing, operating, and maintaining community wastewater treatment facilities is prohibitive, hence the reliance on septic tank leach field systems. Although such systems have been in use in rural Maine for years, their potential for problems is high, primarily due to poor maintenance. Moreover, increased load- ings beyond the design capabilities of these systems can result in overloaded soils and groundwater contamination. Multiple subsurface discharges in a small area, as in the case of subdivi- sions, are a growing cause of concern in Maine. According to one estimate, each system in a subdivision may discharge an average of 41 grams of nitrate- nitrogen per day. Large subdivisions, particularly those on sand and gravel aquifers, thus have the potential for polluting substantial quantities of groundwater. Discharges may not only endanger the water quality of wells within the subdivision itself, but also those of neighboring property owners if the disposal systems are not properly designed, constructed and maintained. The principal threats to groundwater quality from septic systems are nitrates, bacteria and viruses which are discharged from septic tanks to leach fields and ultimately to the soil in various concentrations and varying rates. The septic systems of commercial operations can also pose a localized threat to groundwater due to.th,e inability of septic systems to treat substances such as solvents. Domestic wastewater entering a septic systemleach field has a nitrate concentration of about 30 mg/l. If there is inadequate opportunity for denitrification in the soil or inadequate opportunity for dilution, poorly -58- designed or densely sited systems can cause groundwater to exceed the drinking water standard for nitrate@s of 10 mg/l. From a health standpoint, nitrates are among the most qeriou,s threat since they,may be converted to nitrite in the intestinal tracts of infants and caus,e methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome). Very little is known about the attenuation of pathogenic organisms.in subsur- face wastewater disposal system, in particular the ability of soils to restrict the transport of virusles by groundwater. The State Plumbing Code offers some protection of priva-e and,public wells by requiring minimum setback distances ;t of 10,0 and 3GO fe,et respectively. Like other.waste disposal facilities, those which handle the sludge from septic tanks and cesspools (septage) have the potential to contaminateground- water resources. Landspreading is the post common method of septage disposal. Properly sited and managed, these facilities need not pose a serious threat. Since 1974, all municipalities have been required by law to provide means of disposal for all septic tank and cesspool waste generated within the municipal- ity. Approximately 50:2 of the towns have not yet done so, which suggests that some wastes are improperly handled. b) Municipal/Industrial Facilities As a result of the attempt to clean the nation's waters, wastewater treat- ment facilities have been constructed throughout the country. Maine, although it has a disproportionate number of unsewered areas, is no exception and has built many new facilities to remove the dissolved organic matter, solids and other impurities from liquid waste prior to its discharge into the State's waters. These facilities, however, can create new contamination problems. The use of wastewater lagoons and land application of wastewater, sludge and sep- tage are of particular concern-as nonpoint source of pollution. Wastewater treatment often involves wastewater storage in lagoons. Depend- -59- ing on the-geologic setting, constant percolation may,have A signficant poten- tial for contamination of groundwater. Because lagoons have not@bOen recog- nized in the past-as potential contaminators, groundwater monitoring'plans associated with them have generally been inadequate. It is estimated that 118 billion gallons of fluids enter groundwater nationwide as a result of planned or chance discharge from these surface impoundments. The amount of subsurface discharge from wastewater lagoons occurring in Maine is unknown. One factor which minimizes the extent of groundwater conta- mination from this source is that the lagoons are generally located along 'large rivers or the ocean. Being located close to the groundwater 'discharge areas keeps the potential area of groundwater contamination relatively small.At one time there were eight known industrial subsurface wastewater systems in Maine. Six of the eight dischargers were metal-finishing or electrical component facilities. All were in existence prior to DEP jurisdiction over groundwater discharges. In most of these situations the wastewaters contained metals which are toxic even in small quantities, such as lead, hexavalent chromium and cad- mium. The DEP required these discharges to be eliminated and there is pres- ently no subsurface disposal of industrial wastewater in Maine except for that which may leak from wastewater treatment lagoons. Land application of wastewater generally involves disposal of pretreated wastewater on the land surface by one of several distribution methods. When sanitary wastewater is sprayed by irrigation systems as a means of disposal, there is minimal impact on groundwater quality. This finding is supported by ,national and local research which indicates that properly operated systems do not exceed primary,or secondary drinking water standards. Observation wells located at the down gradient perimeter of irrigation sites demonstrates that some contamination from wastewater application does occur, nitrates above back- -60- ground levels for example, but thus far, no violation o.f drinking water stan- dards has been documented. The wastewater disposal systems of industrial food processing operations may also affect groundwater quality to some extent. Parameters of concern are organic loading as measured by oxygen demand, iron, manganese, nutrients, salts, and dissolved solids. 'There are presently 27 licensed land application sites in Maine. Disposal of treated wastewater is obviously a bette r alternative than raw disposal, with regulation as the key to maintaining Maine's water classifica- tion standards. Great care must be taken, however, that wastewater treatment measaures designed to protect surface water quality do not inadvertently cause problems with groundwater quality. -61- 4.2.6.2 Solid Waste Landfills In 1986, the citizens of Maine generated over three quarters of a million tons of municipal solid waste. By 1994 the quantity is projected to increase by approximately 4.5Z to a little over 800,000 tons annually if current popula- tion trends continue and no new recycling efforts are implemented. Eighty per- cent of this total comes from the southwest portion of the State (as delineated with the greater Bangor area in the northeast corner)., The trend of numbers of municipal solid waste landfills.in the State of Maine is as follows: YEAR Number of Landfills 1977 454 1980 334 1984 288 1986 265 Increasing recognition of the environmental problems associated with solid waste disposal sites has led to the closure of 189 sites during the last eleve n years. The water quality benefits of fewer solid waste landfills, however, is! slightly offset by the expansion of some remaining facilities. Groundwater contamination is a serious threat from landfills due to move- ment of water through the waste. Materials released by natural decay pro- cesses, chemical reactions and dissolution in a landfill are almost certain to leave the confines of those landfills which don't have impermeable liners. If this waste-laden water, known as leachate, enters the soil beneath the land- fill, groundwater contamination will probably occur. Landfills located on sand and gravel aquifers are the worst polluters of groundwater due to the ease with which this leachate can reach the groundwater table. In some parts of the -62- State, more than.70Z of all solid waste disposal facili,ties are located on mapped sand and gravel aquifers. Although solid wA-ste is a- serious nonpoint pollution problemtoday, there ha,,s been significant progress in Maine, toward developing,a comprehensive approach to solid waste management. Ten years ago, almost every town in Maine had an open.burning dump:. Many of these sites were located immediately adja- cent to streams and.lakes. Nearly all were polluting groundwater or surface water. Public perception,of solid waste disposal has slowly changed, and Maine's lawmakers and citizens have responded. With the "grandfathered" dumps being closed, solid waste incinerators being constructed and operated, the consolidation of some municipal landfills and an increasing commitment to recycling, Maine is slowly moving toward environmentally acceptable methods of solid waste disposal. -63- 4.2.6.3 Hazardous Waste Disposal, Dis]2osal Sites An abandoned warehouse full of pesticides, a junkyard thathad accepted electrical transformers which contained PCB-laden oils,.a neighborhood with chemically contaminated drinking wells and.a hazardous waste "recycling" facility all have one thing in common - they have been.identified as uncon- trolled hazardous substance sites within Maine by the Department of Environmen- tal Protection. There are. presently no licensed hazardous material disposal sites in Maine, so the problem is limited to past disposal practices and, to an unknown extent, on-going illegal activitiesz Most individual problems in the State come to the DEP's attention through citizen complaints or facility inspections. Clearly, the full extent of the problem is not yet known although the DEP has obtained information indicating that numerous contaminated sites have not been reported by site owners. At present the DEP has assessed some 116 suspected hazardous waste sites in the State. Of those, 61 have been confirmed as potential problems and 42 of these sites have caused groundwater contamination. Presently, there are seven sites in Maine that have been designated as Superfund sites. These include the Winthrop landfill, the McKin disposal site, O'Connor's Salvage Yard, the Saco Tannery Pits, the Brunswick Naval Air Station and the Saco landfill. The Union Chemical site has been proposed as a Superfund site, but has not yet been offi- cially designated as such. Cumberland County ranks highest in the relative extent of its groundwater problems due to hazardous substances because of the presence there of two very extensive contamination areas - the Brunswick Naval Air Station and the McKin site in the town of Gray. Storage and Treatment Sites There are two types of legal hazardous waste facilities which are of con- -64- cern.as nonpoint pollution sources in the-State: storage and storage/treatment facilitie's. -A st-orage facility exist,s -when -an industry generates 'and stores hazardous,wastes priorto shipping to an out-of-state disposal facility. In 1987, there were 18.Maine industries storing about 274,000 gallons of hazardous was,te on-site for-more than-90 days. one of these has been shown to have pol- lluted groundwater due-to leakage from an underground storage tank. It has not been determined wha:t*ef1ect.the other 17 storage facilities may have had on groundwater. [email protected] hazardous waste currently approved for under- ground storage is igrritable.s. There are a number of industrial facilities across the State which generate hazardous wastes and store,them in.aboveground tanks or barrels for less than 90 days. By definition,,these facilities-are not considered a waste facility and are not required to obtain a license. In the past, the total number of these, unregulated facilities was thought to be small. Although the total number is still unknown, indications now are that there are many more industries stor- ing hazardous wastes for less than 90 days-than was previously suspected. A storage/treatment facility can be one of two types. one is where wastes from other industries and generators is accepted, stored, and treated for recycling with some waste ultimately being sent to a disposal site. The other type is where a generator stores and treats its own waste on site. Both types have wastes that are ultimately sent to an off-site facility. There are approx- imately 28 storage and treatment facilities in Maine at present * In 1987, approximately 433,000 gallons of hazardous waste were treated in Maine at these facilities. Contamination of groundwater in Maine from hazardous waste has also resulted from improper disposal and leakage at landfills, leachfields, lagoons, dry well's and spills. This contaminated groundwater has been documented as -65- affecting at least 43 private wells in the State. With no standard regulating storage procedures and limited site screening activities, hazardous substances are likely to an unknown culprit in many of Maine's groundwater contamination incidences. Oil Conveyance Eight major oil spills have occurred in the last three decades on Maine's coast (Map facing page). The environmental effects of these spills is not completely known. However, losses of commercial species such as clams and/or lobsters were documented in three of the spills.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). In the Long Cove spill at Searsport, tumors and reduced growth rate were found in clams. Bloodworms harvested from Long Cove had high mortalities during shipping for some time after the spill. After the Tamano spill in Casco Bay, all types of bottom dwelling animals were adversely effected, particularly the shrimplike animals called amphipods which were eliminated from heavily oiled locations. Waterbirds also exper- ienced high mortalities. The long-term effects of oil spills are unknown; however, PAHs contributed by oil spills are accumulated in sediments and animals. Degradation of PAHs is slow; and may affect marine animals for a long time. Boating ActiviLy Rec,reational boating activity is increasing in Maine. Casco Bay, for example, ishome for approximately 5000 boats. The direct effect of boating activity is the pollution load from oily wastes, bottom paints and bacteria. Indirect effects related to boating activities include runoff from boat yards and marinas of oily wasates and/or bottom paints. Bottom paint containing -66- tributyl tin are regulated but not eliminated by state law. SPILLS H.azardo.us substance spills pose a serious threat to surface and groundwater if they are not cleaned-up as thoroughly and quickly as possible. Spills of hazardous substances are often released as the result of transportation acci- dents. This makes them particularly difficult to clean-up due to traffic, location and, sometimes, an inability to determine precisely what contaminant has been spilled. Maine's paper industry uses many hazardous substances which must be trans- ported through the State. Caustic acid, sulfuric acid and chlorine are essen- tial to production, but dangerous if spilled en route. The potential for large spills at storage facilities and on highways can become a serious NPS pollution problem. In 1986, approximately 3,050 gallons of sulfuric acid were spilled in Maine. Nineteen other types of chemicals were involved in hazardous material incidents that year. Fortunately, from the perspective of clean up and quantification, most hazardous substance incidents occur at facilities where managers have a good idea of how much of what substance has leaked and are aware of DEP regulations regarding reporting and clean up. Thirty of the hazardous material spills in 1986 were industrial, eight were terminal spills, five were transportation related, three were residential, and fourteen were from mystery sources. As long as hazardous substances are transported around the State the possi- ility for spills will be present and the quality of Maine's water resources will be at risk. Given this inevitable threat, it is imperative that the DEP's full response and enforcement authority be maintained at the highest possible level of function. -67- 4.2.7 Other Sources 4.2.7.1 Atmospheric Deposition.(Acid Rain) In the northeastern corridor-of States, Maine is further downwind from the major industrialized region of the U.S. than.any other state. This loca- tion leads to lower,levels of acidic deposition than any other state north of the Ohio River. Maine's precipitation is estimated to be 2 to 4 times more, acidic than normal, largely due to sulfate and nitrate. Current loadings of sulfate ar e 15 to 20 kg/ha statewide, decreasing to the north and inland. Similar data for nitrate are 7 to 12.kg/ha, decreasing northward. These values represent deposition of approximately 125,000 metric tons of sulfate and 75,000 metric tons of nitrate on the State each year. Regional dry deposition inputs of acid precursors a@re generally assumed to be significant relative to wet inputs. This nonpoi nt pollution is'deposited on the entire landscape in a more or less uniform manner. Dry and particulate deposition is difficult to measure, and little scientific consensus exists as to relative pollutant rates either within or among regions. Dry deposition decreases away from its source due to dispersion and removal and, thus, may be expected to be less in Maine than.in areas closer to,industrialized areas. Maine, however, has numerous instate sources of sulfate, such as the paper industry. Maine has both the highest concentration and highest total-emissions of atmospheric sulfate in New England. Available data suggest that dry deposi- tion of sulfate adds at least an additional 50Z to wet inputs especially at higher elevation, and decreases in importance in northern sections. Measured S02 concentrations at one site in east-central Maine are,low relative to other northeastern U.S. data. NOx dry deposition and the nitrogen - sulphur ratio also decrease with distance from the source suggesting that NOx dry deposition may be of relatively low significance. -68- Available data indicate that the sulfate from acidic precipitation passes through Maine watersheds into surface or groundwaters, and eventually is trans- ported to the ocean. Sulfate from acidic deposition entering deep groundwater is of small significance relative to normal concentrations. However, the sul- fate concentrations of surface waters are probably at least double those of prehistoric times, due to polluted precipitation. In contrast to sulfate, more than 90 percent of the nitrate is biologically utilized, and does not enter surface or groundwaters. Chemical changes in soils and groundwater resulting from the deposition of sulfate, nitrate, and associated hydrogen ions have the potential to alter surface water quality by acidification. Acidification is the lowering of pH, and this increases the solubility of aluminum and other toxic trace metals. Most problematic from an inventory perspective is the potential for episodic acidification in streams and brooks, and the associated shott"term biological impacts. Such episodes in response to rainfall events or snowmelt are well documented in a few systems, but their extent and severity statewide is unknown. The number of chronically acidic lakes in Maine is small. The results from the 1984 Eastern Lake Survey projected that between 8 and 21 Great Ponds in Maine were acidic (those with an acid neutralizing capacity less than 0). Based on all known data for Maine (nearly 1000 lakes sampled), we are aware of 18 acidic lakes at least 4 hectares in size. Thirteen of these lakes had a pH less than 5.0 at the time of sampling. Four of the 18 are High Elevation Lakes in western Maine. Two-thirds (12) are seepage lakes having no outlet. if lakes as small as 1 acre (0.4 hectare);in size are included, 55 are known to be acidic (37 had a pH less than 5.0 at the time of sampling. Sixty percent of the acidic lakes are seepage lakes'. However, this type of -69- lake is transitional into bog lakes, and it is apparent that many darkwater acidic systems exist. The darkwater lakes ate thought-to be, at least in part, naturally acidic. Twenty percent of the acidic lakes are small@(<4 ha.) drainage lakes, and it is possible that significant numbers of these lakes that are unsampled, are acidic. However, sampling has largely focused on the lakes expected to be most sensitive, such as high elevation lakes in chemically resistant bedrock. There- fore, fewer than three percent of the general population of small lakes are expected to be acidic. In a probable worst-case scenario, fewer than 100 small acidic drainage lakes (less than 32 of approximately 3000) are undiscovered. The number is likely much less than that, due to past sampling programs which were biased toward sampling those lakes thought to be most stressed or sensi- tive. There are probably only a few unsampled acidic lakes in the 4 hectare and greater size, based on the Eastern Lakes Survey. Similarly, it is unlikely that a significant number of unknown acidic lakes exists in the seepage lake class, excluding bog waters. Some uncertain number of unsampled small drainage lakes may be acidic, although the number is probably much less than 100, and probably less than 50. Thus, including the 55 acidic lakes known to exist in Maine, there are a total of 100 or fewer non-dystrophic acidic lakes larger than 1 acre. Although 55 acidic lakes have been identified, the number acidi- fied to an acid neutralizing capacity of less than zero by acidic deposition is less than 55. Many of these lakes are acidic due to natural factors. Paleolimnological investigations in New England have concluded that some lakes apparently have become acidified in the past 20 to 50 years. However, most are inferred to have had a pH of less than six in pre-historical times. Therefore, only lakes that currently have a pH less than six are considered to -70- be at risk. Utilizing the same database from which the number of acid lakes was inferred, 45 Maine lakes are identified with pH between 5.0 and 6.0, and an acid neutralizing capacity of less than 20 ug/l. -.The actual number may be considerably higher, especially if small unsampled lakes are included. However, the only available long term data from lakes with pH or about 6.0 (EPA Long Term Monitoring lakes at the University of Maine/DEP Tunk Mountain Watershed Site) suggest that their acid neutralizing capacity has increased since 1982. (While five years is much too short a period to indicate trends, it is apparent that even these very sensitive lakes are not immediately at risk to acidifica- tion.) No direct data is available that indicates temporal pH trends. Paleolimno- logical diatom analyses of sediment cores from eight low pH Maine lakes has suggested that only Mud Pond (T 10 SD, 5 acres), and Unnamed Pond (T 3 ND, 15 acres) have a lower pH now than they did 100+ years ago. Both ponds have a pH of 4.8, and a diatom-inferred historical pH of less than 5.5. No evidence exists that any adverse biological effects have occurred in these two ponds due to inferred acidification but this is probably due to a lack of data. -71- 4.2.7.2 Underground,Storage Tanks In 1987, over 625 million gallons of automotive gasoline were pumped in Maine. This product is stored in an estimated 25,000 underground tanks, many of which are the older, base steel type that are unprotected against corrosion. The DEP has investigated over 500 leaking underground storage tanks. Over the past year, however, new cases of underground leaks are being reported at a rate of about one a week. In Maine, 90Z percent of the rural population drinks groundwater and each year about 70 wells are reported as being contaminated by gasoline from leaking underground storage tanks (LUST). The most alarming aspect of this problem is that there are an estimated 6,500 sites in the State that have been polluted by LUST while only about 1,000 of these sites have yet been discovered. At 176 of these sites, over 400 private wel ls have been pol- luted (Appendix II). ,The most common petroleum product stored in underground tanks is gasoline. Gasoline contains numerous toxic and carcinogenic chemicals such as benzene, toluene and m-xylene which are soluble in water to varying degrees. Another common constituent of gasoline is MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) which is used as an octane enhancer. Thi s chemical, at 250C, is 80 times as water soluble as toluene and 240 times as soluble as m-xylene. Although MBTE is less toxic than some gasoline constituents, it seems to increase the solubility of other, more hazardous components of gasoline. Concentrations of gasoline con- taining MTBE can be very high within contamination plumes in comparison to gasoline plumes which do not have this additive. In fact, concentrations of gasoline in household wells have reached 600,000 ppb which contrasts with simi- lar scenarios of well contamination of gasoline (without MTBE) in the range of 10 to 30,000 ppb. Since there is concern over human toxicity in connection with MBTE, the State toxicologist has set a recommended maximum concentration -72- of 50 ppb. Likewise, gasoline and fuel oil also have recommended maximum con- centration levels of 50 ppb. These maximum concentrations are only recommend- ations, however, as they pertain to private water supplies. Regulation has focused on the liability of LUST ownersloperators and tech- nological aspects of the emerging LUST problem: better tanks, better piping, better tank tests, and better leak detection. A statute enacted in 1985 allows the DEP to take remedial actions including replacement or restoration of water supplies threatened*or contaminated by oil, petroleum products or their bypro- ducts. A process for assigning liability arising from LUST incidents was also established to recover costs associated with remediation and reduced property values. The commissioner of the DEP may order persons found responsible for oil discharges that have caused or created a threat to public health or the environment, including but not limited to the contamination of water supply, to take temporary or permanent remedial actions including a requirement that the responsible party restore or replace the water supplies. Amendments to the Oil Discharge Law (38 MRSA, Section 561 et seq.) which were adopted in 1986, direct the Departments of Environmental Protection, Human Services and Public Safety to develop a comprehensive plan to address standards for new underground storage facilities, appropriate procedures to improve leak detection, strategies for tank abandonment, and define the roles and responsi- bilities of each participating State agency. The new regulations require all underground storage tanks with capacity of more than 500 gallons to be regis- tered with the DEP, establish design and installation standards to be enforced by the DEP, initiate a program for training of State-certified tank installers, and establish abandonment procedures for all tanks which have been out of ser- vice for more than 12 months. This cooperative effort to search for solutions to the LUST problem has started to show results. Over 2000 unprotected under- -73- ground storage tanks (many of them leaking) have been removed under this pro- gram. In 1987, a ten year compliance schedule was approved by the Maine Legisla- ture for upgrading underground storage tanks and associated equipment. Under the new requirements, no one may operate, maintain or store oil in a registered underground storage facility or tank which is not constructed of'cathodically protected steel, fiberglass, or other noncorrosive material approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. Depending upon the age of the tank and whether it is located in a geologically sensitive area, the tank owner has between two and ten years to replace it under the compliance schedule. -74- 4.2.7.3 Road Saltiny, The spreading of salt and sand-salt mixtures on Maine's roads may save many lives each winter but has a detrimental effect on groundwater quality. Each year 50,000 - 60,000 tons of salt are used for the de-icing of roads during the winter months. Some of this salt is spread in pure form, but most is mixed with sand and spread for traction as well as deicing. While Maine already uses a lower percentage of salt in its sand-salt mixture than other state in New England (80-250 lbs. of salt is mixed with each cubic yard of sand), roadside contamination is going to be a problem as long as any sodium chloride is used. Road salt application, however, affects highly localized areas, is attenuated rapidly by natural processes and poses little long-term threat to groundwater outside the road's right-of-way. So although roadsides may account for a sig- nificant amount of groundwater contamination in Maine, they represent a local- ized problem for which simple drainage solutions may be applicable. The larger road salting problem lies in the storage of salt and sand-salt mixtures which can act as in-place nonpoint source pollutants, particularly when sand-salt piles are uncovered and runoff from the site re aches nearby surface water or groundwater. The contamination plume from each uncovered sand-salt pile is estimated to pollute an average of ten acres of groundwater. The concentration of salt in groundwater associated with these sites is usually much higher than along roadsides, with salinity sometimes exceeding that of sea water. A case study of such pollution effects involves a resident of the Town of Glenburn whose well was polluted by a sand-salt pile. Her skin itched after taking a shower, her house plants died, her plumbing disintegrated, and her sodium-restricted diet was made meaningless due to sodium in her drinking water. In May of 1986, DEP hydrogeologists determined that the Glenburn sand- salt storage pile was responsible for the 1,800 mg/l chloride concentration in -75- her well. As of May of 1986, 135 wells were known to have been contaminated in Maine due to uncovered sand-salt piles. One of these was the Sabattus municipal well which was replaced at a cost of $123,000. Some of the other sand-salt piles which have impacted groundwater and polluted private wells include the Maine Department of Transportation lots in Freeport, Gardiner, Hermon, Jeffer- son, Rockwood, Turner, Unity, West Gardiner, and'Winthrop Public water sup- plies in New Gloucester and York have also been affected. The York site cost the town $300,000 in a legal suit and an.estimated $550,000 will eventually be spent to run municipal lines to affected homeowners. The extent and seriousness of the salt storage problem caused a change in State law (38 MRSA, Section 451-A) which mandates that all sand-salt piles be covered by 1996 to prevent the generation of salty leachate. Exceptions are allowed if the piles are to be located on groundwater dicharge zones adjacent to water bodies of such size or quality that the classification of the water body would not be violated by a salty discharge. 4.2.7.4 Snow Dumps Snow dumps are locations where excess snow collected during the winter months is disposed of, adjacent to or into surface waters. These activities can be a serious nonpoint source problem due to a variety of pollutants that are included with the snow. Deicing compounds, litter, and exhaust residues are all potential pollutants to the waters of Maine. The snow dump pollutants of principal concern are sand, salt, and lead, depending on the location of the dump. If the site is located on a wetland, below the high tide mark or in a large river, the sand can build up bars and fill wetlands and navigation channels, while the salt will be diluted to such If low concentrations that it is not likely to adversely affect water quality. -76- the site is located on a small'stream, the sand will still be a problem and the salt may not receive enough dilution to prevent a water quality problem. When the lead contained in snow dumps enter surface waters, much of-the lead ends up in sediments near the dump with the potential for sediment lead levels to increase over the years. Groundwater may be contaminated by lead and salt if the snow is dumped into gravel pits or other aquifer recharge areas. There are approximately two dozen municipal snow dumps in Maine. Sand. accumulation from them has been a continuing concern of the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers. In the past two years, the Corps has threatened enforcement action against several municipal snow dumps, including Portland's Back Cove site, for violating the dredging and filling section of the Clean Water Act. In 1987 and 1988, the DEP received complaints regarding snow dumps in Augusta, Gardiner, Hallowell, Kittery, Portland, Wiscasset,. and Kennebunk. Only four complaints addressed a pollution problem while the others dealt with the dumps' impacts on wharf access. Augusta, Gardiner, and Hallowell now use "land storage" which means they dump snow adjacent to a river rather than directly into it. Pollutant concentrations in snow dumps are highly variable but the range. found in the Augusta snow dump is of interest: Chloride (Rp Lead (Ppm) Phosphorus (ppm) Snow in Field less than 0.5 less than 0.02 0.011-0.030 Snow in Dump 0.05-35.0 0.07-1.7 0.16-2.4 Kennebec River not done less than 0.02 0.021 (above dump) Kennebec River not done less than 0.02 0.025 (below dump) Snow dumps are not the most pressing nonpoint pollution problem in the State of Maine; however, the potential for pollution will increase as urban sprawl con- tinues and snow dumps become more numerous. Preventative legislation, regulat- ing dump location and requiring waste discharge licenses, is a step in the -77- right direction. The unregulated alternative, with the size of our cities continuously growing, would certainly result in more serious pollution problems from this nonpoint source. 4.2.7.5 Hydrologic Modifications a) DREDGING Dredging harbors or channels so that ships, commercial fishing and other commercial vessels and recreational boats can moor and navigate is a generally accepted practice. As recreational boating activity increases in Maine, there will be a heightened interest in extending dredging activities. Sediments naturally accumulate in areas that are dredged. Therefore, in order to keep these harbors and channels navigable they must be dredged repeatedly. Also, the sediments which are redeposited in the dredged areas are likely to be more contaminated than the sediments which were removed. Generally, if dredged sediments are fine-grained, disposal of dredged mate- rial is in open ocean or estuaries. The decision of where to dispose of dredged material is based principally on economic considerations. Because most harbors and channels in Maine have fine-grained sediments most material is deposited in the open ocean. In fact, over 96Z of the 1.5 million cubic yards of material dredged by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS) in the last ten years was deposited in estuaries or open ocean. There are a number environmental problems associated with dredging: (1) Pollution is spread by moving sediments contaminated with PAHS. PCBs and metals from harbors and bays to clean open ocean areas. (2) Buried pollutants are released from the sediments exposed by dredging activity. (3) The bottom dwelling animal community is destroyed in both the area -78- which is being dredged and in the area where the dredged material is disposed. Since contaminants are associated with fine grained sediments. Maine needs to examine the procedures for testing sediments proposed for dredging to assure that the information is adequate to make decisions about proper disposal meth- ods and locations. Bottom sediments in industrial or commercial areas and areas of dense boating activity are contaminated by PAHs, metals, etc. Tests conducted by the (CORPS), showed that sediment contamination may be a signifi- cant consideration in Boothbay Harbor, Camden Harbor, Eastport Harbor, St. George River, Kennebunk River, Penobscot River, Pepperell Cove in Kittery, Rockland Harbor, Stonington Harbor and York Harbor. Maine's largest port, Portland, is dredged much more extensively than all other areas in Maine. Dredging channels in Portland Harbor area is of concern because of the elevated metals, PAHs and PCB's found in the sediments. Rockport Harbor and the Penobscot River are two areas which were recently dredged in Penobscot Bay. A survey of Penobscot Bay prior to dredging found elevated levels of PAHs and lead in the area of Rockport Harbor and elevated levels of PAHs, lead, cadmium, copper, chromium, zinc, silver and nickel in the mouth of the Penobscot River. Most large projects are undertaken by the CORPS. The following graph shows the CORPS' dredging activities for the past ten years. Each dredging project is listed separately (CORPS, personal communication). -79- FIGURE 7 Amount of Alaterial Dredged in Last 10 Years 4 Portland Harbor Portsmouth Kennebec Rivar Kennebec River Portsmouth Portland Harbor Stoninglon Royal River Biddeford Penobscot Corea Harbor Kenneburk River Rod,port Harbor Saco River Jonespart Corea Harbor Kennebunk River 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 Amount of Material Dredged In Cublc Yards -80- Dredging projects not undertaken by the CORPS add another 64,000 cubic years of material per year (range 10,000 to 130,000 cu.yds.) to the amounts given above-(New,England River Basins Commission, 1981). The, majority of these non-CORPS" projects dispose of the dredged material in open ocean. Upcoming dredging projects by the. CORPS include: the Kennebec River (19-89), a maintenance (50,00.0 cu. yds.) in Portsmouth and, when funds are., availa,ble, the Saco River (CORPS, personal communication). Many,other coastal communities,such a,s Wells and Scarborough have proposed projects,now in the review phase. With the exception of the Saco and Royal River projects, the disposal site for the projects listed above was in the open ocean or, as in the case of the Portsmouth and Kennebec River projects, in-estuarine waters. The. level of pollution harbored in the sediments from urban runof f, industrial dischargers and spills and discharges from boats in most of the harbors listed a.bove is unknown and should be examined as part of the marine monito.r.ing-program. b) Impoundments -81- 45 0 700 690 68 0 E E (to enobsco-t L estuary,. B e I f a s 4: 4 Searspor . ..... d (sample 0 0 44 cc Merrymeeting Bay' (control to be s a mp I e d?, S eepscot estuary (control to be sampled) Boothbay Harbor (sampled) *-Casco Bay dredge disposal area (to be sampled) Fore River-Casco Bay (samp I ed) de Wells kcontrol to be sampled) AREAS OF IMMEDIATE INTEREST FOR STUDY OF NON-POINT SOURC o Piscataqua estuary 43 (samp I ed) 70 0 690 68' M1 4.2.7'.6 Federal Lands There are three federally owned land areas that-have contributed pollution to Maine-vaters. Brunswick Naval Air Station in Cumberland County has been designated as a Superfund site. Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, Aroostook County, has scored high enough under the Superfund evaluation system to merit proposal, but h&s not yet been proposed as a Superfund site. An Installation Re,stor-ation Program is underway at jLoring. A third fb'deral installation in Maine where State water quality standards have been violated is the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery. A RECRA Corrective Action Order is pending for the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and hence the Superfund program may not be imple- mented there. -83- 4.3 IDENTIFICATION OF WATERBODIES IMPAIRED AND THREATENED BY NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION Section 319,of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the assess- ment of Maine's NPS problems be based on the State's Water Classification Pro- gram (38 MRSA, Article 4-A). That statute defines a water quality problem as the nonattainment of the standards ascribed to a waterbody's particular classi- fication. While the State law does not require the identification of water- bodies that are attaining but are threatened with nonattainment of classifica- tion, the CWA does, and those waterbodies are identified in this section of the report. The status of designated-use support in Maine rivers and streams, lakes and ponds is displayed in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The data in these tables summarize the sources of NPS pollution in rivers and lakes of Maine. Extremely limited data on attainment of water quality of estuarine waters prevents an adequate assessment of the importance of NPS pollution at the present time. Overall, Maine's water quality is very good. Many of the rivers and marine waters that were grossly polluted two decades ago have recovered since the enactment of the U.S. Clean Water Act in 1972. Most of the eastern and north- ern portions of Maine contain waters that are relatively pristine; affected principally by atmospheric deposition, timber-harvesting activities, recre- ational activities and natural disasters such as forest fires and floods. Although relatively few water quality monitoring stations are located in remote areas of Maine, data from these stations is considered to be representative of unmonitored remote waters, thus, facilitating the evaluation of unmonitored waters. In the more populated areas of Maine, water quality is affected by a combination of point sources such as residential/commercial discharges, treated -84- industrial effluents,, treated municipal-effluents and untreated municipal wastewater .(including combined s@ewer overflows) -and nonpoint -sources such a,s urban ,and suburban :sItormwater runoff, agriculture, c.onstruction- related -runoff, andwa-ste disposal practices. Almost all of-the municipal and industrial effluents in.-Maine now receivethe equivalent of bestpracticable treatment; hence the improvements in the water quality of rivers and marine waters which -have occurred during the last twenty years. -85- Table 6. Maine Attainment Status: Monitored Surface and Ground Waters. Area or Length Area or Length Not Attaining Water Hydrologic Subunit in Maine Quality Standards Major Rivers 1,184 mi 124 mi (10.5Z) Minor Rivers, Streams and 30,488 mi 265 mi (0.9z) Brooks Lakes and Ponds 1,554 mi2 57.8 mi2 (3.2Z) Estuarine and Marine Waters 1,633 mi2 Groundwater 30,995 mi2 -86- Approximately 1017 miles of the State's river and stream miles (or 3.2Z) were not fully supporting de.sIgn&ted uses and the -remaining 3.0,655 miles were fully su S TpQrting :.de*signated uses. Eighty-one percent of the miles as@ essed as not fully supporting were based on evaluated information rather than on data gath- ered through water quality monitoring. Eighty-four percent of the fully sup- porting miles were bA.s-ed-.;on evaluated information. 8 7,@- 4.3.1 Rivers and Streams Maine's classification standards for rivers, streams and brooks are based on three measurements of water quality- (1) bacteria levels, (2) dissolved oxygen, and (3) impacts on aquatic life. Maine's bacteria! standards are designed to protect swimmers from microorganisms originating from human waste, and therefore, are unlikely to be violated by nonpoint sources of pollution. However, the presence of bacteria of non-human origin can be an indication that organic contaminants are present which might lead to failure to meet the the other two standards. Perhaps Maine's bacteri al standard should be expanded to be more useful in the assignment of NPS pollution. The water quality monitoring program conducted by the Department of Env'7 ronmental Protection has identified 49 small watercourses in Maine (Table 5) which appear not to be meeting their dissolved oxygen standards owing to NPS pollution. It seems, however, that no large rivers in Maine fail to meet their dissolved oxygen standards as the result of nonpoint source pollution. Often, marshes and bogs, which are a source of organic matter, cause low dissolved oxygen levels in brooks and streams, but these natural conditions do not con- stitute a violation of Maine's dissolved oxygen standards. Where bogs and non-forest land uses occupy the same watershed, care must be taken in assessing the cause of low dissolved oxygen levels, high nutrient levels, and other con- stituents which may have multiple sources. Maine's assessment of water quality in rivers, streams and brooks is, at this point, inconclusive as to the the effects of NPS pollution on dissolved oxygen levels. However, no dissolved oxygen problems have yet been documented in forested watersheds. The waterbodies listed in Table 3 lie in settled areas of the State, and represent about 3.2Z of the total miles of streams in the State. -88- Riverine aquatic organisms are extremely sensitive to the effects of NPS pollution. Maine's program for assessing aquatic life quality in the past, however, has been largely oriented toward evaluating the effects of pollution from point sources. Furthermore, the aquatic life standards and the regula- tions for their implentation are currently being developed by the DEP's Divi- sion of Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies. Increased emphasis on evalu- ating the biological effects of NPS pollution is planned for the future. The prospects of financing a NPS biomonitoring program in Maine and the design of such a program will be discussed in Maine's NPS Pollution Management Plan. According to the results of Maine's NPS pollution survey there are many river, stream and brook segments with impaired uses in Maine which may be threatened with nonattainment of classification due to NPS pollution, The distribution of these waterbodies, as well as the monitored water- bodies, can be seen in Table 3. Specific NPS pollution assessment needs for riverine waters will be discussed in the State of Maine Nonpoint Source Pollu- tion Management Program see Map for these and other NPS threatened/impacted waters. Additionally, an undetermined length of intermittent and minor peren- nial rivers and streams were not assessed. -89- I 11. (MAP) 9 @M Rivers; NPS Problems I pa I I I I I .- I I I I I I I I -90- 1 I 'I ~0 N~O~PC~NT ~S~C~RC~E P~O~~~~~~ON ASSESSMENT - MAINE ~RA~NAG~E BASINS - RIVERS AND STREAMS ~~~C~R BASIN ~C~o SUB-BASIN ~C~O ~S~~~B~~S~~2-~BAS~~N ~~~~8 TOWN 10 20 30 ~0 50 60 70 80 TYPE ~'~yW~AT~qE~P~qB~qO~qDY) 0, ASSES ~;~t. ~:~o~@~n ~o~i~v~er I St. John River 1~4 ~P~'~e~st~qi~l~e ~qSt~r~e~o~m 149R 150R. H~ou~l~qt~o~n I ~8qE ~St. r River I St. John R~: ~er 14 8 ~qStr~@~anr~i ~v 15~?R Hoult~on I ~8qE ~@~t ~n ?~i~V~er I St. John River 14 ~M~ed~wr~)`~qe~k~e~o~qg ~R~v~e~r ~1~q5 ~4~' R 15~q3R~, H~oul~qt~o~n I St. ~'~i~o~K~n ~Pi~v~er I St. John River 14 Main Str below ~qFt Kent I I 6R 11~q6R~, 117R, ~1~1~1~q8I~qR I E ~q3 ~qt~. ~qj ~^ ~h n~R~i~;~e~r ~1 Fish River 13 P~erl~ey Brook ~12~q9R Ft. Kent I ~8qE ~S~t~. j~o~hn River I Fish River 13 McLean Brook 123R St. Agatha, T~17R4 I I ~- ~V~, I Fish River 13 ~qO~i~rk~e~y Brook 124R St. Agatha. ~T~17R5 I ~qM ~,~t. ~)~.~@~@hn ~F; ~er I St. ~"~o~h~n ~0~;~t~"~-~r 1 Fish River 13 D~o~i~qg~le Brook ~124R New Canada, ~117~P.5 I I St. John River I Aroostook River 14 Lit~qt~l~e M~od~ow~osk~a River 145R Caribou I ~8qE St. ~.~1~.~3hr~, ~P~'~.~:~v~er 1 Aroostook River 14 Limestone Stream 146R Limestone I E ~108qK ~:~n~hr~i ~R~;~"~P~r I Aroostook River 14 ~M~gin ~'~-~freom ~16-1 44R PA., Caribou, Ft. F~oi~r~qf~qi~el~i 1 E ~j~. ~- ~ -It. J~c~n~ nFiv~er 1 ~Ar~.~)~c~st~o~ok ~1, V ~e r ~14 Everett Brook 1~43R F~qt~, F~o~irfi~e~ld I ~qM ~-~U~qB~-T~qO~TAL~, ~q2A~qSIN #1 ~@~q~o~qb~s~c~qv ~R~:~V~e~r 2 M~att~ow~arn~i~k~e~a~qq 23 ~i~yer Brock ~'~L~C~@~qSR ~~s~l~and Falls I I ~@~;-~.nob~s~l~-~,~i R~"~Ver 2 Penobscot River 25 Allen Stream 224R ~qDe~@t~er~. E~. Corinth I ~4qE ~P~en~cl~bscot River 2 Penobscot River 25 Block Stream 224R Levant, Hermon I E ~:~@~n~ol~b~s~c~ot River 2 Penobscot River 25 Crooked ~qBr~~@~o~k 224R Charleston I E ~P~-~n~o~b~s~cr~i~t River 2 Penobscot River 25 French Mill Stream 224R E~~f~e~qter I E ~P~en~cb5c~ot River 2 Penobscot River 25 ~qGrect Brook 224R Bangor I E ~ ~P~er~ob~s~o~c~qt ~9~'~~j~er 2 Penobscot River 25 Main Stem 229R Medway E ~P~@~n~c~qb~s~c~"~q" ~'~? ~P~'~-~n~c~qb~s~c~o~qt Rive~' 25 Main ~qS~l~e~r~r ~_~2~q3~14R Brewer ~2qE P-n~ob~s~c~o~t River 2 25 Soud~nb~sc~o~o~k ~qStr~e~im E ~r~p~n~cb~s~c~@~' ~R~qv~er 2 K~endu~ske~o~g Stream 25 Entire ~qS~tr~e~orn ~8qE ~;~'~@~n~o~q@~3~c~ot ~R~;~ie~r 2 K~endu~sk~e~o~qg Stream '~45 Burnham Brook 2~1 2 ~'~1 R Garland I ~qM ~P~c~r~ol~b~s~c~ot R~i~,~, ~@ r 2 K~e~rd~u~sk~eo~g 25 Unn~orn~ed ~qRr~c~ok 22~q5R Corinth ~qM ~S~U~qB~-TO~!AL~, BASIN ~q#2 Kennebec R~;~1~. ~er 3 Kennebec River Bond Brook ~q3~q3~q3R Augusta ~8qE Kennebec ~qiv~er 3 Nash Brook ~q507R Alder Stream Two. I ~4qE Kennebec ~R~i~v~-~r 3 W~e~sserun~s~e~tt Stream ~314R Brighton ~P~lt~. Athens I I I E Kennebec R~'~N~er 3 Beaver Brook Farmington I I ~8qE K~e~n~n~-~u~l~e~c R~~:~v~p~r 3 Hardy Brook ~q@~1~1~q7~1? Form' ~qin~qg~qton I E Kennebec ~R~;v~er 3 Pine Brock 317R Wilton I E Kennebec River 3 ~V~arnurn S~qt~e~am ~q317R Wilton I E Kennebec River 3 Wilson Stream 31~"R above Wilton I ~4qE Kennebec River 3 Wilson Stream 3~18R Wilson L~. to Mt. Blue I I E Kennebec River 3 Roseanne Brook 334R Winthrop I I ~4qE Kennebec R~i~@~@~r 3 Sandy River 33 Muddy Brook 3~1bR New Sharon I E K~@n~n~eb~ec R~i~qw 3 Sandy River 33 Main ~qStr ~3~qbov~e Strong ~q315R Avon, Phillips I E Kennebec Ri~v~@r 3 Sandy River 33 Barker Stream 3~1~q6R Farmington I ~qM Kennebec River 3 Sandy River 33 Unnamed Stream 3~16R New Sharon 1~q8 ~qM Kennebec River 3 Kennebec River 33 C~orr~ob~as5~e~qtt Stream 32~q0R C~on~o~on I ~qM Kennebec River 3 Kennebec River 33 Mill Stream ~q32~q0R N~o~rr~qid~qg~ewoc~qk I ~0qM Kennebec River 3 Kennebec River 33 Mill Stream 32~q0R Norr~qidg~ewock I L ~qM Kennebec River 3 Mess~ol~on~s~kee Stream 33 Fish Brook 322R Fairfield I ~qM Kennebec River 3 S~ebo~stico~ok River 33 Thompson Brook 324R Hartland I ~qM Kennebec River 3 Seba~s~qticook River 33 Brackett Brook 325R Palmyra I I ~qM ~0 N~NP~O~NT SOURCE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT - MAINE ~D~~~NAGE BASINS - RIVERS AND STREAMS MAJOR ~qBAS~i~N ~qC~~n ~3~0~q8~-~qBAS~iN ~qC~qO ~qSU~qB~-S~U~qB~-BA~qS~IN WE TOWN ~10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8~qC TYPE _~8qiWA~qL~qERBODY) ASSES ~V~e~n~,~1p~1p~p~ 3~q@ ~M~'~l~@ Stream K~en~n~ebe~,~, Rive, ~t~z~-"~-~t~i~c~o~o~k ~P 33 Farnham Brook. 3~19~P Pittsfield I - - L Kennebec River S~e~n~c~St~C~o~ok ~Riv~-~@ 33 12~-M~il~e Brook 329~qR Clinton I ~qM ~V~,~er~ir~l~eb~e~c River 3 Se~b~n~t~i~qn~o~o~k ~Piver 33 Unnamed Stream 32~q9~qP B~e~nt~o~r~, ~qj ~qM Kennebec River 3 ~qE~ ~qBr. ~qS~e~b~ast~ic~o~o~k River 33 ~M~z~r~qt~i~r~@ S~t~t~e~o~r~r~, ~q32~q5~P~, ~t~i~l~e~*~D~o~r~l, P~@~yrr~D~qO~.~@~I ~4qE Kennebec River 3 ~q1. ~qBr~ Seb~os~qtic~oo~k River 33 Tw~entyfivemile Stream 326~P Burnham. Unity I I E Kennebec River 3 ~qE~. ~q2r~. Seb~o~s~t~ic~ook River 33 Chino L~a~@~e Outlet 32~q8~R V~o~s~soll~bor~o I I E Kennebec River 3 E~. ~q8~r. S~eb~os~qt~i~coo~k River 3~q3 Sever~mi~l~e Stream I I E Kennebec River 3 ~qE~. B~r. Se~qb~o~stic~oo~k River 33 Togu~s Stream 335R Chelsea I I ~K~e,~n~e~l,~e~c Ri~,~.er ~3~7 ~K~e~n~n~e~qb~-~z River 33 Vaughn Brook 333~qP~ 'Hollowell I ~er~i~n~e~l~u~-~c ~qR~~ve~r ~r~3~6~,0~5 33 Mud '.",!is S~qtre~or-, ~7~1~A~qP - - ~s~ee~n~n~te~e ~qTre~om ~i~j- ~g~o~m~qn~u~qt~"~ I ~qM Kennebec River C~o~qb~t~o~s~se~ec~o~n~f~e- Stream 33 Potters Brook 334~P Litchfield I ~qM K~en~n~e~o~cc River C~c~"~o~s~s~e~eco~n~t~e~e Stream 33 Tingley Brook 334~R ~Re~adf~i~e~ld I I ~qM ~K~en~n~e~b~e- Ri~v~-~r ~^o~b~o~os~s~e~e~c~ont~e~e Stream 33 Jack Stream 334R Wales. Monmouth I ~qM Kennebec Rive, 3 C~ob~qb~oss~e~ec~o~n~t~e~e Stream 33 Jug Stream 334R ~M~o~nrr~0qi I I ~4qE Kennebec River 3 Kennebec Rive, 33 Kimball Brook 335~P ~P~~qtston I ~qM SUB-TOTAL, BASIN ~q#3 Androscoggin River 4 Kendall Brook 406R Bethel I I ~4qE Androscoggin R~i~v~e~i ~4 ~M~A ~qBro~o~@ ~4~q0b~R Bethel I I Androscoggin River 4 Sunday River 406R N ~e wry I E `~ndr~o~s~co~a~qg~l~n ~qR ~qi ~j ~e r 4 Sparrow Brook 4`~10R Conlon I Androscoggin River ~.~1 Thompson Brook 41~qOR ~qCo~nt~o~n I I Andr~o~s~c~o~qq~qq~M R~@v~er ~4 ~q6~!~f~l~e ~A~ndr~oscoo~oin River 42 Moir, Stream 4~14R So. Paris I I E Androscoggin River Androscoggin ~P~i~'~e~r 42 ~qS~ab~o~t~qtu~s River 41~q8~P S~a~qb~o~qtt~u~5 I E Andro~scoagi~n. River 4 A~r~~d~,~c~s~c~i~g~qgir~ River 42 Main Stream 422~P ~qCo~n~'~o~n E Androscoggin River 4 Androscoggin River 42 P~enl~ey Brook ~q333~F~, Auburn I ~qM A~ndr~o~5~cog~g~;~~,~) River 4 Li~t~t~l~@ ~-~Andros~co~o~-~air. River 42 Morgan Brook 415~P Minot I ~qM ~qAnd~r~o~s~co~o~n~qin ~qPi~@~e~r 4 ~L~qi~qt~t~i~e Androscoggin River 42 A~qb~o~n~ad~o~s~s~t~~qlt River 42~q0~P. ~qF~i~@~-hr~y~i~o~r~-~~j IV ~qS~U~qB~T~(~q3~1~A~L. ~qBA~qS~j~t~4 ~q#~4 Tidewater E~c5~l 5 ~P~@eo~s~jn~t River 52 Pleasant River 5~1~1~qP T~I8~, M~qD E Tidewater East 5 M~o~c~qh~~c~s River 52 Mop~ong Stream 5~q1~qO~qR T24,T25 M~qD ~i E Tidewater East 5 ~M~o~@~h~*~,~o~s River 52 Old Stream 51~qOR T31 MID, Wesley I I I ~_~8qNe~w~o~t~e~r East M~a~1p~~a~s River 52 Entire Stream System 51~qOR Wesley. North~f~ld.T2~q5 I I I E ~-~ ~id~ew~o~ql~er East ~H~o~r~,~ng~t~cn River 52 Trou~ql~. Brook 513R Columbia E Tidewater East 5 52 Mcro~slin Stream 52~q0R Penobscot I ~4qE Tid~ew~o~t~-~@ East 5 St. Croix River 51 Grand Lake Stream 5~q02R T27 ED I I E Tidewater East 5 52 Co~deton Stream 52~q0R Blue Hill M ~qp~o~s~s~a-~qm~r~o~qk~e~a~qg ~qP. 52~q1~qP ~qB~e~qlf~o~5~qt~, W~o!d~.~- I I ~qid~e~qn~qt~e~, East ~r~i ~qi~r~, 52~1R Belfast Tidewot~e~( East ~1 52 Warren ook I ~qM Tidewater lost 5 l~i~~l~t~do~r~r~o~@ River 52 M~edom~o~k River 525R ~qUnion~.Libe~qdy~qA~qgsh. I ~0qM SUB-TOTAL. BASIN ~q#5 Iso so 'M aw M an M M M. an NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT - MAINE DRAINAGE BASINS RIVERS AND STREAMS M&JOR BASIN CO SUB-BASIN CO SUB-SUB-BASIN WB TOWN 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 TYPE DATA DRAIN STREAM WATER (WATERBODY) NO. ASSESS SOURCE AREA LENGTH- CLASS Tidewater West 6 61 Frost Gully Brook 602R Freeport I M 3.1 A' Tidewater West 6 Royal River 61 Chandler River 603R N.Yormouth/Powriol I M 13 B Tidewater West 6 61 Unnamed Brook 603R N.Yormouth/ Yarmouth I M 2 C Tidewater West 6 Presumpscot River 61 Songo River 605R Noples I C munlL 1 B Tidewater West 6 Presumpscot River 61 Block Brook 607R Windham I M 201 5 B-* Tidewater West 6 Presumpscat River 61 Colley Wright Brook 607R Windham I M 5: B" Tidewater Wes', 6 Presumpscot River 61 E.Bf. Piscotaquis River 607R Falmouth I M to- Tidewater West 6 Presumpscot River 61 Hobbs Brook 607R Cumberland I M 1.5 Y! Tidewate, West 6 Presumpscot River 61 Inkhorn Brook 607R Westbrook I M 4 B Tidf,woier We!t 6 Presumpscot River 61 Mosher Brook 607P Gorhorr I M 2 Tid I @. eloter West 6 Pre5umpscot River 61 Otter Brook 607R Windhom M 2 8 Tidewater West 6 Royal River 61 Main Stem 603R New Gloucester I I E DIF&W 143 6 B+C Tidewater Wes', 6 Royal River 61 Chandler River 603R N. Yarmouth, Pownol I M 13 B lidewotef West 6 More Brook 602R Brunswick N.A.S. I E DiF&W 2 Tidewatzl- West 6 Presumpscoi River 61 Piecsont River 607P Gray, Windhorn I E DiF&W 201 8 B+C Tidewater West 6 Presumpscot River 61 Main Stem below S. Windl 607R Windham, Gorham I E Dll`&V@ 11 2 B Tidewater West 6 Presumpscot River 61 Thayer Brook 607R Gray I M 3 B Tidewater West 6 61 Copisic Brook 61OR Portland I M 3 C Ticiewoter West 6 61 Clar-k Brook 61OR Westbrook I M 1 C Tidewater West 6 61 Long Creek 51OR S.PortlondYestbrook I M 3 C Tidewater West 6 61 Red Brook 61OR Scarborough I M 3 8 T:dewoter Wes', 6 61 Stoudwater Rive, 61OR Gorhom I I I V 4 5 Tidewater West 6 61 Alewife Brook 61IR Cope Elizabeth I M 1 A 'idewater West 6 61 Phillips Brook 611R Scarborough I M 1.5 C i i'dewoter West 6 Saco River 62 Main Stem 613R Fryeburg I E DIF&W 2 C Tidewater West 6 Saco River 62 Words Brook 613R Fryeburg M 824 1.5 C T;jehoter West 6 Saco River 62 Cooks Brook 616R Waterboro I M M 150 1.5 B@ @ide*oter West 6 Saco River 62 Deep Brook 616R Saco I M 2.5 C T 6 Saco River 62 Swan Pond Brook 616R Biddeford 12 8 I idewater West I I E DIF&V. T;dewo@er West 6 Kennebunk River 622R Kenneburk I I E YCSW' -C 12 B Tidewater West 6 Great Works River 63 Main Stern 625R Sanford I I E Dll`&-@A 87 2 B Tidewater West 6 Great Works River 63 Adams Brook 625R Berw,'Ck I M. 1.' 8 Tidewater Wes', 6 Great Works River 6 LOVErs Brook 61.51? South Berw:ck I M 2 8 IU S_UB-TOTAL, BASIN J6 146 Estuortne & Marine 7 Scarborough R. Est. 700 ScorborouQh I I E Munic. SB SUB-TOIAL. BAS@N THREATENED RrVERS & STREAMS NONPOINI SOURCE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT MAINE DRAINAGE BASINS - RIVERS AND STREAMS wk;0p. 64pl- co SUB-BASIN CO SUB-SUB-BASIN WB TOWN 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 TYPE DATA DRAIN STREAM WATER (WA-Ec ASSESS . SOURCE AREA LENGTH CLASS [email protected])ter Eo9i 5 S1. Gtoroc Rver W73R Tidewater Eost T T T E oir&w 24 5 Sheepsco't Rtler T F DIF&W 8 Tidewater Ecs@4 5 Dorricriscottc R;ver T E DIF&W 4 Tide*oter East 5 Pernoquid River T I DIF&W 1 T tidewo'er East 5 Duclitw River T I DIF&W 7 Tidewater East 5 River T E DIF&W 3 TideKoter Eosi 5 Goose R'Ver T DIF&W 4 SUB-TC71,11. IHREAIENED RIVERS STREAMS 51 'XPLANATION OF TERMS ;NT E -Evaluated (Status based on professional judgment) SUMMARY, IMIPA!RED STATE RIVERS & STRE/ M _- Mon,tored (Status bosed on data from sompfing) EVALUATED MON90RED IMPAIRMENT, STATUS BASfNJ _WATERS WATERS I ImPoired (Does not meet water classification) 1 302 4 T Threatened (Meets classification, but threatened with non-attoinment If remedia! action not takeni 2 85 25 3 229 61.9 4 65 12 5 72 15.4 6 70 76 CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION 823 194.3 MILES 10 - AGRICULTURE A - CROPLAND, B - ANIMAL WASTES TOTAL IMPAIRED WATI 1017.3 MILES 20 - SILVICULTURE 30 - CONSTRUCTION 0 - HIGHWAYS, BRIDGES, & ROADS. E - LAND DEVELOPMENT 4@ - URBAN LAND G - STORMWATER SEWERS, H - COMBINED SEWERS. I - RUNOFF, J - DR,4ELLS AND BAM 50 - RESOURCE EYTRACTION 60 - LAND DISPOSAL K - ORGANIC WASIES, L - LANDFILLS, M - HAZARDOUS WASTE AREAS 70 - HYDROLOGIC MOD. 80 - OTHER 0 - ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION, P - UNDERGROUND I_zTURAG[ TANKS, 0 - IN-PLACE DEPOSPS, R - SNOW DUMPS, S - SAND/SALT PILES WAS& 4.3.2 Lakes and Ponds Maine has a vast number of lakes and ponds (5,779) comprising 994,560 acres. All but a small percentage of these were formed as a result of glacial action during the last ice age. A Volunteer Monitoring Program is used to regularly gather water quality data to track the status of 250 lakes in the state. The "trophic state" of a lake is a principal indicator of lake water quality. Trophic State is a measure of the concentration of nutrients and subsequent density of living organisms in a waterbody and can be approximated by measuring the the transparency of the water. As nutrient levels increase, populations of primary producers (algae and certain macrophytes) increase and transparency decreases. The majority of lakes in the, Volunteer Monitoring Program (assumed to be representative of those Maine lakes with residential development in the wat- ersh.ed) have average transparencies between 4.5 and 7 meters. 31 of the 5,779 lakes and ponds in Maine support sustained and repeated algal blooms. Monitoring data from 1982 through 1987 on approximately 250 lakes indicates stable water quality for all but a handful of lakes. Six lakes show a trend of improving quality due to restoration projects. Three lakes showed signs of deterioration for the first time during this period. For one of these three deteriorating lakes (China Lake), the trend was to more intense and sustained blooms, due to phosphorus pollution. For the other two deteriorating lakes, green algal blooms were documented for the first time. It is not apparent whether these latter two blooms were a one-time phenomenon or a trend of dete- riorating water quality. At the present time, NPS problems affecting lakes and ponds are better understood than are NPS problems affecting the State's other types of water -95- resources. However, given the use classification standards for lakes and ponds (GPA waterbodies), which requires all lakes to have a stable or decreasing trophic state and to be free of culturally induced algal blooms, impairment of lake resources can be looked at in several ways. The most obvious level of impairment includes lakes that are clearly currently violating this standard, that is, lakes that have a documented current trend of increasing trophic state or that currently support culturally induced algal blooms. As presented in Table 5, there are 33 lakes and ponds in Maine which, because of NPS pollution, fall into this category. Their combined area of 32,984 acres represents 3.3Z of the total surface area of lakes and ponds in Maine. There are one lake and one pond in Maine not attaining their GPA classification due to point source dis- charges. Their combined size of 505 acres represents just 1.5Z of all GPA waters not meeting their classification. Further, these two water bodies are close to.meeting their GPA classification due to improvements in wastewater treatment. Impairment can and should also be viewed from a more rigorous perspective as well. Since nutrient input from the watershed determines the trophic state of a lake, and land use in the watershed*determines nutrient loading, it fol- lows that any uses of the watershed that generate Nonpoint Source nutrient levels greater than levels from forested-only watersheds will, by definition, cause some elevation of trophic state over natural background levels. The level of such.NPS-derived impairment is a function of the density and intensity of non-forest land use in the watershed as well as the lake's inherent sensiti- vity to such inputs. Therefore, by far the majority of lakes in the parts of the state with the highest density of agricultural and residential land use, e.g., York, Cumberland, Southern oxford, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Waldo, Southern Penobscot, and Eastern Aroostook Counties, have trophic states -96- which have been elevated over natural background levels at some point in the past, and hence could be considered impaired by NPS pollution. Though in most cases this impairment cannot be clearly documented because of the lack of background data prior to disturbance of the watershed, it is clearly the case. Fortunately, the level of impairment from historic and recent NPS pollutant loadings in most of Maine's lakes, though significant, has not reached the point of severe use impairment. With the exception of the 35 lakes already discussed, all Maine lakes support swimming and fishing, although coldwater fish habitats have no doubt been impaired in many lakes. Given the current suitability of nearly all Maine lakes despite historic impairment, the more important question becomes: which'lakes are most immedi- ately threatened with further significant impairment from Nonpoint Source pol- lution? Lakes and ponds which are threatened by NPS pollution represent a much larger proportion of Maine's waterbodies. Table 5 displays the Vulnerability Index, an objective ranking, by major basin, of the most threatened lakes and' ponds in the state. These lakes and ponds are believed to be in danger of deteriori4ting if remedial steps are not taken to prevent the acceleration of their trophic states. It is estimated that 6 additional lakes will eutrophy in the next 10-15 years because of Nonpoint Source pollution. The preparers of this report wish to acknowledge the input from the follow- ing who responded to requests for information regarding impaired and threatened lakes: the Regional Fisheries Biologists of the ME Department of Inland Fisher- ies & Wildlife Soil & Water Conservation Districts Municipal Officials Their contributions are greatly appreciated. The 37 lakes identified by these -97- groups are contained in a table that is av ailable upon request from ME DEP/ Bureau of Water Quality Control/ Division of Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies. These lakes were not printed in this report because it was felt that to do so would divert attention away from the fact that all lakes in watersheds with agriculture, forestry, and development activities are threatened with degrading water quality. The lakes that are not threatened at this time constitute a short list when compared with the thosands that are threatened. -98- I 1 10. (MAP) Lakes; NPS Problems I . I I I I I .1 I . I I I I I I 1 -99- I I TABL[NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT - MAINE DRAINAGE BAStNS - I_A@@S AND PONDS MAJOR BASIN CO SUB-BASIN CO SUB-SUB-BASIN WEI NO TOWN 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 130 T@P[ DATA DRAIN SURFACE WATER . (WATERBODY) ASSESS SOURCE AREA AREA CLASS st john*@ Riv.r 1 Adoqnh River 12 Long Lokc 123L St. &-1Mh.<% I M 600D CPA St. John's River I Allagosh River 12 Cross Lake 124L T16 1 2515 CPA St. Jahn's River I Fish River 13 Block Lake 124L Ft. Kent 1 51 CPA St. John s River I Fish River 13 Daigle Pond 124L Daigle I M 36 CPA St. jon*s Rive( I Presque Isle Stream 14 Hanson Brook Pond 140L Presque Isle I M 118 GPA SL. John's River I Aroostook Rive, 14 Monson Pond 1431, Ft. Foirfie16 I V 16) CPA St. John's River I A6oostook River .14 Fischer Lake 143L Ft. Fairfied I M 5 CPA SUB-TOTAL, BASIN #1 8885 acres Penobscot River 2 Souadobscook Stream 25 Etna Pond 225L Stetson I V 361 CPA Penobscot River ' Scuodobscook Stream 715 Hommond Pond 225, Homptien I M 96 CPA Penobscot R;",-, 2 Soucdobscook Stream 14 Hermon Pond _225L Hermon I V 461 CPA SUB-TOTAL, BASIN #2 918 acres Kennebe@ River 7 Cobbosseecontee Stream 33 Annobessocook Lake 334L Monmouth/Vinthrop I M 1420 CPA Kennebec Rtver cobbosseec,@,tee Streom 3-11 Cobbosseecontee Lo'ke 3341. 0chfie'd M 5 5 4 _3 CPA Kennebec Rive., 3 Cobbosseecontee Stream 3 3 Pleasant Pond 334, Litchfietd M 746 CPA Kennebec River 3 Cobbosseecontee- Stream 33 Upper Nxrow5 Pond 334L Winthr 'op V 279 CPA Kennebec River -1 Kennebec River ',3 Toaus Pond 335L Aucusto IE M 660 CPA Kennebec River 3 Kennebec River @33 Three Mile Pond 333L Vassalboro 1 1162 CPA Kennebec River 3 Kennebec River 33 Weber Pond 333L Vossolboro I M 1201 CPA Kennebec River E. Br. Sebosticook River- 32 Sebosticook Lake 325L Newport I M 4288 CPA 1 7 11 11r, St. Alk- @ I z Kennebec Ritre, I E. B, Selvosttcook River iz Hot" Moor, Pond JI-iL M 36 C, P A Kennebec River 3 China Lake Outlet & Tribs. 32 Chino Lake 328L Chino I IE M 3845 CPA Kennebec River 3 Messolonski Stream 32 Salmon Lake 321L Belgrade I M 666 CPA Kennebec River 3 Fifteenmile Stream 32 Lovejoy Pond 327L Alb;on I M 324 CPA Kerinebec River -1 Moosehead Lake 31 Fitzgerald Pond 303L Big SQuaw IM M 550 GPA SUB-TOTAL, BAS@N J3 20720 acres Androscoggin River 4 Sgbatt-us River 41 Salb9ftus Pond 416L [email protected] M 1962 CPA SUB-TOTAL, BAS!N #4 1962 acres Tidtivoter East 5 52 Lilly Pond 522L Rcickptrt M 29 CPA Tidewoter East F, SUB-TOTAL, BASNI 52 Chickowokie Pond 522L ROC41 .and/Rockiport I I[ M 352 CPA 381 acres Tid-woter West 6 Salmon Foils River 63 Spaulding Pond 630L Lebanon M 118 CPA SUG-TOTAL, BASIN 118 acres INS INS M M win 'IN I THREATDIED LAKES AND PONDS TA@l INON.POINT , SOURCE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT DPAINAGF BASINS - LAKES AD PONDS MAJOR BASIN CO SUB-BASIN CO SUB-SUB-8ASIN WEI NO TOWN 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 TYPE DATA DRAIN SURFACE WATER (WATERBODY) ASSESS SOURCE AREA AREA CLASS St. John River 1 Little Madawaska Ri%ver 14 Madawaska Lake 145L Stockholm T M 1526 GPA Penobscot River 2 Penobscot minor tribs, 25 Caribou Pond 220L Lincoln T M 82) 5 GPA Penobscot River I Penobscot minor tribs. 25 Long Pond 220L Lincoln T M 523 GPA Kennebec R@iver 3 Messolonskee Stream 32 East Pond 321L Ooklond T M 1705 GPA Tidewater West 5 53 Havener Pond 524L Waidoboro T V 8@ GPA Tidewoter East 6 Royal Piver 61 Notched Pond 603L Raymond T M, 77 GPA SIUB-TOTAL, Threctened Lakn, All Sos;ns 4739 ocres SUB-TOTAL, Threatened Lokes, from Vulnerability lnde@ 47840 acres TOTAL. Threatened Lakes 52579 acres IMPAIRMENT STATUS CODES CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES OF NONPOINT, SOURCE POLLUTION I = Impaired T = Threatened 10 -AGRICULTURE A - CROPLAND, 8 - ANWAL WOES 20U -SUVICUL T1 19, E TYPE ASSESSMENT 30 -CONSTRUCTION D - HIGHWAYS. -BRIDGES,.& ROADS. E - LAND DUELOWENT M = Monitored (Status bosej or sampling doio) 40 -URBAN RUNOFF G - STORMWATER SEWERS, H - COMBINED SEWERS. I - RUNOFF. J - DRYNELLS AND BASINS E = Evaluated (Status based on professional judgment) 50 -RESOURCE EXTRACTION 60 -WASTE DISPOSAL K - ORGANIC WA.33TES, L - LANDFILLS. Mr - HAZARDOUS WASTE AREAS 70 -HYDROLOGIC MOD. 80 -OTHER 0 - ATMOSPHERIC DEPO 'SIT [ON, P@ - UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS. 0 - IN-PLACE DUOS[TS, R SNOW DUMPS, 5 SAND/SAILT PILES SUMMARY, IMPAIRED LAKES & PONDS BASIN AREA 1 8885 2 918 3 20720 4 196' 5 38i 6 TOTAI, 32984 ACRES Table 5. LAKE VULNERABILITY INDEX Lakes and Ponds Threatened With Nonattainment of Water Quality Standards Due to Nonpoint Source Pollution. Lake and Pond Vulnerabilities as of May 1, 1988 have been assessed by the Division of Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies of the DEP's Bureau of Water Quality Control. This index is a predictive model which equates a lake or pond's hydrologic characteristics and rate of watershed development (from 1984 to 1986) with how long it will take for phosphorus concentrations in the lake or pond to increase by 1 part per billion (ppb). The major limitation of this model is that the rates and patterns of development in lake watersheds may be quite different over the next 10 or 50 years then they were from 1984 to 1986. Another significant limitation on its validity is that the applicability of the phosphorus input-output model used may vary from lake to lake. Depending upon a lake or pond's current water quality status, a 1 ppb increase in phosphorus level may or may not cause a noticeable decline in the lake's water quality. For extremely vulnerable lakes and ponds, a 1 ppb phosphorus increase is predicted to occur within 10 years. For Highly Vulnerable Lakes and Ponds, a 1 ppb increase in phosphorus is predicted to occur within 50 years. On a Statewide basis, 0.7z of the surface area of Maine's lakes and ponds fall into the Extremely Vulnerable category and 11.2Z into the Highly Vulnerable category. Often a lake will have distinct basins with varying levels of vulnerabil- ity. To make this distinction among lake basins, abbreviations (B11), (B12), etc. are used in this index. ST. JOHN RIVER BASIN HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Bennett Lake Easton 6 hectares Big Greenland Lake Danforth 54 hectares Black Lake Fort Kent 18 hectares County Road Lake New Limerick 9 hectares Easton Pond Easton 4 hectares Fischer Lake Fairfield 2 hectares Germain Lake Madawaska 40 hectares Glancy Lake New Limerick 10 hectares Gould Pond New Limerick 20 hectares Hannigan Pond New Limerick 3 hectares Lambert Pond New Limerick 3 hectares Lindsay Pond Easton 4 hectares Monson Pond Fort Fairfield 37 hectares TOTAL 210 hectares -102- Table 5 (cont'd.) LAKE VULNERABILITY INDEX PENOBSCOT RIVER BASIN EXTREMELY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS George Pond Hermon 18 hectares Tracy Pond Hermon 19 hectares TOTAL 37 hectares PENOBSCOT RIVER BASIN HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Ben Annis Pond Hermon 15 hectares Branns Mill Pond Dover-Foxcroft 110 hectares Cambolasse Pond Lincoln 86 hectares Center Pond Lincoln 82 hectares Chemo Pond Eddington 469 hectares Crooked Pond Lincoln 90 hectares Davis Pond Holden 156 hectares Dow Pond Sebec 6hectares Egg Caribou Long Pond Lincoln 337 hectares Folsom Pond Lincoln 153 hectares Garland Pond Sebec 10 hectares Garland Pond Garland 35 hectares Green Pond Lee 48 hectares Hammond Pond Hampden 39 hectares Hermon Pond Hermon 179 hectares Holbrook Pond Holden 123 hectares Holland Pond Alton 33 hectares House Pond Lee 4hectares Jerry Pond Millinocket 27 hectares Little Madagascal Pd. T 03 R01 NBP 15 hectares Little Pushaw Pond Hudson 165 hectares Marr Pond Sangerville 34 hectares Mattekeunk Pond Lee 216 hectares Mattanawcook Pond Lincoln 331 hectares Mud Pond Linneus 7hectares Patten Pond Hampden 18 hectares Pickerel Pond Alton 31 hectares Pug Pond Alton 4hectares Pushaw Lake Orono 2046 hectares Snap Pond Lincoln 78 hectares Swetts Pond Orrington 40 hectares Thurston Pond Bucksport 59 hectares -103- Table 5 (cont'd). LAKE VULNERABILITY INDEX PENOBSCOT RIVER BASIN HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS (cont'd) Jr Upper Cold Stream Pd. Lincoln 72 hectares Upper Pond Lincoln 297 hectares Weir Pond Lee 21 hectares West Garland Pond Garland 12 hectares Williams Pond Bucksport 31 hectares TOTAL 5,479 hectares KENNEBEC RIVER BASIN EXTREMELY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Anderson Pond Augusta 8hectares Austin Pond Bald Mtn. TWP T2R3 264 hectares Berry Pond Winthrop 68 hectares Dam Pond Augusta 39 hectares Greely Pond Augusta 19 hectares Hutchinson Pond Manchester 37 hectares Jamies Pond Manchester .38 hectares Lily Pond Bath 5hectares Little Togus Pond Augusta 15 hectares Pattee Pond Winslow 202 hectares Threecornered Pond Augusta 72 hectares Togus Pond Augusta 260 hectares Tolman Pond Augusta 23 hectares TOTAL 1,050 hectares KENNEBEC RIVER BASIN HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Annabessacook Lake Winthrop 563 hectares Ballard Pond, Farmington 3hectares Beech Pond Palermo 24 hectares Branch Pond China 124 hectares Buker Pond Litchfield 31 hectares Butler Pond Lexington T 10 hectares Center Pond Phippsburg 31 hectares China Lake China 1584 hectares Chisholm Pond Palermo 17 hectares Cobbosseecontee Lake Winthrop 2120 hectares Cochnewagon Monmouth 156 hectares Colby Pond Liberty 11 hectares -104- Table 5 (cont'd) LAKE VULNERABILITY INDEX KENNEBEC RIVER BASIN HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS(Cont'd) Desert Pond Mount Vernon 9hectares Dexter Pond Winthrop 42 hectares Dutton Pond Albion 23 hectares East Pond Smithfield 698 hectares Foster Pond Palermo 13 hectares Gardiner Pond Wiscasset 30 hectares Gould Pond Dexter 3hectares Ingham Mount Vernon 17 hectares Jimmy Pond Litchfield 19 hectares Jump Pond Palermo 13 hectares Kezar Pond Winthrop 8hectares Lake George Skowhegan 123 hectares Lake Wassookeag Dexter 417 hectares Lily Pond Sidney 11 hectares Little Cobbossee Winthrop 32 hectares Little Dyer Pond Jefferson 40 hectares Little Mud Pond Greenville Junction 6hectares Lovejoy Pond Albion 133 hectares Lower Narrows Pond Winthrop 84 hectares Maranacook Lake(Bil) Winthrop 473 hectares Maranacook Lake(B#2) Readfield 241 hectares McGrath Pond Oakland 197 hectares Messalonskee Sidney 1419 hectares Moody Pond Windsor 10 hectares Moose Pond Mount Desert 26 hectares Morrill Pond Hartland 58 hectares Mosher Pond Fayette 29 hectares Mud Pond Harmony 5hectares Mud Pond Windsor 23 hectares Nakomis Pond Palmyra 80 hectares Nehumleag Pond Pittston 73 hectares Nequasset Lake Woolwich 172 hectares Oakes Pond Skowhegan 35 hectares Pease Pond Wilton 44 hectares Pleasant Pond Richmond 303 hectares Puffer Pond Dexter 36 hectares Roderique Pond Rockwood Strip 15 hectares Saban Pond Palermo 5hectares Salmon Lake Oakland 270 hectares Sand Pond Litchfield 106 hectares Savade Pond Windsor 22 hectares Sewall Pond Arrowsic 18 hectares Shed Pond Readfield 19 hectares Sherman Lake Newcastle 86 hectares Spectacle Pond Augusta 55 hectares Stafford Pond Hartland 50 hectares Stratton Brook Pond Wyman TWP 13 hectares -105- Table 5 (cont'd.). LAKE VULNERABILITY INDEX KENNEBEC RIVER BASIN HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS(Cont'd) Three Mile Pond China 458 hectares Tinkham Pond Chelsea 6hectares Torsey Lake Readfield 230 hectares Tufts Pond Kingfield 21 hectares. Turner Pond Palermo 79 hectares Upper Narrows Pond Winthrop 90 hectares Ward Pond Sidney 21 hectares Watson Pond Rome 27 hectares Webber Pond Vassalboro 485 hectares Welhern Pond Eustis 5hectares Wesserunsett Lake Madison 572 hectares Whittier Pond Rome 9hectares Wilson Pond Wayne 223 hectares Woodbury Pond Litchfield 176 hectares TOTAL 12,680 hectares ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER BASIN EXTREMELY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Little Sabattus Pond Greene 10 hectares Loon Pond Webster Plt 24 hectares No Name Pond Lewiston 58 hectares Taylor Pond Auburn 259 hectares TOTAL 351 hectares ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER BASIN HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Allen Pond Greene 76 hectares Androscoggin Lake Leeds 1616 hectares Bartlett Pond Livermore 11 hectares Brettuns Pond Livermore 62 hectares Caesar Pond Bowdoin 20 hectares Crystal Pond Turner 14 hectares Green Pond Oxford 16 hectares Hales Pond Fayette 29 hectares Hogan Pond Oxford 66 hectares -106- Table 5 (cont'd). LAKE VULNERABILITY INDEX ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER BASIN HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS (cont'd.) Howard Pond Hanover 52 hectares Labrador Pond Sumner 42 hectares Lake Auburn Auburn 897 hectares Little Labrador Pond Sumner 6hectares Little Penneesseewas Norway 39 hectares Little Wilson Pond Turner 44 hectares Lower Range Pond Poland 118 hectares Marshall Pond Oxford 57 hectares- Middle Range Pond Poland 156 hectares Moose Pond Paris 35 hectares Moose Pond Otisfield 62 hectares Nelson Pond Livermore 5hectares North Pond Norway 67 hectares Number 9 Pond Livermore 82 hectares Pennesseewassee Lake Norway 384 hectares Pleasant Pond Turner 77 hectares Round Pond Livermore 64 hectares Sabattus Pond Webster Plt 796 hectares Sand Pond Norway 55 hectares Saturday Pond Otisfield 69 hectares Thompson Lake Oxford 1710 hectares Tripp Pond Poland 296 hectares Upper Range Pond Poland 136 hectares Whitney Pond Oxford 65 hectares Worthly Pond Poland 20 hectares TOTAL 7,244 hectares- PRESUMPSCOT RIVER BASIN EXTREMELY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Cold Rain Pond Naples 15 hectares Forest Lake Windham 182 hectares Highland Lake Windham 252 hectares Lilly Pond New Gloucester 9 hectares Little Duck Pond Windham 13 hectares Little Rattlesnake Pond Raymond 140 hectares Little Sebago Lake Windham 78 hectares Lower Mud Pond Windham 2 hectares Nubble Pond Raymond 8 hectares Owl Pond Casco 4 hectares Pettingill Pond Windham 15 hectares Upper Mud Pond Windham 1 hectare TOTAL 619 hectares -107- PRESUMPSCOT RIVER BASIN HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Adams Pond Bridgton 17 hectares Bay of Naples Lake Naples 297 hectares Beaver Pond Bridgton 28 hectares Coffee Pond Casco 41 hectares Collins Pond Windham 15 hectares Crystal Lake Harrison 174 hectares Crystal Pond Gray 76 hectares Dumpling Pond Casco 11 hectares Highland Lake Bridgton 524 hectares Holt Pond Bridgton 12 hectares Ingalls Pond Bridgton 55 hectares Island Pond Waterford 42 hectares Little Sebago Lake(B12) Windham 552 hectares Little Sebago Lake(B14) Windham 125 hectares Long Lake Bridgton 2097 hectares Notched Pond Raymond 29 hectares Otter Pond Bridgton 35 hectares Panther Pond Raymond 571 hectares Parker Pond Casco 64 hectares Peabody Pond Sebago 284 hectares Pleasant Lake Otisfield 531 hectares Rattlesnake Pond Raymond 290 hectares Sabathday Pond New Gloucester 134 hectares Thomas Pond Casco 201 hectares Trickey Pond Naples 122 hectares Wood Pond Bridgton 183 hectares TOTAL 6,510 hectares SACO RIVER BASIN EXTREMELY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Bonny Eagle Pond Buxton 82 hectares Killick Pond @ Hollis Center 20 hectares Little Watchic Pond Standish 16 hectares Rich Mill Pond Standish 30 hectares TOTAL 148 hectares -108- Table 5 (cont'd). LAKE VULNERABILITY INDEX SACO RIVER BASIN HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Adams Pond Newfield 82 hectares Balch Pond Newfield 210 hectares Bartlett Pond Waterboro 10 hectares Bickford Pond Porter 83 hectares Black Pond Porter 18 hectares Boyd Pond Limington 10 hectares Burnt Meadow Pond Brownfield 27 hectares Chapman Pond Porter 4 hectares Clemons Pond Hiram 34 hectares Colcord Pond Porter 89 hectares Doles Pond Limington 8 hectares Farrington Pond Lovell 23 hectares Holland Lake Limerick 72 hectares Horne Pond Limington 53 hectares Ingalls Pond Baldwin 10 hectares Jaybird Pond Porter 3 hectares Little Clemons Pond Hiram 12 hectares Little Ossippee Pond Waterboro 182 hectares Mine Pond Porter 20 hectares Moose Pond (B11) Bridgton 131 hectares Moose Pond (B12) Bridgton 3.45 hectares Mud Pond Newfield 4 hectares Parker Pond Lyman 9 hectares Pequawket Pond Brownfield 33 hectares Pickerel Pond Limerick 20 hectares, Pinkham Pond Newfield 18 hectares Plain Pond Porter 6 hectares Poverty Pond Newfield 60 hectares Round Pond Newfield 1 hectare Sand Pond Baldwin 21 hectares Smarts Pond Newfield 5 hectares Southeast Pond Hiram 61 hectares Spectacle Pond (B#1) Porter 16 hectare Spectacle Pond (B12) Porter 14 hectares Stanley Pond Porter 55 hectares Symmes Pond Newfield 12 hectares Trafton Pond Porter 23 hectares Turner Pond Newfield 14 hectares Unnamed Pond Limington 10 hectares Wards Pond Limington 17 hectares Watchic Pond Standish 176 hectares TOTAL 2,001 hectares -109- Table 5 (cont'd). LAKE VULNERABILITY INDEX MINOR COASTAL BASINS EXTREMELY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Adams Pond Boothbay 28 hectares Bauneg Beg Pond Sanford 76 hectares Beaver Dam Pond Berwick 4hectares Brimstone Pond Arundel 4hectares Cox Pond South Berwick 3hectares Ell Pond Sanford 13 hectares Estes Lake Sanford 143 hectares Grassy Pond Rockport 5hectares Hosmer Pond Camden 22 hectares Houghton Pond West Bath 5hectares Howard Pond St. George 5hectares Knickerbocker Pond Boothbay 38 hectares Knights Pond South Berwick 20 hectares Leighs Mill Pond South Berwick 16 hectares Scituate Pond York 17 hectares Warren Pond South Berwick 10 hectares Wiley Pond, Boothbay 5hectares York Pond Eliot 19 hectares TOTAL 433 hectares MINOR COASTAL BASINS HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS Alewife Pond Arundel 16 hectares Aunt Betty Pond Bar Harbor 12 hectares Birch Harbor Pond Winter Harbor 6hectares. Biscay Pond Damariscotta 145 hectares Boyd Pond Bristol 23 hectares Branch Lake Ellsworth 1094 hectares Bubble Pond Bar Harbor 13 hectares Bunganut Pond Lyman 116 hectares Burntland Pond Stonington 9hectares Cain Pond Searsport 13 hectares Cargill Pond Liberty 23 hectares Chickawaukie Rockport 137 hectares Chicken Mill Pond Gouldsboro 5hectares Coleman Pond Lincolnville 82 hectares Crawford Pond Warren 232 hectares Crystal Pond Washington .40 hectares Damariscotta Lake Nobleboro 1752 hectares Duckpuddle Pond Waldoboro 98 hectares Eagle Lake Bar Harbor 177 hectares Echo Lake Mount Desert 92 hectares -110- Table 5 (cont'd). LAKE VULNERABILITY INDEX MINOR COASTAL BASINS HIGHLY'VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS(Cont,d) Ellis Pond Brooks 34 hectares Fish Pond Hope 52 hectares Forbes Pond Gouldsboro 81 hectares Forest Pond Friendship 3hectares Fourth Pond Blue Hill 16 hectares Fresh Pond North Haven 35 hectares Goose Pond Swans Island 5hectares Granny Kent Pond Shapleigh 20 hectares Hansen Pond Acton 10 hectares Hastings Pond Bristol 4hectares Havener Pond Waldoboro 32 hectares Hobbs Pond Hope 106 hectares Hodgdon Pond Tremont 17 hectares Iron Pond Washington 6hectares Isinglass Pond Waterboro 12 hectares Jones Pond Gouldsboro 183 hectares Jordan Pond Mount Desert 72 hectares Kalers Pond Waldoboro 29 hectares Kennebunk Pond Lyman 80 hectares Knight Pond Northport 44 hectares Lake Wood Bar Harbor 6hectares Levenseller Pond Searsmont 15 hectares Lilly Pond Rockport 12 hectares Lily Pond Deer Isle 10 hectares Lily Pond Edgecomb 23 hectares Little Medomak Pond Waldoboro 30 hectares Little Ossippee Flow Waterboro 163 hectares Little Pond Damariscotta 28 hectares Little Poverty Pond Shapleigh 6hectares Little Round Pond Mount Desert, 6hectares Long Pond Mount Desert 304 hectares Long Pond Mount Desert 12 hectares Loon Lake Acton 35 hectares Lower Breakneck Bar Harbor 2hectares Lower Hadlock Pond Mount Desert 13 hectares Lower Mason Pond Belfast 13 hectares Lower Patten Pond Ellsworth 370 hectares Lowry Pond Searsmont 31 hectares Maces Pond Rockport 12 hectares Marsfield Pond Hope 11 hectares McCurdy Pond Bremen 83 hectares Medomak Pond Waldoboro 92 hectares Meetinghouse Pond Phippsburg 3hectares Megunticook Lake(B#1) Lincolnville 339 hectares Megunticook Lake(B#2) Lincolville 126 hectares Middle Branch Pond Alfred- 17 hectares Mill Pond Appleton 14 hectares Table 5 (cont'd). LAKE VULNERABILITY INDEX MINOR COASTAL BASINS HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS(Cont'd) Milton Pond Lebanon 90 hectares Mirror Lake Rockport 44 hectares Moody Pond Lincolnville 26 hectares Moose Pond Acton 10 hectares Mousam Lake(B#l) Shapleigh 260 hectares Mousam Lake(B#2) Shapleigh 89 hectares Northeast Pond Lebanon 317 hectares Northwest Pond Waterboro 14 hectares Norton Pond Lincolville 41 hectares Noyes Pond Blue Hill 8hectares Paradise Pond Damariscotta 60 hectares Passawaukeag Lake Brooks 46 hectares Pemaquid Pond Waldoboro 583 hectares Pitcher Pond Northport 146 hectares Roberts Pond Lyman 85 hectares Rocky Pond Orland 63 hectares Rocky Pond Rockport 5hectares Ross Pond Bristol 7hectares Round Pond Mount Desert 17 hectares Round Pond Lyman 1hectare Round Pond Union 98 hectares Seal Cove Pond Tremont 96 hectares Sennebec Pond Union 215 hectares Seven Tree Pond Warren 212 hectares Shaker Pond Alfred 35 hectares Shapleigh Lake Shapleigh 32 hectares Sidensparker Pond Waldoboro 59 hectares Silver Lake Phippsburg 5hectares .Somes Pond Mount Desert 36 hectares South Pond Warren 212 hectares Spaulding Pond Lebanon 44 hectares Sprague Pond Phippsburg 3hectares Spring Pond Washington 7hectares Square Pond Acton 340 hectares Stevens Pond Liberty 114 hectares Swan Pond Lyman 52 hectares Swan Pond Acton 4hectares The Tarn Bar Harbor 7hectares Tilden Pond Belmont 140 hectares Torrey Pond Deer Isle 9hectares Town House Pond Lebanon 42 hectares Trues Pond Montville 64 hectares Upper Breakneck Bar Harbor 2hectares Upper Hadlock Pond Mount Desert 15 hectares Upper Mason Pond Belfast 31 hectares Upper Patten Pond Ellsworth 142 hectares Washington Pond Washington 226 hectares -112- Table 5 (cont'd). LAKE VULNERABILITY INDEX MINOR COASTAL BASINS HIGHLY VULNERABLE LAKES AND PONDS(Cont'd) Wattuh Lake Phippsburg 10 hectares Webber Pond Bremen 93 hectares Wilson Lake Acton 119 hectares Witch Hole Pond Bar Harbor 9 hectares TOTAL 11,078 hectares ALL BASINS Extremely Vulnerable Lakes and Ponds - 2,638 hectares (5,518 acres; 0.7% total lake and pond acreage in Maine) Highly Vulnerable Lakes and Ponds 45,202 hectares (111,694 acres 11.2% of total lake and pond acreage in Maine -113- 4.3.3 Estuarine and Marine Waters In Maine, where demand on waterfront land is increasing, the cumulative effect of small nonpoint sources is apparent. Moreover, sources affecting coastal waters are not limited to adjacent areas. Rain and meltwater runoff from about 25,000 square miles of Maine's landscape washes into Maine's coastal waters. From as far away as Smyrna Mills and Jackman, materials wash off the land and run to estuaries and ocean waters. Pesticides, fertilizers, and soils wash off agricultural, forestry, and residential lands every time it rains. Heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and PAHs from automobile exhausts and power plant emissions drop back to the surface to be washed downstream.to estu- aries. Household chemicals and industrial hazardous wastes spilled on the ground move downhill with water. Licensed discharges do not account for the high levels of heavy metal con- tamination found in Boothbay Harbor and Cape Rosier sediments and marine life. Nor do licensed discharges explain the metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and PAHs found in Casco and Penobscot Bays. In Cape Rosier, runoff and leachate from an abandoned mine's waste-tailings pond are responsible. In Casco Bay and Penob- scot Bay, we suspect a combination of urban runoff contaminated with heavy metals and combustion byproducts as well as runoff and spills,from oil handling activities. (See map next page for NPS study areas). Contamination of marine sediments by heavy metals and organic chemicals seems to be the most significant threat to estuarine and marine waters,of Maine. However, much more research is needed to assess the relationship of ambient water quality to contaminated sediments as well as the impact of contaminated sediments on the biological community in estuarine and marine waters. Based on information already available from the National Oceanic and Atmo- -114- spheric Administration (NOAA) the National Maine Fisheries Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, it is clear that nonpoint source pollution, and more specifically urban storinwater runoff, is a likely source of contamination in nearshore waters. Elevated lev- els of lead, hydrocarbons, and zinc, all associated with urban runoff, have been found in non-industrialized (Boothbay Harbor) as well as industrialized (Portland Harbor) areas of the Maine coast. Licensed discharges to these waters do not explain the level of contamination suggesting that uncontrolled sources such as nonpoint sources need further investigation. A workplan to assess threats to estuarine and marine waters has been pro- duced in a March, 1989, report to the Maine Legislature and contains a large nonpoint source pollution assessment component. Specific NPS pollution assess- ment needs for estuarine and marine waters will be discussed in the State of Maine Nonpoint Source, Pollution Management Prog ram. 0 I I 1 13. (MAPS) I I I I I I I Marine Waters; NPS Problems I I -116- 1 1 I 4.3.4 Groundwater Virtually all groundwater in-the 11Z of Maine which is'not forested is threatened with contamination, and therefore, with nona'ttainm6nt of its single designated use: public drinking water supply. Although progress is being made in reducing pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources such as sand/salt piles, leaking underground storage tanks and landfills, pollutants already discharged to groundwater will cause increasingly larger zones of nonattainment due to plume dispersion'and migration. There is li ttle doubt th Iat additional contami- nant plumes will also be created in the years ahead. Specific NPS pollution assessment needs for groundwater will be discussed in the State of Maine Non- point Source Pollution Management Program. During the past ten years, many wells in Maine have'been abandoned due to contamination from nonpoint source pollution. These contaminated wells should be viewed as the "tip of the iteburg" in assessing the extent of ground- water made undrinkable by NPS pollution. Based on present knowledge of non- point sources affecting groundwater, it is safe to assume that there are thou- sands of NPS pollution sites in Maine with unpotable groundwater. A State Groundwater Management Strategy has been developed to deal with the alarming degradation of this critical resource. Preventive rather than reactive mea- sures form the basis of this strategy because of the fact that once groundwater is polRited', an indeterminable amount of time may be required for natural pro- cesses to restore the groundwater to drinkable q .uality. The susceptibility of the resource to degradation can be illust -rated by the fact that one gallon of gasoline has the potential to make one million gallons of groundwater unfit for human consumption. Major impediments to the formulation of policy for the protection of groundwater are (1) a lack of knowledge as to the extent of the problem and (2) -117- the unknown relative impact of the various types of nonpoint sources. Many known sites of groundwater contamination are listed in Appendix III, but that inventory only indicates occurrences. It does not assess the volume of water or area of aquifer surface affected. See Map for incedents of groundwater contamination. Experiments have shown the average nitrate levels of septic system effluent at the bottoms of leach fields. However, there currently is no correlation between these levels and the levels of nitrates in aquifers that are located below or downgradient. Extensive research is required to determine whether the approximately 230,000 septic systems in the State pose a significant long-term threat to groundwater supplies. It is in densely settled, largely unsewered counties like Sagadahoc and York that the greatest potential for cumulative impacts exist. However, groundwater in densely settled, unsewered areas of all counties are susceptible to contamination from septic systems. Hazardous substances do not comprise a large percentage of the total groundwater problem, but because of the extreme health hazards that they pre- sent, they will continue to be allocated a large portion of groundwater protec- tion resources. The DEP has received over 350 reports of potential hazardous substance sites with 170 of these seeming credible enough as to require addi- tional site investigation. There are 42 sites in Maine whore hazardous substances are known to have caused groundwater contamination. There are six sites that have been de.sig- nated as Superfund sites. These include the Winthrop landfill, the McKin dis- posal site in Gray, O'Connor's Salvage Yard in Augusta, the Saco Tannery Pits, Pinette's Salvage Yard in Washburn, and the Brunswick Naval Air Station. The Saco Landfill and the Union Chemical Site have been proposed as Superfund sites, but have not yet been officially designated as such. Smith's Junkyard -118- (dam site) in Meddybemps is under consideration for inclusion as a Superfund site and is currently being scored. Cumberland County ranks highest in the relative extent of its groundwater problems due to hazardous substances because of the presence there of two very extensive contamination areas - the Brunswick Naval Air Station and the McKin site in Gray. Landfills are a significant problem in the State but leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) are estimated to have polluted eight times as much groundwater. An alarming Aspect of pollution by underground tanks is the fact that there are an estimated 6,500 sites in the State that have been polluted by leaking tanks while only about 1,000 of the se sites have yet been discovered. At 155 of these sites, a total of over 200 private wells have been polluted. Uncovered sand-salt storage areas, although estimated to be polluting only a quarter of the area that sand-salt spreading does, are a much more serious problem. Each sand-salt storage site is estimated to pollute an average of 10 acres of groundwater. The concentrations of salt in groundwater associated with these sites is usually much higher than along road sides. The salinity of groundwater polluted by uncovered sand-salt piles sometimes exceeds that of sea water. Lagoons used for wastewater treatment were estimated to be the least significant of the sources studied. One factor which minimizes the extent of contamination from lagoons is that they are usually located next to large water bodies which are groundwater discharge areas. Major lagoon sites number only 36 in the State with about 9OZ of the lagoons having linings which minimize discharges to groundwater. _119- I I i I 1 12. (MAP) I I I i I Groundwater; NPS Problems I 1 -120- 1 I . I 4.3.5 Wetlands Assessing water quality problems associated with wetlands is a difficult task and will require further research to fully address this issue. For pur- poses of this repor t, the resource base and known point and nonpoint sources of pollution impacting wetland areas are discussed. As noted below, Maine has recently taken legislative and regulatory steps which will aid in future assessment of wetland water quality issues. Maine is 25Z wetlands. T hese are made up of more than 5,000,000 acres of freshwater wetlands and approximately 160,000 acres of tidal wetlands. A div- ersity of climatic and physiographic conditions in the state results in a div- ersity and abundance of wetland types. Forested and shrub swamps are the most abundant, while tidal marshes and beach systems are least abundant. Each has important natural values. Other wetland types in Maine include mudflats and rocky shores, freshwater marshes, bogs and fens, floodplain wetlands and other seasonally flooded flats or basins with wetland vegetation and/or soils. Wetlands have many natural and cultural values and provide many important functions such as habitat for fish and other animal and plant species; flood control; nutrient retention and sediment trapping; production of timber and other natural resources; and recreation, education and research, and use as natural areas. The "critical edge" or wetland-to-upland transition zone is extremely important for wildlife, providing a buffer protecting the wetland from indirect or secondary impacts, such as nonpoint source pollution. Historically, 1-22 of Maine's original vegetated wetland acreage has been lost or converted to other uses. There has apparently been a net gain in open water wetland areas, although the extent of this is not well recorded. Some restoration and mitigation projects have resulted in the creation of vegetated -121- coastal and inland wetland areas, but their replacement value for wildlife or other functions is not well known. When wetlands are altered or destroyed for various kinds of development, maintenance and operating costs are generally higher than wisely developed upland sites. There are more environmental and socioeconomic costs associated with wetland alterations that must be considered, since these costs will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. Alterations which resu lt in outright wetland loss include filling, dredging and draining. Losses of wetland function and value are far more difficult to measure, but are just as serious and in fact more widespread. Buffer areas adjacent to wetlands are crucial for preserving the integrity of wetland functions and values. The conversion of land use around a wetland can also alter or destroy 'the natural. values or integrity of a wetland. The filling of wetlands has occurred throughout Maine's history of settlement as these "wastelands" were "improved" for residential and commercial development. Agricultural activities have converted vegetation types, and when located in or near floodplains, may have reduced some natural flood control features. Other wetland values have been lost or reduced, even though the area may still be classified as wetland. Dam construction has created open water habitats while often flooding vegetated wetland types. Currently, wetland losses are greatest in smaller wetlands in rapidly developing areas of the state, e.g., southern York County, south coastal areas and other high-growth urban areas. Coastal salt marshes are experiencing the greatest threats from fringing development, whereas inland wetlands, espe- cially smaller ones, are being filled. While the values of individual small wetlands may not be great, they are extremely important within a larger lands- cape context. The cumulative loss of many small wetlands via development acti- -122- vities may be just as severe as the loss of A smaller number of large wetlands when habitat and cultural values are considered. Inconsistency between state and federal wetland laws, differing defini- tions, size of wetlands regulated, and exemptions, have complicated matters for developers and regulators alike. Within Maine, different agencies of state government have different mandates, (e.g., DEP regulates activities in wetlands to preserve their functions and MDOT is required to build safe roads for the public, which may include filling wetlands). Nationally, there are similar conflicting mandates, but these are being merged into a more unified policy favoring stronger wetland protection. Enforcement and impleme ntation of regulatory wetland protection programs varies at all levels - federal, state and local - and are generally outpaced by the current rate of wetland alterations. Many wetland alterations are inadequately regulated, especially developments that encroach upon smaller wet- lands. Regulation is ineffective in evaluating how seriously or permanently an alteration impairs wetland functions. It is unknow to what extent certain wetland functions are being lost by the varying degrees of alteration. Many losses of wetland function and value can be attributed to NPS activi- ties in upland areas immediately adjacent to wetlands, such as housing, indus- trial development, and landfills. Most regulatory programs deal with the wet- land itself and not specific activities on adjacent lands. Regulation may not stop development from occurring near wetlands; however, non-regulatory initia- tives (for example, designation, registry, and easements) may provide important opportunities to address problems created by adjacent upland developments. Acquisition is often the only means to ensure the long-term protection of certain high value wetlands and their component species. Permanent protection. is also required for buffer areas around these high priority wetlands. Although -123- the state and private entities have already protected some important wetlands, there are still acquisition needs which have not been met. There is agreement within the conservation community that wetland acquisition is a high priority for Maine. The potential of wetlands as educational resources has scarcely been realized in the state. This fact contributes heavily to the lack of understanding of the biological and cultural importance of these ecosystems. Pollution may not completely destroy a wetland, but it may seriously impair its quality as habitat or its its ability to perform vital functions. For example, the discharge of wastewater into or over wetlands may have deleterious effects on productivity, pose human health risks, and result in the closure of mudflats to shellfish harvesting. This kind of threat has been and continues to be most serious in coastal areas, even though the direct discharge of was- tewater in coastal wetlands and water bodies is now banned, except for existing systems which are grandfathered under the current law. om CSOs, etc.) have Excessive pollution discharges in intertidal flats (fr resulted in the closure of large areas along the coast, with significant impacts on shellfish harvesting in those areas. Of approximately 3000 water discharge permits issued by DEP prior to 1986, 95Z are coastal overboard dis- charges and most are located between Bath and Belfast. Individual permits (Board Orders) do record whether a discharge enters a salt marsh or runs directly into the ocean, but this data is not tabulated at present. Closure of intertidal clam flats to harvesting, as well as subtidal oyster beds and mussel beds, is the province of the Department of Marine Resources. Closures are recorded, but extents or acreages are not, since these areas may differ yearly or seasonally, and are usually determined by the presence of overboard discharge sites adjacent to clam flats. Unacceptable levels of bacteria, pathogenic organisms, other deleterious substances or naturally -124- occurring biotoxins (e.g., red tide) are cause for flat closure. The most recent data tabulated for extent of flat closures in Maine is for 1974 when the percentage of clam flats closed by county ranged from 8Z in Washington County to 98Z in York County. Total closures were 21Z or 9,758 acres out of a total of 46,135 acres of clam flats. Potentially polluted areas may also be closed because of proximity to known discharge sites and the presumption that wastewater treatment systems are likely to malfunction. However, the new law governing overboard discharges gives DEP authority to enforce the removal of overboard discharges that are causing particular clam flats to be closed. Other potential nonpoint sources of coastal wetland pollution are oil pollution from refineries or heavy metal pollution. However, these risks are low compared with residential pollution sources. Other land use activities such as the creation of landfills have impacted wetlands, both directly by filling and indirectly by leaching of toxic or hazardous materials from non-contained landfills into adjacent wetlands. There are many documented cases of hazardous waste disposal in or near wetlands. With this kind of activity, the wetland itself may remain, but its vital functions are often lost or irrevocably degraded. Such effects may require the destruction or filling of the wetland to contain the contaminants or to remove them to a safe disposal site. Maine has six sites on the EPA National Priority List of Hazardous Waste Sites, or "Superfund" sites. Several other sites are designated "Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Sitesft by the Maine DEP,and numerous other potential hazardous waste sites are under investi- gation. Of the Superfund sites, two are known to include some wetlands - Saco Tan- nery Pits and the Winthrop Landfill. other state-designated or potential sites -125- which have affected wetlands include: the Brunswick Naval Air Station, North Berwick Municipal Garage, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Dauphin Dump (Bath)., Cal- lahan Mine (Cape Rosier), Southern Maine Finishing (Waterboro) and Main Oil Recycling (Buckfield). In total, at least 25Z of known or suspected hazardous waste sites in Maine contain wetlands which have been impacted by these materi- als, although the total acreage known at present is rather small. Of the wetland alterations identified as causes of historic wetland loss, many continue to contribute to wetland losses at present. Urban and rural community growth and development has increased dramatically in recent years, especially in southern Maine and in coastal areas. This growth has resulted in wetland losses, much of which is undocumented because of-lack of regulatory authority and lack of enforcement. The losses are most frequently occurring in small wetlands, generally under ten acres in size and often viewed as less critical for protection. The cumulative loss of these small, frequently inter- connected wetlands is a serious threat that needs to be curtailed. Pollution continues to threaten and degrade wetlands, especially in coastal areas, but in inland freshwater areas as well. New laws enacted in 1988 are being implemented and within five years may curb some of the destruc- tive trends that have been established. Recent scientific research points to a possible relationship between the prevalence of"red tides" (marine biotixins) and human-induced nutrient enrichment of the ocean. The potential exists for serious long-term impacts resulting from inappropriate disposal of waste mate- rials. -126- 4,1.6 Interstate and International Waters Maine shares a common border with the State of New Hampshire. Often, wat- erbodies define these state boundaries and interstate cooperation is necessary to address NPS problems in these areas. Notable areas of concern include: (L)Balch Pond - Newfield (L)Great East Lake - Acton (L)Horn Pond - Acton (L)Northern Pond - Lebanon (1,)Milton Pond - Lebanon (L)Spaulding Pond - Lebanon (R)Salmon River Bowdoin (L)Province Lake Parsonfield (R)Ossipee River Porter (R)Saco River - Fryburg (L)Lower Kimball Pond - Fryburg (R)Wild River (to Androscoggin) Batchelders Grant (L)Androscoggin - Gilead (L)Umbagog Lake - Magalloway Plt (L)Lake/Pond (R)River These waterbodies are discussed in the lakes and rivers sections of this document. Maine and New Hampshire are working cooperatively on UPS activities in these watersheds. -127- International Waters: St. Croix River The International Joint Commission.(IJC) or the International Advisory Board.on Pollution Control is made up of environmental officials from the United States and Canadian governments, as well as representatives from the State of Maine and the provinces of Nova Scotia and,New Brunswick. The Board is involved in water management issues within the St. Croix River basin, which covers an area 7230 km2 straddling the Canadian and United States border between southwestern New Brunswick, and southeastern Maine. Although the Board has focussed primarily on point sources, NPS is a component of current management plans. Gulf of Maine The Gulf of Maine is a "sea within a sea" a body of water that extends from Cape Cod Bay to the Bay of Fundy. Its depth, water density, tides, and circulation patterns make the Gulf of Maine one of the world's most productive seas. Today, the Gulf's resources are subject to increasing pressures from coastal development, fishing, energy development, and pollution. Working cooperatively, the State, Provincial, and Federal governments with jurisdiction over the Gulf hope to maintain the health and productivity of its waters. The Gulf of Maine Initiative The Gulf of Maine initiative is a cooperative effort being undertaken by the states and provinces that border the Gulf. The initiative seek to increase understanding of the Gulf's resources and to develop action recommendations that can be implemented by the states and provinces. The highest priority is on protecting and improving the Gulf of Maine's water quality. There is also a shared interest in working cooperatively on -128- related.coastal management issues. In support of these efforts, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration awarded the three New England states funding to pursue two tasks: development of a Gulf of Maine environmen- tal monitoring program and preparation of a report assessing the ecological health of the Gulf. Environmental Monitorinp, Prop-ra The purpose of this effort is to develop the framework for an ecosystem-based contaminant monitoring program that will provide resourc e managers with information to effectively protect public health and the Gulf's marine ecosystem. The Program is being jointly developed by all governmental entities bordering the Gulf, and is expected.to be implemented cooperatively. Gulf of Maine ecosystems report. The report will bring together existing information on the Gulf's resources and characterize its environmental health. Further, it will provide a focal point for a discussion on the Gulf's research and management. The GOM Initiative seeks to build on existing programs and research that has already been undertaken in the Gulf region. There are many parties with an interest in the GOM, including governmental agencies on both sides of the border, universities, commercial interests, and research organizations. The GOM initiative seeks to complement these shared interests. For example, the FMG (Bay of Fundy/Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank) project, being directed by Dalhousie University, is producing an excellent informational base which the GOM Initiative will use to assess the status of the Gulf's resources. In Maine, the Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine (ARGO-Maine) unites the marine research community in fostering research on the Gulf. -129- SECTION 5 STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAMS FOR CONTROL OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION 5.1 PROGRAM COORDINATION The wide variety of activities which produce nonpoint source pollution combined with a vast network of governmental study, regulation and enforcement of the problem requires a coordinated effort that is both interagency and intergovernmental in nature. Maine's NPS Coordinator is located in the NPS Section in the Bureau of Water Quality Control, Maine DEP. At present, the NPS Coordinator's major task is to coordinate the preparation of this report in accordance with the requirements of Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act. To aid in the preparation of this report, the Coordinator formed a broad based working group. The NPS Study Committee has-representatives of the Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources; Maine Department of Con- servation; Maine Department of Environmental Protection; Maine Department of Human Services; Maine Department of Transportation; Maine Department.of Marine Resources; Maine State Planning Office, Maine Soil and Water Conservation Com- mission; Maine Association of Conservation Districts; Maine Association of Regional Councils; the U.S. Geological Survey, and the USDA Soil Conservation Service and the University of Maine Extension Service. It is hoped that the combined effort of various government agencies, each knowledgeable about its own programs, will enable the State to develop a comprehensive strategy for the control of nonpoint source pollution. As each agency develops its own programs to deal specifically with nonpoint source controls, it is essential for interagency communication to occur. Many programs can be consolidated where duplication exists or be expanded to include -130- informational seminars or enforcement activities if there is a statewide plan that is carefully orchestrated by the NPS Coordinator and carried out with a spirit of cooperation by each agency. Funding for personnel can often be shared by State, regional and local agencies, to provide both an interagency liaison and a source of financial relief. The intergovernmental personnel agreement (IPA) to be utilized by the DEP and the SCS is one such example. This report, and this section in particular, define the parameters of each govern- mental agency and highlight their common ground as well. Once Maine's Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment and Management Program is approved by the USEPA the NPS Coordinator's responsibilities will be to coordi- nate implementation of the NPS Management Program and to prepare addendums to the NPS Pollution Assessment and Management Program as more is learned about the nature, extent and causes of NPS pollution. *The single most important action Maine can take at this time for the control of nonpoint source pollution is to maintain the quality of existing control programs. Maine already has an extensive body of law relating to the control of nonpoint source pollution (Table 6). A description of the nonpoint source control programs in Maine which have developed as a consequence of this legislation and related program priorities follows. -131- 5.2 STATE AGENCIES 5.2.1 Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources PURPOSE:' The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources was established to -improve agriculture in Maine through the conservation and improvement of the soil and cropland of the State; the development, compilation and dissemination of scientific and practical knowledge; the marketing and promotion of agricultural products; the detection, prevention and eradication of plant 'and animal diseases; the-protection of the consuming public against harmful and unsanitary products and practices; and the sound development of the natural resources of the State. ORGANIZATION: Although most programs in the Maine Department of Agricul- ture, Food and Rural-Resources are not designed specifically to address non- point source pollution, the installation of conservation practices designed to keep soil, pesticides, animal waste, and-fertilizer in place, also affect local sources of nonpoint source water pollution. Two of the Department's 23 organi- zational units, deal specifically with conservation practices and the control of nonpoint source pollution. These units are the State Soil and Water Conser- vation Commission and the Board ofPesticides Control. 5.2.2 Soil and Water Conservation Commission PURPOSE: The State Soil and Water Conservation Commission was established to provide for the protection, proper use, maintenance and improvement of the soil, water and related natural resources of the State of Maine. The principal responsibilities of the Commission are to assist Soil and Water Conservation Districts in the preparation and implementation of their locally developed programs; to develop and carry out public works projects for prevention of soil erosion, flood prevention, conservation, development, utilization and disposal _132- of water; to assist in the completion.of the National Cooperative Soil Survey; to conduct surveys, investigations, and research as necessary for implementa- tion of other functions. ORGANIZATION: The Commission consists of eleven members, five of whom serve ex officio: Dean of the college of Life Sciences and Agriculture of the University of Maine, Commissioner of Agriculture, Commissioner of Conservation, Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and Commissioner of Marine Resources; Department of Environmental Protection and six officio members who are Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisors. Professional staff for the Commission is comprised of an Executive Director and a Soil Scientist. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Liaison Between State Government and Maine's Soil and Water Conservation Districts Maine's 16 Soil and Water Conservation Districts are State entities but are not part of State government. The State Soil and Water Conservation Commission provides a critically needed link between the Districts and State government as well as coordination among Districts. The Commission has the power to form and create Districts; to appoint two of the five supervisors managing each district; and to formulate policy for the Districts. The accomplishments of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC) are apparent in the conservation practices applied to the land of more than 11,874 private landowners that are cooperators with Maine's 16 Soil and Water Conservation Districts. During fiscal year 1986, 4,410 groups and individuals applied some form of conservation practices to their land in an effort to control erosion and other soil and water problems. New conservation plans were formulated for 88,352 acres of land, raising the total State acreage covered by conservation plans to 2,010,426 acres. -133- Interagency Liaison In 1987 the Commisison and Districts reviewed and evaluated over 522 resource alteration applications submitte d to the Department of Environmetnal Protection (DEP), Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC), State Planning Office (SPO) and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW) during the past year. The recommendations porposed by the commissioner and Districts were often included as conditions of approval in the permits granted through these applicaiton. Commisison review involves the following considerations: 1. Soil Suitability 2. Erosion and Sediment Control 3. Relation to Floodplains 4. Stormwater Management and Drainage 5. Protection of Prime'Agricultrual Lands where Appropriate. Challenge Grants The Challange Grant Program was authorized by the Legislature in 1983 to provide funding to Districts in order to address local problems in soil and water conservation. Districts compete annually for funding from a pool of $100,000. During the past four years, many projects have been funded that have had direct or indirect effects on water quality. There have been several Challenge Grants dealing with the proper utilization of industrial waste. By using waste products as a soil amendment, not only can the problem of its disposal be solved, but it may be turned into a valuable asset to the land-user. In 1986, a challenge grant, obtained by the Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District, funded Runoff and Erosion Control Guidelines for Highway Crew Leaders, a booklet developed coopera tively by the Town of Fal- mouth, Maine, the Maine Department of Transportation, the Maine Soil and Water -134- Conservation Commission, the USDA Soil Conservation Service, and the Threshold to Maine Resources Conservation and Development Area. There is currently a Challenge Grant to study the treatment of milkroom wastewater through the use of a barkbed filter. This experimental tre atment system is being evaluated to determine if it effectively protects water quality. If this demonstration project proves effective and is readily adopted by other dairy farmers, it will be an effective BMP for this nonpoint source of pollutants. Another Challenge Grant deals with manure sampling. This program determines the fertilizer value of a farmer's animal waste and when coupled with soil testing enables the spreading of manure in proper quantities that can be assimilated by the land. The adoption and use of this program by other farmers would address nonpoint source pollution problems caused by overspreading of animal waste. Many demonstrations of conservation tillage have been conducted as Challenge Grants statewide. This type of tillage reduces the disturbance of the soil in crop raising and effectively limits the movement of sediment through erosion. As a result of these demonstrations, conservation tillage practices have been adopted by many Maine farmers. Demonstrations of proper methods of reclaiming gravel pits, constructing and maintaining logging roads, shoreline erosion control, recreational field stabilization and drainage, blueberry land management, riverbank stabilization, and wastewater treatment with peat instead of gravel in coastal ar eas have all been carried out through the Challenge Grant Program. These practices when adopted by the land-user help to stabilize potential erosion and sedimentation situations. -135- 5.2.3 Board of Pesticides Control PURPOSE: The Board of Pesticides Control was established to protect the public health and safety and the public interest in the soils, water, forests, wildlife, agricultural and other resources of the State by assuring safe, scientific and proper use of chemical pesticides. The primary responsibilities of the Board are to register all pesticide products to be sold and used in Maine; to examine and license all persons involved in commercial application of pesticides and all dealers and private growers involved in the sale or applica- tion of restricted use pesticides; to promulgate regulations regarding pesti- cide use; to issue permits for limited-use pesticides; investigate use of pest control chemicals; to prosecute violations or initiate license-suspension actions; and to cooperate with other agencies in environmental monitoring and protection. ORGANIZATION: The Board of Pesticides Control is a quasi-judicial body made up of seven members appointed by the Governor for four-year terms. Quali- fications for three of the members are prescribed by statute to include persons knowledgeable about pesticide use in agriculture, forestry and commercial application, while one person must have a medical background and another be either an agronomist or entomologist at the University of Maine. The remaining two public members are selected to represent different economic or geographic areas of the State. The Board is served by a professional staff of eight people. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Registration The Board registers all products that may be sold and used within the State. When problems are known or anticipated, additional restrictions may be placed upon the use of the product. In the case of aldicarb contamination of -136- groundwater, the Board has approved a special local needs registration which prohibits Temik use within 500 feet of a well. In addition, future Temik registration is contingent on the manufacturer's continued sampling of wells to show that pesticide residues in groundwater are continuing to decline as a result of changes in product labeling. Certification and Licensing Applicators applying restricted use pesticides must be initially examined and licensed. Study materials provided to prospective applicators discuss effects of environmental contamination and these topics are also stressed at ongoing recertification training sessions. Enforcement The Board's inspectors routinely conduct use investigations of all types of spray applications. Special emphasis is placed on being sure that spray is not directly applied to public waters, that pesticides do not drift into bodies of water, that anti-siphon devices are installed and that the areas around sprayer fill holes are kept clean. Returnable Containers This is a special program to ensure that restricted use containers made of glass, metal or plastic are triple-rinsed and returned for proper disposal..It was implemented after aerial surveillance of farms showed that many containers were being discarded into wet or marshy areas bordering back fields. Obsolete Pesticide Collection On three occasions, the Board has collected old pesticides from homeowners, growers and small business and delivered them to a hazardous waste contractor for disposal at out of state facilities. Additional funding was sought so that more of these potential pollutants may be removed from the usually dilapidated buildings in which they currently reside, but funding was denied in 1989. -137- 5.2.4 Maine Department of Economic and Community Develeopment O,ffice of Comprehensive Planning This new State Office was established in August, 1988. The primary purpose of the Office is to implement landmark State Growth Management Legislation signed by Governor McKernan in June, 1988. Maine's Growth,Management Law requires all of Maine's 494 municipalities to adopt local Growth Management programs (Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances) that address 10 State goals and regional policies as well as local land use issues. The new Office provides planning grants to the Towns ($2.4 million budgeted for 1988 and 1989), financial support to Regional Councils for local planning assistance ($1.2 million for 1988-89) as well as direct assistance from the new office, including planning guidelines and model ordi- nances. The new Office's role in providing Maine towns with assistance in local and lane use planning provides the opportunity to coordinate and improve state agency technical assistance leading to improved local planning and land use ordinances. For example, information on land uses most responsible for non-point source pollution can be provided to towns developing comprehensive plans to insure that these uses are considered in local and land use policy decisions regarding water quality protection. Subsequent assistance regarding best management practices can then be used by these towns in adopting local land use regulations that imple ment water quality policies in their plan. The Office also coordinates training programs for planning staff at Maine's 12 Regional Councils involving coastal and floodplain management, subdivision and shoreland zoning review and other high priority issues identified by coop- erating state agencies such as the Departments of Environmental Protection, -138- Marino Resources, and Agriculture. 5.2.5 Maine Department of Conservation PURPOSE: The Department of Conservation was established to preserve, protect And enhance 'the land and water resources of the State of Maine; to entourage the wise use of the State's scenic, mineral and forest resources; to ensure that coordinated planning for the future allocation of lands for recre- ationAl, forest production, mining and other public and pr ivate uses is effec- tively accomplished; and to provide for the effective management of public reserved lands. ORGANIZATION: Three of the Department's sixteen organizational units deal specifically with the control of nonpoint source pollution. These units are the Land Use Regulation Commission, the Division of Forest Management and Uti- lization Forest, Management Section and the-Maine Geological Survey. 5.2.5.1 Land Use Regulation Commission PURPOSE: The Maine Land-Use Regulation Commission was established in 1969 to serve "as the planning and zoning board for the unorganized area's of Maine. It is responsible for promoting the hea:lth, safety and general welfare of the people of Maine by planning-for the proper use of the resources within its jurisdiction and guiding land use activities to achieve this proper use. The Commission's jurisdiction includes over 10 million acres in the northern and western parts of the State which occur in townships, towns and plantations which wou Id otherwise have no local land use controls. Themajor responsibili- ties of the Commission are to prepare a comprehensive land-use plan -for these areas, to determine the boundaries of areas within the unorganized areas of the State that fall into the various land use districts (zoning); to prepare land -139- use standards for each district; to review applications-for development in the unorganized areas of the State; and to carry out an enforcement/compliance program. ORGANIZATION: The Maine La nd Use Regulation Commission is a bureau in the Department of Conservation. The Commission itself is made up of seven citizen members appointed by the Governor. The Commission is served by a professional staff of 17 people. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Land Management Regulations Standards are established for forest and agricultural management activities in Protection Districts (e.g., timber harvesting in shoreland areas) and land management roads outside of Protection Districts; permits are required to exceed these standards. Shoreland Development Regulations Permits are required for shoreland development. Conditions relating to building setbacks and clearing along the shoreline are incorporated into the permits. Enforcement The Commission has an investigative enforcement staff of three persons to respond to complaints within an area equal to approximately one-half of Maine. The number of complaints reported to the agency has been increasing in recent years. As a result, more violations are documented each year than can be investigated and resolved.. In addition, compliance surveys throughout the commission's jurisdiction indicate that the number of land use violations occurring of all types is substantially higher than the number of complaints recorded. The commission must rely primarily on voluntary compliance with regu lations on forestry, agriculture and other activities. -140- Aquifer Recharge Areas Identified aquifer recharge areas are appro priately zoned to protect them. Due to incomplete resource information for the Commission's jurisdiction, only one such recharge area has been identified and protectively zoned. Research The Commission has completed two studies of nonpoint source pollution prob- lems from forestry operations. It has also contracted with the University of Maine to prepare an annotated bibliography on "Logging and Sedimentation", and is developing a research agenda for actual field studies to derive meaningful allowable sediment values to be used in regulations. Education Publications have been prepared to assist loggers in avoiding nonpoint source problems (Erosion Control on Logging Jobs, in French and English) and training sessions are periodically held for loggers and foresters working for major timber land owners. -141- 5.2.5.2 Division of Forest Management and Utilizationi Forest Manapement Section PURPOSE: The primary function of the Forest Management Section is to motivate and technically assist forest owners to properly manage their wood- lands. ORGANIZATION: The Division's Forest Management Section employs nine professional staffers who are involved to a limited extent with the control of nonpoint source pollution. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Technical and Educational Assistance The eight field foresters of the Forest Management Section provide technical and educational assistance to over 700 private, non-industrial forest owners each year. Included are recommendations for timber harvesting; road layout; timber stand improvement; tree planting; insect, disease and forest fire control; pesticide use; Christmas tree management; fuelwood management and compliance with conservation laws. Participation in Federal Cost-share Programs Technical assistance is provided by staff foresters to forest land owners involved in cost-sharing programs through the Federal Agricultural Conservation and Conservation Reserve. These programs are designed to control erosion on marginal farm land by the planting of cover crops, including trees. 5.2.5.3 Maine Geological Survey PURPOSE: The Maine Geological Survey was established to map, interpret and publish geologic (physical resource) information and provide advisory assis- tance to the minerals industry and interpretive information for planning and regulatory agencies. The Survey is authorized to direct a program of effective -142- geologic inventory, employing professional geologists for mapping purposes; to support an active minerals industry; to publish and sell geologic literature; to provide geologic information to the public, industries and State agencies; to cooperate with other State and Federal agencies; and to manage the work of the Mapping Advisory Committee. ORGANIZATION: The Maine Geological Survey is composed of five divisions, two of which are involved in hydrogeological research related to protection of groundwater from nonpoint source pollution. These units are the Hydrogeology Division and the Cartography and Publications Division. Sixteen professional staff members are employed by the Maine Geological Survey. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Hydrogeoloev Division This Division inventories ground and surface water conditions, with emphasis on groundwater supply and prevention of groundwater pollution. Studies are conducted by the Division in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Water well records are obtained on a voluntary basis from drillers throughout the State. Maps depicting groundwater flow, yield and depth have been prepared for sand and gravel aquifers in the inhabited portions of the State. The Divisionhas completed a study of yield and water quality of significant aquifers in southern, central and eastern Maine. The mapping is now in progress for Aroostook County. The study includes evaluation of land use over aquifers and its effects an groundwater quality. Use of the sand and gravel aquifer map series continues to be widespread. With funding provided by the Maine Legislature, the Hydrogeology Division, in cooperation with otherState agencies and the U.S. Geological Survey, planned and carried out a study of pesticides in groundwater in Maine. The first two years of work have been -143- completed, published, and are discussed in Appendix III of this report. Cartography and Publications Division This Division prepares and publishes the results of the Survey's geologic field investigations and research projects. The series of maps this division has published on significant sand and gravel aquifers has been very useful in the control of NPS pollution of groundwater. 5.2.6 Department of Environmental Protection PURPOSE: The Department of Environmental Protection is charged by statute with the protection and improvement of the quality of our natural environment and the resources which constitute it, and the enhancement of the public's opportunity to enjoy the environment by directing growth and development which preserves an ecologically sound and aesthetically pleasing environment. The Department advocates programs and regulatory decisions that contribute to the achievement of this goal. The Department, through authority vested in the Commissioner and the Board of Environmental Protection, exercises the police powers of the state to pre- vent the pollution of the natural environment. It recommends to the Legisla- ture measures for elimination of environmental pollution; grant licenses, and initiates enforcement actions. Its staff negotiates agreements with Federal, State and municipal agencies, administers laws relating to the environment and exercises whatever other duties that may be delegated by the Board. ORGANIZATION: The Department of Environmental Protection is descended from the Sanitary Water Board, created in 1941, to recommend means of eliminating water pollution. In 1951, it was renamed the Water Improvement Commission. The Commission was renamed the Water and Air Environmental Improvement Commis- sion in 1967 when its duties were expanded to include air pollution. -144- On July 1, 1972, the Commission became the Board of Environmental Protec- tion IBEPI and a new Department of Environmental Protection IDEPI was created, consisting of the Bureaus of Air Quality Control, Land Quality Control and Water Quality Control. A Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Materials Control was added in 1980 and a Bureau of Administration was added in 1987. The Board consists of ten members appointed by the Governor. In addition to the Depart- ment's main office in Augusta, regional offices are maintained in Bangor, Presque Isle and Portland. 5.2.6.1 Bureau of Water Quality Control PURPOSE: The Bureau of Water Quality Control is responsible for reviewing the quality of Maine's waterways and reporting their best uses and recommended classifications to the Board of Environmental Protection. The Bureau's primary operative functions are to protect and improve the State's waters and ensure that their classifications are attained. Many of the activities of the Bureau are mandated by Federal laws and are funded through the Federal Clean Water Act. Federal funds for fiscal year 1987 included approximately $1.8 million of program grant funds to aid the Bureau in carrying out "Its responsibilities under both State and Federal laws. ORGANIZATION: The Bureau of Water Quality Control has five divisions, the Division of Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies, the Division of Licens- ing and Enforcement, the Division of Municipal Services, The Division of Oper- ation and Maintenance and the Division of the Presque Isle Regional Office. The Bureau also has a Planning, Information and Grants Unit. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: State Coordinator for Control of-Nonpoint Source Pollution As can be seen in this section on Current State and Local Programs for -145- Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution, any effective NPS Management Program must be both interagency and intergovernmental in nature. At this time, this posi- tion's major task is to coordinate the preparation and implementation of Maine's Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Program. Once the Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Program is approved by EPA, the NPS Coordina- tor's responsibilities will be twofold: (1) to coordinate implementation of the NPS Management Program and (2) to prepare addenda to the NPS Assessment and Management Program as more is learned about the nature, extent and causes of NPS pollution as well as the effectiveness of present and proposed Best Manage- ment Practices. Maine Clean Lakes Program The Bureau of Water Quality Control's Division of Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies conducts an extensive program to protect and improve the quality of Maine's lakes and ponds. Eight professional staff members are pres- ently assigned to this program. The Maine Clean Lakes Program's principal strategy is to maintain current water quality conditions in lakes and ponds presently attaining their classification. The most serious threat to lake quality presently comes from increasing rates of residential and commercial development in the watersheds of lakes, though agriculture frequently continues to be a major nonpoint source of lake and pond pollution. The overall strategy to protect and improve the water quality of Maine lakes involves five objec- tives; (1) To identify which lakes are most at risk to future water quality degradation. The tools used to identify potential problems include the Maine Vulnerability Index which predicts impacts from increasing develop- ment, the Volunteer Monitoring Program which identifies water quality trends, and the Lake Benthic Invertebrate Index which is sensitive to -146- subtle differences in water quality. Approximately 150 lakes, and a compa- rable number of volunteers, are involved in the Volunteer Monitoring Pro- gram. More than 75 lakes have been analyzed to date for the Lake Benthic Invertebrate Index. The Vulnerability Index covers over 1,400 Maine lakes. The information and data gathered from these sources is then linked to other information (ie. municipal population growth rates, land-use pat- terns, and relative value of the water resource to the locality) and used to develop management programs to reduce NPS pollution which impacts lake water quality. (2) To promote watershed management programs, land use policies and per- formance standards which minimize the discharge of pollutants to lakes and ponds. This is accomplished by providing technical reviews for the DEP permitting process and through the newly created Technical Assistance Unit which, in cooperation with regional planning agencies, is encouraging the adop- tioln of revised comprehensive plans, performance standards and ordinances by municipalities in order to meet the goals of State water quality standards. Performance standards and model ordinances are now being developed for control of.phosphorus runoff, a major NPS pollution problem for Maine lakes. This preventative approach promises to be more effective and less costly than the reactive efforts of the past. The Maine Clean Lakes Program (MCLP) is currently working on a Maine Lakes Diagnostic Protection Project, under a 314 grant and locallstate funding, for the purpose of developing a long-term (50 year) land use management plan for the Long Lake (Cumberland County) watershed that will permit growth but minimize harmful effects to water quality. This is a pilot project for Statewide Lake Protection. The MCLP and the St. Johh Valley Soil and Water Conservation District have -147- constructed two marshland-wetpond system to treat agricultural runoff in the watershed of Long Lake in Aroostook County. The University of Maine AN and the MCLP will be monitoring system efficiency in removing nutrients and assessing design criteria to maximize the performance of systems to be built in 30-50 priority watersheds. The project is a joint local/state/federal effort and may include federal and state cost-share dollars for construction of control structures. In addition, the MCLP cooperates with the USDA's Soil Conservation Service, the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service, the Maine Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission, the Maine Department of Transportation and municipal road commissioners, in order to reduce nonpoint source pollution due to a broad range of sources. (3) To develop a broad base of support for lake protection. This is accomplished through education programs for schools, land users, policy makers, regulators and for the general public. The MCLP currently has an information and education initiative underway which includes: (a) the develop- ment of informational brochures on a wide range of related topics including phosphorus runoff and its affect on lake water quality, land use management practices and lake ecology; (b) education projects and contests for school children; and (c) informational displays on the Maine Clean Lakes Program. Although the water quality of lakes is of concern to the great majority of Maine people, most are unaware of how their actions impact lakes. For this reason, t he information and education component of the MCLP program is considered important to both long term NPS control and a comprehensive lake protection strategy. (4) To restore the water quality of problem lakes. Maine has had restora- tion projects on 12 lakes, eight of which were supported by the Clean Water -148- Act's Section 314 grants. Two additional lake restoration projects (Webber Pond and Threemile Pond) supported by the 314 program are currently under- way. It is anticipated that three more restoration projects (China Lake, Chickawaukie Lake and Cross Lake), will begin when new 314 funds become available. The MCLP considers implementaion of Best MAnagement Practices and consequent reductions of NPS pollutant loading to lakes as being critical to any restoration project. Without control of the pollutants (such as phosphorus and suspended solids) which reduce water quality, the long term viability of costly restoration projects is compromised. (5) To coordinate lake-related policies and programs within DEP as well as with other agencies and to be a technical resource for policy makers at the local, state and federal levels. Through research, monitoring, and devel- opment of performance standards, as well as by offering restoration and technical assistance program. The Maine Clean Lakes Program is an integral component of Maine's Nonpoint Source Management Program. Sand-Salt Pile Management Public Law 1479, enacted in 1985, mandated that all sand-salt piles be covered by 1996 to prevent the generation of salty leachate from them. Excep- tions are allowed if the piles are to be located adjacent to water bodie s of such size or quality that the classification of that water body would not be violated by the discharge of salty leachate. About 25 towns have gone ahead on their own with the covering of sand-salt piles, and the DOT has initiated a program to evaluate the cost, utility, and ease of construction of different types of buildings at several of their high priority sites. Funding for these and future buildings will be forthcoming from a bond issue passed by the electorate in November of 1987. -149- Future activities at the State level are chiefly concerned with the con- struction of sand-salt storage buildings. The DOT is preparing generic speci- fications for the buildings, while the DEP Bureau of Water Quality Control is preparing siting criteria. Technical Assistance to Municipalities Three geologist positions in the DEP Bureau of Water Quality Control offer technical assistance services to municipalities for groundwater-related non- point source pollution problems. The purpose of this program is to assist town planning boards in assessing the potential groundwater impacts of development proposals submitted to them. Assistance can be handled either in-house, or from 1986-1989, referred to a private consultant on retainer to the program as a result of an appropriation from the Maine Legislature. Funding of the referral program was withdrawn in 1989. About 25 projects have been served by the program since its inception in June of 1986. Projects vary greatly in complexity and style. Some examples are as follows: (1) Helping a town to plan a groundwater monitoring system, (2) Assessing the impact of car wash wastes discharged to a septic system, (3) Helping a town develop a plan to deal with salt water intrusion, and (4) Working with a Regional Planning Commission to write model ordinances making the assessment of septic waste impacts on groundwater more straight- forward. The program has been advertised in the Maine Townsman and copies of that article have been sent to all planning boards in the State. In addition, the DEP staff is beginning work on a handbook of guidelines for groundwater review. It will help planning boards when they are faced with a new type of development -150- proposal. Water Quality Management Planning Grants The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 provide for a passthrough to regional planning organizations of 40Z of 205 (j)(1) grant monies received by Maine for water quality management planning. The Bureau of Water Quality Con- trol and the Maine Association of Regional Councils have agreed that planning activities related to the control of nonpoint source pollution should be funded with the pass-through grants. A competitive grant process is currently under- way which will result in additional planning for the control of nonpoint source pollution in Maine. Atmospheric DeDOSition The Bureau of Water Quality Control conducts an ongoing program to evaluate the aquatic effects of acidic atmospheric deposition. There are currently three major components to this program: (1)The High Elevation Lake Monitoring (HELM) project sampled all 90 lakes in Maine above 600 meters elevation in 1986 and 1987. At least one summer sample and one fall overturn "index" period sample, were taken. The HELM study was designed to complement the statistically-based Eastern Lakes Study (ELS) in Maine, by sampling the lakes assumed to be the most sensitive to acidic preci- pitation. More than 1OZ of the group was acidic in 1986-87, compared to less than 12 for ELS sites. (2)The Aquifer Lakes Study project identified and sampled a majority of the lakes in Maine that are on, or hydrologically associated with, aquifers. All of the lakes are "seepage-input" lakes, although some have outlets and are therefore not defined classically as "seepage" lakes. Sampling was conducted in 1986 and 1987, and included at least one fall "index" sample for each lake, for comparability to the EPA Eastern Lake Survey. These lakes are often of the -151- "mounded-seepage" type, and are the most dilute lakes in Maine. Nearly one quarter of the approximately 140 such lakes in the study are acidic. (3)The Tunk Mountain Watershed Project is the EPA funded site for the Long Term Monitoring Program in Maine. The project is operated by the University of Maine, in co-operation with the Maine DEP. The site includes five lakes in an approximately 400 hectare watershed. Two lakes are circumneutral, two are approximately pH 6.0, and one is acidic. Water quality chemical records exist on a monthly to seasonal sampling schedule since May, 1982. Enforcement Inspectors in all divisions of the Bureau of Water Quality Control rou- tinely conduct investigations in response to citizen reports on NPS pollution. The Bureau resolves problems at the lowest level which is appropriate to maxi- mize the spirit of cooperation between the Bureau and the regulated community. Underground Iniection Control (UIC) Program The Underground Injection Control (UIC Program was established by the fed- eral Safe Drinking Water Act. The UIC Program regulates the subsurface dis- charge of pollutants in order to protect underground sources of drinking water. In Maine, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) administers the UIC Program, with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Maine UIC Program has been in effect since 1983, when the Board of Environmen- tal Protection adopted regulations to control the subsurface discharge of pol- lutants by well injection. The UIC regulations identify five types of injection wells. The term "well" is applied loosely and is basically a specialized form of subsurface wastewater disposal. Cesspools, septic systems, wells, pits, ponds, and lagoons are considered injection wells, and are subject to the UIC regulations if used for the discharge of pollutants. Unauthorized injections resulting -152- from unsewered floor drains, abandoned wells, and heat pumps are currently being identified. 5.2.6.2 Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Materials Control PURPOSE: This Bureau administers the State's oil and hazardous materials control programs, which include the following areas of responsibility: (1) Emergency response for oil and hazardous materials spills, (2) Regulation of all underground oil storage facilities, (3) Licensing and inspection of hazardous waste facilities and transporters, (4) Licensing and inspection of oil terminals, (5) Investigation and clean-up of all uncontrolled hazardous substances sites, (6) Enforcement of all oil and hazardous materials control laws, and (7) Management of the Maine Coastal and Inland Surface Oil Clean-Up Fund, the Ground Water Oil Clean-Up Fund, the Hazardous Waste Fund and the Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site and Underground Oil Tanks Bonds. n addition, this Bureau provides staff support to the Advisory Commission on Riadioactive Waste and the Board of Underground Oil Storage Tank Installers. ORGANIZATION: In 1980 tthe Bureau was created by combining the Bureau of Water Quality Control's Division of Oil Conveyance Services and the Bureau of Land Quality Control's Hazardous Waste Unit. The Bureau has three divisions, the Division of Response Services, the Division of Licensing and Enforcement and the Division of Remedial Planning and Technical Services. -153- NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS Division of Licensing and Enforcement The Division maintains continuous oversight of the State's hazardous waste and waste oil facilities through the licensing, enforcement, and cleanup of sites. The Division licenses over 100 hazardous waste and waste oil transporters. The Division maintains a closeworking relationship with its State Police coun- terpart to ensure compliance with State laws and rules by those who transport hazardous waste and waste oil in Maine. The Division enforces the laws and rules administered by the Bureau and .conducts inspections of hazardous waste, waste oil facilities, and underground oil storage facilities. The Division is responsible for the development and revision of hazardous waste and waste' oil programs. The Division conducts the cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous substance sites. Activities conducted at uncontrolled sites include preliminary assess- ments, investigations, remedial planning for cleanup, and remedial action. Sometimes circumstances require accelerated remedial measures at uncontrolled hazardous substance sites. This can result in the Division contracting for the removal of wastes from the site and the implementation of emergency measures to protect the public health. The Division acts as the coordinating agency between the USEPA and communities involved in uncontrolled sites. This program is an on-going high priority effort to eliminate or reduce any danger posed by these uncontrolled sites to citizens of the State. To assess the effectiveness of uncontrolled hazardous waste site cleanups and the design and operational features of licensed facilities and closed facilities, the Division conducts a program of groundwater monitoring. -154- Division of Response Services This division performs a critical function in Maine's nonpoint source con- trol program. By provision of emergency response to incidents of oil or hazar- dous material spills allows prompt cleanup to be initiated. In some cases, removal of contaminated soil is necessary to prevent water pollution. This division responds to nearly 1000 reports of spills each year. Integral to the division's ability to respond to potentially life-threatening situations, com- prehensive employee training is an ongoing activity. The division also spon- sors a limited research program to improve procedu res and cleanup techniques. Division of Remedial Planning and Technical-Services A major function of this division is to provide technical support to groundwater cleanup projects at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and sites of underground tank leaks. For the State's highest priority sites with leaking underground storage tanks, the division plans and initiates cleanups. The division also reviews license applications for facilities where hazardous waste is stored prior to transport to a treatment or disposal facility. The division provides technical support to the Maine Radioactive Waste Commission and the Board of Underground Oil Storage Tank Installers and also develops regulatory programs for underground oil and hazardous m aterial substance tanks. Board of Underground Oil Storage Tank Installers The Board of Underground Tank Installers was established to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare; to protect the public from incompetent and unauthorized persons who might otherwise make faulty installations of under- ground tanks; and to assure the availability of underground oil storage tank installations of high quality to persons in need of these services. The Board of Underground Oil Storage Tank Installers has established installation and certification procedures. Examinations are held which have resulted in the -155- certification of over 240 tank installers. In addition, the Board conducts informational workshops throughout the state in conjunction with the Department of Environmental Protection. 5.2.6.3 Bureau of Land Quality Control PURPOSE: The Bureau of Land Quality Control administers five laws designed to protect and improve the quality.of Maine's natural environment and resources. The laws include: The Site Location of Development Act; the Natu- ral Resources Protection Act; the Maine Waterway Development and Conservation Act; the Maine Dam Inspection, Registration, and Abandonment Act; and the Man- datory Shoreland Zoning Act (administered jointly with the Land,Use Regulation Commission). ORGANIZATION: The Bureau has three divisions, the Division of Site Loca- tion; the Division of Enforcement and Field Services; and the Division of Natu- ral Resources. A five person Secretarial Unit provides clerical services to the entire Bureau. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Division of Site Location This division reviews and processes permit applications under the Site Location of Development Act. At the conclusion of the application review pro- cess, the Division prepares written findings and presents the findings to the Commissioner or the Board of Environmental Protection for final action. The Division also conducts inspections to insure compliance with Site Location permits. Limitations to the Site Location or Development Act, which will be addressed in the NPS Management Plan, include: I.The BLQC estimates it would require twice as much staff and adequate -156- computerization to be able to review development proposals in the reason- able amount of time expected by the public. 2.Only 20.Z of new development is State reviewed. Municipal review is admittedly often inadequate. Increased State review or anincrease in municipal capacbilities is necessary. Division of Enforcement & Field Services This division investigates alleged violations of DEP-administered laws and follows up with enforcement action where appropriate. As the Land Bureau rep- resentatives in the field, the enforcement staff also assists with application procedures, explains laws and regulations and serves as a general environmental information resource for the general public. Division of Natural Resources This'Division reviews and processes permit applications under the Natural Resouroces Protection Act and under the Maine Waterway Development and Conser- vation Act. The Division also includes the Shoreland Zoning Unit and the Dams Unit. The Shoreland Zoning Unit is responsible for the oversight and administra- tion of the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act and provides assistance to munici- palities on shoreland zoning issues. -157- 5.2.6.4 Bureau of Solid Waste Management PURPOSE: The purpose of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management is to manage disposal of solid waste in an ecologically sound manner which minimizes adverse impact on Maine's environment. ORGANIZATION: Three divisions compose the Bureau of Solid Waste Manage- ment: the Division of Licensing and Enforcement, the Division of Technical Services and the Division of Municipal and operational Services. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Licensing and Enforcement The Bureau licenses landfilling and land spreading of solid waste and enforces conformance with license conditions. Solid Waste Facility Siting As mandated by the Legislature in 1987, new landfills must demonstrate that they are necessary to meet the demand for solid waste disposal facilities and that the waste they receive has been reduced through recycling and source reduction programs. Careful consideration will be given to the geology of the proposed area and the engineering of a proposed facility in accordance with LD 836, An Act to Establish a Comprehensive Groundwater Protection Plan. Remediation and Closure of Existing Landfills The Bureau plans to begin an immediate assessment of the 160 municipal facilities in Maine which are now contaminating groundwater. This program will evaluate the risk each site poses to the public and the environment, prioritize each landfill, develop a closure plan, and provide funding for closures. Some of the required landfill closures will be conducted by the Division of Techni- cal Services. Recycling The Bureau is a cooperator with the State Development Office, regional -158- councils and municipalities in the establishment of recycling and source reduc- tion programs. Technical Assistance The Bureau provides technical assistance to municipalities on the disposal of "difficult" wastes such as stumps, tires and whitegoods. Asbestos Management The Bureau administers a program for the safe removal, transport and dis- posal of asbestos fibers. Sludge Management The goal of this program is to encour age the utilization of sludges and residual wastes, such as municipal treatment plant sludge, wood ash, fish waste and fish scales, through methods such as landspreading and composting, while safe-guarding the environment and public health. Approximately sixty percent of the wastewater treatment facilities in Maine have established sludge utili- zation programs with landowners. App roximately ten percent of Maine's wastew- ater treatment facilities have sludge composting programs. Sludges which do not meet the criteria for landspreading or composting under the present "Rules for Land Application of Sludge and Residuals, Chapter 567," must be disposed of in accordance with the current Solid Waste Regula- tions. The majority of sludge which is not landspread or composted, is buried in approved landfills. Any sludge which is classified as hazardous is shapped out of state to approved hazardous substance disposal facilities. 5.2.6.5 Bureau of Air Quality Control PURPOSE: The Air Quality Control Bureau exists to carry out Maine air pollution law and the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. ORGANIZATION: Three divisions compose the Air Quality Control Bureau: the -159- Division of Air Quality Services, the Division of Technical Services, and the Division of Licensing and Enforcement. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Through its licensing; inspection and enforcement programs, the Bureau of Air Quality Control seeks to minimize the discharge of pollutants to Maine's air. These activities also serve to minimize the nonpoint source pollution of Maine's waters through atmospheric deposition from in-state sources. The bureau's participation in the National Acid Precipitation Program with its requirements for inventory of pollution sources is important for control of in-state sources. To evaluate the.impact of long-range air pollution trans- port, the bureau participates in the National Atmospheric Deposition Program. This program monitors atmospheric deposition at three sites in Maine. All sites are monitored for pH and sulfate deposition. One site is also monitored for deposition of trace metals. 5.2.7 Department of Human Services, Division of Health Engineering PURPOSE: The Division of Health Engineering serves the State's resident and visitor population through a regulatory program which seeks to minimize environmental health hazards related to drinking water, bathing waters, food and radiation. ORGANIZATION: Two of the division's five units, the drinking water program and the wastewater and plumbing control program, deal specifically with the control of nonpoint source pollution. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Drinking Water Progra The Drinking Water Program provides surveillance of water quality and rend- ers technical assistance to Maine's public water utilities. In 1976, the Department of Human Services accepted primacy for regulating community and -160- non-community water supplies, as defined in the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. Rules were adopted for the first time in 1977, and more frequent samp- ling of many additional water supplies is now required. The program's focus is primarily on water available to the general public for consumption. A second- ary role is the interpretation of water analyses for the private sector. In the public sector, the Drinking Water Program staff monitors the water quality of approximately 400 community supplies which serve residential users, and approxima tely 2,500 non-community supplies which serve transient popula- tions throughout the year. The Drinking Water Program is also responsible for overseeing local programs to protect both groundwater and surface water public water supplies from nonpoint pollution sources in their watersheds. New surface water supplies must include plans for the protection of their watershed and the identification and location of all potential sources of non- point source pollution which could impact the quality of the water supply. These include but are not limited to sanitary landfills, dumps, oil storage facilities, chemical storage facilities, septage disposal areas, spray irriga- tion areas, farming operations which utilize large amounts of pesticides, all enterprises which require hazardous waste permits, major industries, highway commonly used in the transport of hazardous materials, and any appropriate zoning delineations. Areas within 200 feet of the intake of a surface water supply must be land- use restricted by means of deed, easement, or other legal document. A sanitary survey of the watershed is conducted at reasonable intervals to monitor poten- tial threats to the water supply. For groundwater sources, the local water utility is charged with the responsibility of determining the appropriate protection zone, based on the well's cone of influence and aquifer recharge area. The utility must then -161- control the land uses within that area. In the case of a bedrock well, the protection zone shall be no less than a three hundred (300) foot radius with the well at the center of the circle. Initial development of the State's Wellhead Protection Program as author- ized by the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) is currently underway. This effort is designed to further protect wellhead areas supplying public water supply systems from contaminants that may have any adverse effect on human health. The Groundwater Standing Committee, currently has lead agency responsibility for the development phase of the Wellhead Protection Program. The Department of Human Services' Drinking Water Program will assume lead agency status beginning with the implementation phase in fiscal year 1989. Wastewater and Plumbing Control Progra The Wastewater and Plumbing Control Program dates back to 1933 with the adoption of the first plumbing code for interior plumbing. Septic tanks, ces- spools, and direct discharges were first addressed in the Maine Plumbing Code in 1941. Today, under legislation adopted in 1973, the program promulgates rules to establish minimum statewide standards for subsurface wastewater dis- posal and internal plumbing; assists each town in Maine to administer a munici- pal plumbing control program providing technical assistance and record-keeping services; and reviews all subsurface wastewater disposal systems designed to treat more than 2,000 gallons of wastewater per day. All municipal plumbing inspectors are examined and certified under program auspices. The program staff also examines and licenses professionals who design subsurface wastewater disposal systems. In cooperation with the Plumber's Examining Board and munic- ipal plumbing inspectors, the staff is responsible for assuring that all plumb- ing and subsurface wastewater disposal systems in Maine do not create a public health, safety, or environmental hazard. -162- 5.2.8 Maine Department of Transportation PURPOSE: The Department of Transportation (DOT) was established to plan and develop adequate, safe and efficient transportation facilities and services which will contribute to.the economic growth of the State of Maine and the well-being of its, people. Maine has 22,000 miles of public roadway, of which the DOT is responsible for about 8,700 miles. The DOT maintains 2,800 out of 4,735 public bridges. ORGANIZATION: Units of two of the Department's five bureaus deal specifi- cally with the control of nonpoint source pollution. These Bureaus are the Bureau of Project Development and the Bureau o. f Maintenance and Operations. 5.2.8.1 Bureau of Proiect Develo Pment PURPOSE: The primary responsibility of the Bureau of Project Development is to develop the Department's capital improvement projects, once funding has been approved, through to construction completion. Certain Divisions within the Bureau; primarily Location and Environment, Technical Services, and Right- of-Way also serve the Department and the public in non-project-related activi- ties according to their particular expertise. ORGANIZATION,: Four'of the bureau's six divisions deal specifically with the control of nonpoint source pollution. These are the Divisions of Location and Environment, Design, Construction and Technical Services. Each serves the major goals and responsibilities of the Bureau with some activities directly in support of the other Project Development Divisions. Also, demands are placed' upon these divisions for services by other units of the Department, other State agencies and the public. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: -163- Construction Division This division is responsible for constructing projects as they are devel- oped including appropriate measures to minimize'adverse 'environmental effects. This responsibility includes'avoidance of excessive erosion and siltation, damage to adjacent property, and the reestablishment of vegetation in disturbed areas. Design Division This division is responsible for the actual design of highway and bridge projects. The Design Office Engineer is responsible for specifications, per- mits, contracts, and project bid advertisements. The DOT's-Standard Specifica- tions and Standard Detail Plan Sheets address routine environmental concerns. Special conditions are added, when necessary, to address special environmental situations. Designers review available documentation of all identified envi- ronmental issues and concerns related to the project. The Location and Envi- ronment Division advises the Design Division in regard to environmental resources and associated concerns. The Design Division then addresses these issues and obtains necessary Federal and State permits. Projects that require Great Pond, Stream Alteration, or Wetland permits from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection are reviewed for their potential effects on water quality and receive a Water'Quality Certification as part of the same permit application process. Location and Environment Division This division is responsible for conducting field surveys, location and environmental studies, air quality and noise-analyses, well claims, landscape design, and providing information required by othbrldivisions for the project development process. Specifically, the Environmental Services Section is responsible for evaluation of potential environmental impacts, for developing -164- recommendations concerning environmental protection and mitigation measures, as well as for environmental monitoring when appropriate. The Environmental Services Section collects data and makes recommendations on surface and groundwater quality, site setting, drainage patterns, vegetation damage, development trends, possible sources of water contaminants, aesthetic impacts, condition of salt storage buildings, land use conflicts and erosion and sedimentation. The Well Claims Group supports transportation, investment and maintenance programs by investigating claims of damage to private water supplies. In the past four years, the Department has received 50 claims alleg- ing salt contamination. About half of these claims were found valid and the homeowners were compensated for their loss. The Department continues to moni- tor ground and surface water at many of the maintenance lots where problems have occurred or are suspected. In addition, the Well Claims Groups is respon- sible for monitoring surface waters that may be affected by highway construc- tion activities. The Landscape Architective Group has a shared management role with the Bureau of Maintenance and Operations for the Department's vegetation management program. This involves a targeted chemical spray program which advocates the application of a cost effective and safe dilute spray mix (a maximum of 1/5 gallon of herbicide applied per roadside mile; one of the lowest herbicide application rates in the U.S.) applied selectively to specific roadside plants. Special emphasis is placed on being sure that spray is not directly applied to public waters and that pesticides do not drift into bodies of water. Additionally, the Landscape Architective Group makes project loaming and seeding recommendations, designs and inspects landscape plantings, conducts agronomic research, provides erosion control training and reviews erosion and sedimentation specifications and plans for the Department. -165- Technical Services Division ;N The Technical Services Division is responsible for providing support ser- vices to the operating divisions of the Department. The primary services are research and development, geotechnical investigations and design, field and laboratory testing, and technology transfer activities. The Division investi- gates and evaluates new products and procedures and has the responsibility of introducing innovative techniques to the operations of the Department. The seven different sections of the Division conduct research studies, perform field, physical and chemical laboratory testing of various materials including hazardous materials and waste. 'They also provide geotechnical services, drain- age studies, acceptance control and quality assurance services for practically all products used in constructing projects for the Department. It also con- ducts problem solving and research studies including studies relating to envi- ronmental issues such as the pilot study on "Soil and Water Monitoring of Her- bicide Residues", "Evaluation of Both Traffic and Bridge Paints" to provide enhanced environmental features, and the "Determination of Levels of Free Cyan- ide in Surface and in Ground Waters Affected by DOT Salt Storage Facilities". 5.2.8.2 Bureau of Maintenance and Operations PURPOSE: The responsibilities of the Bureau of Maintenance and Operations are the summer maintenance of 15,931 lane miles of State and State-aid high- ways, the winter maintenance of 8,527 lane miles of State highways, the mainte- nance of 2,800 bridges on State, State-aid and town highways; the coordination of the State-aid highway construction program; the maintenance and installation of traffic control devices and State and State-aid highways; the management of an equipment fleet for the Department of Transportation; the management of the Overlimit Permit Statute; the management of the Department's communication -166- system and the maintenance of safety rest areas. ORGANIZATION: Three of the bureau's four divisions deal specifically with the control of nonpoint source pollution. These are the Division of Highway Maintenance, the Division of Bridge Maintenance, and the Division of Traffic Engineering. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: The bureau's maintenance forces monitor all State-maintained highways for@ flooding or erosion problems. Any required corrective action is usually per- formed as a maintenance activity, but may be included in a subsequent construc- tion project. Bridge Maintenance Division This division is responsible for the maintenance and operation of approxi- mately 2,800 bridges. Routine maintenance includes the removal of winter sand, bridge flushing, touch-up painting, steel and concrete repair, and channel maintenance. Measures have been implemented on sensitive painting projects to control atmospheric and aquatic deposition of silica, paint, and solvents. Major bridge repair or replacement efforts involve the implementation and maintenance of appropriate soil erosion and sedimentation controls. Highway Maintenance Division This division is responsible for summer maintenance, winter maintenance, and safety rest area programs. Road resurfacing is this division's major sum- mer maintenance activity. Roadside summer maintenance activities such as ditching involve the implementation of appropriate soil erosion and sedimenta- tion control devices and methods. The Department's roadside vegetati on manage- ment program includes annually applying EPA-approved herbicides to over 11,000 roadside miles. The quality elements of the spray program include: no-spray agreements, public notification, chemical risk assessments, employee health -167- monitoring, buffer zones, identification-of environmentally sensitive areas, applicator training and monitoring, and low dose application of herbicides. During the past nine years, spray complaints have declined from a high of 20 complaints per day to two per month. For winter maintenance, approximately 3600 centerline miles of highways were plowed and sanded by State forces. Approximately 40,000-60,000 tons of pure salt are used by the DOT annually. A portion of this is applied to the highways as pure salt and the rest is used to prepare approximately 400,000 cubic yards of sand-salt mixture (80-120 pounds pure salt per cubic yard sand). In order to limit salt runoff, pure salt is often stored in salt sheds or in sand-salt piles that are being covered as money is made available. The Depart- ment has initiated a prioritized program to evaluate the cost, utility, and ease of construction of different types of sand-salt storage buildings at all of the various DOT sites. In addition, the Department is preparing generic specifications for the construction of sand-salt storage buildings by local communities. Funding of these future buildings will be forthcoming from a bond issue passed by the voters in November 1987. The Highway Maintenance Division and the Motor Transport Service are pres- ently in a joint effort to test and/or replace approximately 550 underground fuel storage tanks to comply with recent regulations governing the underground storage of petroleum products. Traffic En-gineering Division This division designs, installs, and maintains traffic control devices. As such, this division is responsible for the proper storage, use, and application of paints and solvents. 5.2.9 Maine State Planning Office -168- PURPOSE: The State Planning Office was established to strengthen the planning and management capability at all levels of government by assisting in identifying current problems and opportunities, providing guidance for eco- nomic, social and physical development of the State, providing a framework for and assisting regional and metropolitan planning, and reviewing and coordinat- ing federal, State, regional and local planning activities. Responsibilities of the State Planning Office include providing assistance to the Governor and the Legislature in identifying long-range goals and poli- cies for the State and coordinating the preparation and revision of towns' comprehensive plans as required by the Growth Management Law. ORGANIZATION: The State Planning office was established by statute in 1968 as an agency of the Executive Department. The office's present internal orga- nization was established administratively in 1987 and consists of three divi- sions: Natural Resources Policy, Economics and Management. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS Land and Water Resources Council The State Planning Office's efforts to control nonpoint source pollution are coordinated by the Land and Water Resources Council. The fundamental task of the Council is to advise the Governor, the Legislature, and State agencies in the formulation of policies to direct the planning for management of Maine's land and water resources to achieve State environmental, economic, and social goals. The current council membership is twelve: the Commissioners of the Departments of Conservation, Environmental Protection, Marine Resources, Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, agriculture, Human Services, and Transportation, the Directors of the State Planning Office, the State Development Office, and the Office of Energy Resources, the Maine Association of Regional Councils, and the Vice-President for President for Research and Public Service of the University -169- of Maine. State, Federal, Regional and Local agencies and private organizations are invited to interact and cooperate with the council in fulfilling its mission. Representatives from the United States Geological Survey, the Legislative Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, and the Natural Resources Council of Maine participate regularly. The current work program of the Land and Water Resources Council includes the following activities: Growth Management Economic growth is necessarily accompanied by land development -residen- tial, commercial, and industrial. There is a growing consensus that the pace of growth has outstripped the capacity of our State and local laws and institu- .tions to effectively manage this development to assure the health, safety and welfare of the public. The cumulative impact of incremental development, including impact on surface water and groundwater, seems to be inadequately addressed by our current State laws. Local resources and existing local ordi- nances are also inadequate. The problem is most acute in York and Cumberland Counties and along the coast. In total, this rapid growth is impacting the State's valuable natural resources and changing the character of the State. In some cases such changes negatively affect the very quality of life that draws people and businesses to the State. In 1986, the Council funded a State Planning Office study on the cumulative impact of growth. The study was completed in September 1986, and resulted in a State Growth Management Propos al. This proposal is still being studied by the Executive Department and the Maine Legislature with the goal of developing statutory remedies for the cumulative impacts of growth. -170- Groundwater Issues of land use controls for groundwater protection are clearly limited to the larger growth management issue. Because the programs and activities of many Council agencies involve groundwater - either through impacts, such as the activities of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Agricul- ture Food and Rural Resources, or through regulations such as at the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Human Services -it is a natu- ral issue for Council attention. Groundwater has been a focus of the Council's committee and coordination efforts for the past six years and has become a high priority for the people of the State, many of whom rely on groundwater for drinking water supplies. In 1985, a State Groundwater Coordinator was hired to staff the Council's Groundwater Standing Committee, which is charged with implementing State groundwater policy through the State Groundwater Management Strategy. The Groundwater Standing Committee represents the State Planning Office, the Departments of Environmental Protection, Conservation, Human Services, Agricul- ture, and Transportation, the University of Maine Environmental Studies Center, and the Maine Association of Regional Councils. The Groundwater Standing Com- mittee tasks include: (1) Assessing priorities in the groundwater management program, (2) Assuring the cost-effective allocation of funding and staffing resources within State agencies involved in groundwater management, and (3) Advising the Governor, the Legislature, and State agencies on sound groundwater protection and management policies and programs. The Groundwater Standing Committ ee meets at least quarterly to address proposals and new developments and to provide direction for the groundwater management effort. The day-to-day activities of the Committee are carried out -171- by the State Groundwater Coordinator. The Coordinator assists in the implemen- tation of groundwater programs and ensures program coordination among State agencies. He/she provides a statewide focus for communication and education efforts for a rapidly increasing number of organizations and citizens seeking information and assistance regarding groundwater issues. The Coordinator also tracks Federal groundwater legislation and programs and provides a consistent State voice in Federal decision-making procedures. Implementation of the Sole Source Aquifer Designation Program which is under the direction of SPO, provides municipalities with the opportunity to assess and designate groundwater areas with a high risk of contamination and high value. Three island communities have been designated to date. Data Management Natural resources data management has been a Council concern since its formation. The Executive Orders establishing the Council charge it to "define information needs, standards, and relative priorities for data collection, and investigate the increased use of data processing systems to expedite informa- tion storage and retrieval." Since the original Executive Order was issued, the Council has sponsored several data management studies. Computerization and data gathering have grown at a rapid pace among the natural resources agencies; however, in this age of information, the State's natural resources data management capability remains woefully inadequately. In the past year the Council's Data Management Committee has contracted for data management studies in the Natural Areas Management and the Groundwater Management programs. These studies will serve as guides for data management programs in other natural resources areas. The Groundwater Data Management Study is a three-phase project. The first phase has identified the State's _172- current capabilities and current and anticipated needs. The second phase has identified feasible data management systems that would address these needs. The third phase will involve system selection, financing, and implementation and is being undertaken by individual state agencies based on Standards accepted by the Grondwater Standing Committee. 5.2.10 University of Maine Cooperative Extension Service PURPOSE: The primary function of the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Service is to educate, motivate and technically assist landowners in the State on proper management of their property. ORGANIZATION: The Extension Service's head office is in Orono, with branch offices in every county. A staff member of the Orono office has been appointed statewide water quality specialist to coordinate programs in each county office. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Educational and jechnical Assistance The Extension Service is the first resource many landowners choose in requesting specific information on land use practices. The direct link the Extension Service has to the research being done at the University allows them the opportunity to provide current information on best management practices for almost any commercial activity in the State. The primary focus has been on education and technical assistance in the agricultural sector in past years. Pesticide selection, crop management systems to minimize nutrient movement, cropping pattern recommendations and rate and timing programs for manure spreading are the normal NPS related activities of Extension. -173- 5.3 REGIONAL AGENCIES 5.3.1 Regional Planning Organizations PURPOSE: Regional Planni ng Organizations in Mai ne have various types of names (e.g. Councils of Governments or Regional Planning Commissions), but are collectively known as Regional Councils. Maine's Regional Councils have been established to: (1)Provide technical assistance for municipal planning projects including the preparation of draft ordinances, (2)Provide a forum for local officials to exchange ideas, express views, and work with State and Federal officials to improve intergovernmental responsibilities and set priorities for public,investments, (3)Provide assistance to local officials in understanding and implementing state programs, and (4)Assist State and local governments in identifying effective services to local governments. ORGANIZATION: The State of Maine presently has ten Regional Councils. These organizations provide planning assistance to 369 of the 491.municipali- ties in the State. The full time staff employed by Maine's Regional Councils range from four to 32. The 10 organizations in the State that are designated Regional Councils are: *Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments *Eastern Mid-Coast Planning Commission *Greater Portland Council of Governments *Hancock County Regional Planning Commission *North Kennebec Regional Planning Commission *Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission *Penobscot Valley Council of Governments -174- *Southern Kennebec Planning & Development Council *Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission *Washington County Regional Planning Commission NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Technical Assistance The Regional Councils have offered technical assistance through a variety of projects. This was accomplished in one Region through a project that pro- duced 44 maps for member towns that depicted the location of known threats to groundwater and surface water (eg. underground storage tanks, sand-salt piles, land fills, hazardous waste activities etc.) Another example of technical assistance is the development of "Best Manage- ment Practices to Minimize Discharges of Pollutants on Construction Sites" which is presently being done by another Regional Council. This will be a technical reference for contractors and town officials. Advisory Activities Regional Councils have recently worked to advise municipalities on planning for control of nonpoint source pollution including draft ordinance preparation. The Regional Councils work closely with their respective Water Quality Adv isory Committee which were established in the last few years through a cooperative effort between the Regional Councils and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Two of the State Regional Councils have also created a "Technical Advisory Committee" to bring various local and regional expertise into'the water quality improvement process. Recently a Regional Council produced a handbook ("Protection for Private Wells") to be used as an advisory planning tool for ordinance development pur- poses. The demand for this booklet appears to be very widespread and many -175- positive comments have been articulated. Educational Activities One long-term project that a Regional Council has undertaken has proceeded to an educational phase. The project deals with aquifer protection and involved an extensive data gathering process. In the last few months the Regional Council, in cooperation with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection completed an impressive educational program at schools, town meet- ings, and workshops. A management plan for lake watersheds is being developed by another Regional Council. This may be used in other areas of the State as a model and a educational tool for local watershed ordinance development. This same Regional Council has produced a pamphlet ("For Your Lakes Sake") to be distrib- uted to interested groups and individuals. 5.3.2 Resource Conservation and Development Areas PURPOSE: The Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program was authorized through Congress and is administered through USDA. It was created on the assumption that local citizens working together, primarily in rural areas, with consolidated assistance provided by USDA, could develop and carry out an action oriented plan for the economic, social and environmental better- ment of their communities. Its purpose is to help rural areas make better use of their own resources. ORGANIZATION: There are four RC & D areas in Maine. Each maintains a central headquarters staffed by a USDA professional RC & D coordinator. Mem- bers of the area council are selected by sponsoring organizations such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts, County Commissioners, and Regional Planning Commissions. Approximately thirty volunteers serve as council members for a -176- one-year term during which monthly meetings take place. The four RC & D areas in Maine are: *Threshold to Maine - Authorized in 1970 and covering York, Cumberland and Oxford Counties *Time and Tide - Authorized in 1974 and covering mid-coast Maine *St. John & Aroostook - Authorized in 1966 and covering northernmost Maine *Down East - Authorized in 1976 and covering Hancock and Washington Counties NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: The RC&Ds have formed several committees which serve as a liaison between State agencies and local citizens. Those committees specifically dealing with nonpoint sources of pollution are: the Forestry Advisory Committee, made up of private land owners, commercial woodcutters, professional foresters and indus- trial foresters; the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Land Use Advisory Committee. Projects of these committees have included the identification of Town Demonstration Projects to promote wise management of town forests and technical assistance to insure the proper closing of dumps in Paris, Buckfield and Greenwood. A coordinated effort on the part of all four RC&Ds resulted in the develop- ment of a book entitled, "Runoff and Erosion Control Guidelines for Highway Crew Leaders." The handbook, illustrating proper runoff and erosion control measures along highways, was distributed statewide. 5.3.3 Soil and Water Conservation Districts PURPOSE: Maine's 16 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD'S) were established to provide for the protection, proper use, maintenance and improve- -177- ment of the soil, water and related resources of the State of Maine. The Dis- tricts identify soil and water conservation problems, develop programs to solve them, and enlist and coordinate help from all public and private sources in carrying out programs to solve problems. ORGANIZATION: Soil and Water Conservation Districts are legal subdivisions of State government, responsible under State law for conservation work within their boundaries just as townships and counties are responsible for roads or school districts are responsible for education. Maine's 16 Soil and Water Conservation Districts cover virtually all of the privately-owned land in Maine, except for portions of Maine's unorganiz ed territory. District bound- aries are usually drawn along county lines. One county, Aroostook,'has three Districts, while two Districts include two counties. Maine's 16 Soil and Water Conservation Districts are: � Androscoggin Valley SWCD * Penobscot County SWCD � Central Aroostook SWCD * Piscataquis County SWCD � Cumberland County SWCD * St. John Valley SWCD � Franklin County SWCD * Somerset County SWCD � Hancock County SWCD * Southern Aroostook SWCD � Kennebec County SWCD * Waldo County SWCD � Knox-Lincoln County SWCD * Washington County SWCD � Oxford County SWCD * York County SWCD Each of Maine's 16 Soil and Water Conservation Districts is managed by five local citizens who know area problems. These five members are the governing body and are called the Board of Supervisors. Three are elected by cooperators within the District and two are appointed by the State Soil and Water Conserva- tion Commission. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: -178- The working arrangements that SWCD's have with Federal and State agencies, institutions, groups, and private landowners provide a mechanism to achieve land and water quality goals. Maine's Soil and Water Conservation Districts share the recent concerns of environmental agencies about reducing water pollu- tants from agricultural enterprises. The responsibilities of each SWCD's Board of Supervisors are to plan and direct the program, obtain assistance, coordinate the help of government agencies, assign priorities to resource development tasks, and serve as a com- munity clearinghouse for information and services. District Supervisors inventory resource needs and problems and, using pub- lic and private assistance, analyze agricultural, economic, and other trends. This inventory forms the basis for a long-range plan of action that records the facts about local resources and outlines what must be done to correct problems and develop resources for wider and better use. To meet these goals, Districts work in two ways: they provide technical assistance to individual landowners in planning and installing scientific land use and treatment systems and they initiate and carry out project type programs as required. Districts also participate actively in group projects a nd regional resource development programs that benefit citizens in widespread areas. These include watershed projects, economic development projects, river basin development, comprehensive planning and environmental improvement pro- grams. These programs are important because through demonstration and subtle per- suasion they encourage land-users to adopt best management practices (BMP's). The major problems dealt with in almost all of Maine's SWCD programs are sedi- mentation, erosion, and animal waste management. Soil and Water Conservation Districts, in addition to their own resources, -179- rely on the personnel and facilities of the USDA Soil Conservation Service. Several other Federal agencies provide services, including resource-oriented agencies of the United States, such as those in the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. Districts have entered into written memorandums of understanding with indi- vidual landowners and cooperating State and Federal,agencies. These documents spell out goals, working relationships, and how each partner will function. Ba sically, SWCD assistance in conserving or developing soil and water or related resources is based on the following major elements. Public Information and Education Assistance Informing and educating the public about resource management through the media, schools, civic forums, and other organizations. Inventory and Evaluation Assistance Providing basic inventory data, such as soil surveys, hydrologic data, vegetative information, and other tech@ nical data and interpretations and evaluations of these data. Planning Assistance Providing technical assistance to land users in determining alternative land uses and treatment needs and assisting in development of a conservation plan reflecting the specific land use and treatment decisions. Application Assistance Providing technical assistance to cooperating land users to help them install planned conservation practices which include engineering and vegetative measures. Assistance may include site investigations, designs and specifica- tions, construction plans, layout of practices, and supervision of installa- tion. -180- 5.4 LOCAL AGENCIES 5.4.1 Municipal Planning Boards PURPOSE: A planning board may be created by a town city or plantation through its legislative body (i.e. town meeting or city council). The primary function is to undertake planning tasks which would otherwise be the responsi- bility of the municipality's principal officers. ORGANIZATION: Maine's Municipal Planning Boards are established at the option of the municipality. About 400 of Maine's 491 municipalities currently have active planning boards. The boards consist of five to twelve members who are either elected or appointed. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS Actions range from review of subdivisions, commercial and industrial con- struction, erosion control plans and chemical storage, to implementation of zoning, inspection, land acquisition, and other protection programs. As plan- ning boards expand their activities, demands for technical assistance from State, regional and private consultants also grows. The roles of all those involved are evolving and far from clear at present. Specific laws apply to review and regulation of subdivisions (30 MRSA, Sec. 4956), the development of comprehensive plans (30 MRSA, Sec. 4961) and zoning ordinances (30 MRSA, Sec. 4962). Many planning boards are only now beginning to realize what potential functions they may provide. This realization has led to a wide diversity in planning board attempts to control water pollution across the State. Some planning boards do no more than hope that the State's water protection programs will protect their resources. Many now conduct a. much more active and in-depth review of actions potentially dangerous to their -181- Limitations to be addressed in NPS Management Plan: 1) Limited knowledge of NPS issues/concerns (ie, survey resources) 2) Limited guidance from state DECD efforts improve this) 3) Inadequate or unclear ordinances and comprehensive plans. 5.4.2 Municipal Code Enforcement Officers PURPOSE: Code enforcement officers are appointed by municipalities to enforce municipal ordinances. ORGANIZATION: Most towns in Maine employ one person, often on a part-time basis, to perform the duties of Code Enforcement Officer (CEO). In some towns, the CEO is aided by a Licensed Plumbing Inspector and/or Assistant CEO. In Maine's cities, a CEO may supervise the activities of a number of specialists (e.g. Electrical Inspector). Two programs that control nonpoint sources of pollution - septic system permitting and shoreland zoning - are generally administered by local code enforcement officers. Septic system permitting is explained in detail in the Maine Department of Human Services, Division of Health Engineering section. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Shoreland Zoning A shoreland zoning program specifying minimum performance standards is mandated by the State and administered by 143 communities. The remainder of Maine's 491 municipalities administer self-designed shoreland zoning ordinances which are as strict or stricter than the State-designed program. The purposes of shoreland zoning are to further the maintenance of safe and healthful condi- tions; to prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, aquatic life, bird and other wildlife habitat; control building sites, place- ment of structures and land uses; and conserve shore cover and visual aesthet- -182- ics . Base shoreland zoning provides for construction setback and clearing and filling restrictions within 250 feet of certain bodies of water. Although pre-existing, non-conforming uses are allowed to remain no expansion or replacement is allowed without a permit. Many communities have expanded their shoreland zoning ordinance to address septic systems, surface water runoff, density of development, and other water quality concerns in a comprehensive manner. Some Maine towns have extended the water protection concept embodied in shoreland zoning to other parts or the whole town. Protection regulations regarding chemical storage, underground tank siting, and other potential sources of contamination may be addressed in this way. Most often, it is the Code Enforcement Officer and/or planning board who oversee these efforts in the community. Limitations to be addressed in NPS Management Plan 1) Limited or no training in many water quality areas. 2) Insufficient time and/or money to prosecute violations. 3) Inadequate or unclear ordinances. 4) Poor communication between State DEP and local enforcement. 5.4.3 Municipal Conservation Commissions PURPOSE: A conservation commission is a municipal advisory board which may be created by a town, city or plantation through its legislative body (i.e. town meeting or city council). The commission has certain statutory duties, but it may also undertake a variety of other environmental, recreational and land use planning functions. Some have called conse2vation commissions "the environmental conscience of the community". -183- ORGANIZATION: Maine's Municipal Conservation Commissions are established at the option of the municipality. About 130 of Maine's 491 municipalities currently have active conservation commissions. The commissions consist of three to seven members appointed by the municipal officers. NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS: Surface Water Protection A Conservation Commission member's involvement in nonpoint source control may be as simple as calling.the Municipal Code Enforcement Officer's attention to what he or she believes is unacceptable erosi.on on a construction site. One Conservation Commission in Maine recently conducted a water quality monitoring project to identify sources of soil erosion which were muddying an otherwise scenic river. Groundwater Protection The Maine Association of Conservation Commissions (MACC) believes that groundwater protection is one of the most pressing environmental and public health concerns facing the state. Discoveries of polluted groundwater supplies are growing at an alarming rate, as is the realization that a wide diversity of pollutants are involved. Heightened concern has led to a growing awareness that Maine and much of the nation lacks the data to determine what groundwater is polluted or at risk of becoming polluted. This lack of information frus- trates preventative action. MACC has addressed this information gap and assisted the State in confront- ing groundwater contamination in a comprehensive and directed manner. A program has been implemented to increase public awareness on groundwater protection through education and provision of technical assistance to selected municipali- ties to support municipal inventories of existing and potential threats to -184- groundwater supplies. The inventories focus primarily on the identification of abandoned underground fuel tanks and potential sources of hazardous waste con- tamination. The project represents the third phase of MACC's groundwater protection effort. The first phase was the publication of several educational booklets and articles and a series of seminars conducted in the early 1980's. The second phase, financed by the Fund for New England, was the preparation of a handbook entitled "Groundwater Quality: A Handbook for Community Action". This publication outlines a process by which a community can conduct an inven- tory of sites to identify those that may contain substances that threaten groundwater quality. In the third phase, MACC used its handbook to encourage and guide detection and prevention activities at the local level. -185- 5.5 NEW INITIATIVES 5.5.1 Program Coordination The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has established a Nonpoint-Source Pollution Control Section within the Bureau of Water Quality Control. A full time NPS Coordinator is responsible for program activities. The Maine DEP has entered into a two (2) year Interagency Personnel Agreement (IPA) with the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to provide a full-time GS-12 position to assist with program development and liaison with USDA agencies and programs. In addition, two Environmental Specialist (ES III) positions are assigned NPS related tasks equivalent to one and one-half (1.5) positions. The Nonpoint-Source Advisory Committee will continue to provide input and guidance during program implementation (See Appendix ? for list of Committee members). The Committee will be involved in BMP development and review, NPS-related public meetings Ihearings, interagency letters of agree- ment, as well as overall program coordination. 5.5.2 Information and Education There is a tremendous need for new initiatives in information and education for NPS control. Nonpoint-Source controls are everyone's responsibility. Landusers, the general public, and government agencies all need to increase their awareness of NPS problems and controls in order for Maine's NPS program to be a success. Information sharing, technology transfer and direct technical assistance will be all important tools for helping solve the state's NPS prob- lems. Public education for prevention of nonpoint source pollution will be an important part of Maine's NPS Management Plan. -186- 5.5.3 Enforcement Enforcement programs will play a role in management of NPS pollution in Maine. Although Maine has made substantial progress in this area in the, new initiatives will be required to fully address issues identified in this Assess- ment Report. In addition to local ordinance and enforcement support, Maine's NPS Management Plan will outline a schedule for review of MSRA 38, which con- tains state environmental regulations, and the development of state soil ero- sion and sedimentation control and StOtMwater management programs. 5.5.4 Incentives Use of programs which provide incentives for landusers who implement BMP's, without the land user realizing any direct benefit for themselves, will be dependent on the availability of appropriate funding. Traditional sources of funding, such as that provided by the USDA Agricultural and Stabilization Ser- vice to farmers and state tax incentives for forestry, will be utilized to the greatest extent possible. Possible state roles will be further reviewed as the NPS program is developed. 5.5.6 Program Evaluation The evaluation of Maine's NPS program will be based largely on the state's ability to meet the implementation schedule set forth in the NPS Management Plan, and on the ability to document water quality improvement in NPS-impaired waters over time. Lay and professional monitoring will be critical to docu- menting the effectiveness of individual BMP's and the program as a whole. Fol- low-up public surveys and meetings, as well as input from professional field personnel will be utilized throughout program implementation and evaluation. The Management Plan details the state schedule for evaluating the NPS program. -187- SECTION 6 PROCESS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ASSOCIATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CONTROL OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION GOALS The identification of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and associated per- formance standards has two principal goals: (1) To specify minimum standards of performance for activities which gen- erate nonpoint source water pollution. These minimum standards are oriented towards general protection and improvement of the State's waters. These minimum standards will have statewide applicability except in espe- cially sensitive or vulnerable watersheds or areas where application of the minimum standards would result in a violation of Maine's Water Classifica- tion Program. ,(2) To specify supplemental standards of performance to be applied in especially sensitive or vulnerable watersheds or areas where application of the minimum standards would result in a violation of Maine's Water Classi- fication Program. PROCEDURES The procedures for identification of BMPs are to incorporate them into Maine's Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment and Management Program in accor- dance with the requirements of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and such additional requirements which are in the best interests of the people of Maine. These requirements include the following: (1) BMPs shall be identified after consultation, where appropriate, with State agencies, municipalities, Councils of Government, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, interested groups representing commercial activi- _188- ties, citizen groups, individuals, and Federal and Interstate water pollu- tion control agencies. (2) Public notice of the availability of copies of-any'proposed BMPs shall be published by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Control at least 30 days prior to a public hearing on the proposal. (3) The Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Control, shall hold a public hearing or hearings to obtain comments on any proposed BMPs from all interested parties. (4) Approval by the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of any pro- posed BMPs. Once the BMPs contained in the Maine Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment and Management Program are approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, subsequent proposals to change BMPs shall also be subject to the afore- mentioned requirements and shall be treated as addenda to the Maine Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Program. The State of Maine has opted to establish two levels of requirements for control of NPS pollution - the BMPs and their associated Performance Standards. The BMPs included in Maine's NPS Pollution Management Program are intended to be generalized rather than site-specific; providing information on the goals and technical basis of NPS control. The BMPs -are expected to change little over time, so only those practices which have been proven to be clearly neces- sary for water quality protection are identified as BMPs. To fully implement the goals of Maine's NPS Pollution Management Program, it is necessary to com- plement the BMPs with a series of publications which specify performance stan- dards for NPS pollution control for all major types of activities generating NPS water pollution. These performance standards can be expected to change over time as more is learned about the efficacy of practices for NPS control, -189- as technology for NPS control advances, and as the list of especially sensitive or vulnerable watersheds or areas changes. Maine's BMPs will be published in 1990 for the use of state agencies, municipal governments, and others. The BMPs will constitute one section of a handbook which also describes pre-permitting and post-permitting evaluation of potential pollution sources. _190- LIST OF REFERENCES Agenda for Action - Casco Bay, Me. DEP, Jan. 1989, Augusta, Maine Cross Lake NPS Study. Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission. Dutram, Paul W. Maine Grondwater Management Strategy - Final Draft, October 1988. Dutram, Paul W. The Planning Process for Local Groundwater Protection State Planning Office, January 1, 1988. Guidelines for Maines Growth Management Progra December 1988 O.C.P./DECD Augusta, Maine Maine's Marine Environment - A Plan for Protection - A report to the 114th Legislature, Me. DEP, Me. DMR, March 1989 (Doggett, Sowles) Maine Wetlands Conservation Priority Plan. State of Maine 1988 Water Quality Assessment 304(b) report for Clean Water Act, Maine DEP. State Nonpoint Source Agricultural Pollution (SNAP) Report. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Orono, Maine 1987. The Value of the Gulf of Maine (Conference report, ARCO. Portland Maine. October 28, 1988. -191- I I I . I I i i APPENDICES I I I I I I i I 1 -192- i I I APPENDIX A. MAINE'S WATER CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM Maine's water quality classification program is the primary criterion for determining whether current water quality conditions are acceptable or whether additional nonpoint source pollution control measures are needed on a particu- lar water body, Each classification establishes uses for which a water body must be suitable. For surface waters, the classifications also provide numeri- cal or narrative standards for dissolved oxygen, bacteria and aquatic life. Nonattainment of these standards is the most conclusive evidence that water quality classification is being violated. The water quality classification program also contains a general provision that prohibits "Discharge of pollutants to waters of the State which imparts color, taste, turbidity, toxicity, radioactivity or other properties which cause those waters to be unsuitable for their designated uses." Determining whether a water body is unsuitable for its designated uses is a subjective task since different people will have different opinions on what constitutes suit- ability. Examples of what may constitute unsuitability for designated uses include the following: (1) Reduced water transparency due to excessive growth of algae. (2) Soil erosion from a logging operation which causes a brook to be muddy may impact a downstream residence which uses the brook for a drinking water supply, (3) Soil erosion from large-scale development which causes a river to be muddy in the spring may transform previous opportunities for white-water canoeing into brown-water canoeing to the dismay of some potential boaters, and (4) Agricultural activities may generate nonpoint source pollution which some people consider to be impairing the habitat in a favorite trout stream. Due to the sensitivity of benthic macroinvertabrates to habitat changes causes by NPS pollutants such as suspended solids, nutrients and pesticides, Maine's water quality standards for aquatic life are probably more sensitive to nonpoint source pollution than the standards for dissolved oxygen or bacteria. However, evaluation of the effects of nonpoint source pollution on aquatic life is just starting in Maine and little information on the biological water quality standards is available for this report. Unlike most other states which have bacteria standards based on fecal coli- form levels, Maine has bacteria standards based on E. coli or enterocci of human origin. The discharge of fecal coliform bacteria from the manure of domestic animals seems to be the most widespread and easily documented form of nonpoint source pollution. While such a discharge would violate water quality standards in most states, it would not violate Maine's health effects-based bacteria standards. Problems with bacteria levels in Maine's surface waters are largely due to licensed point source discharges: municipal treatment plants, combined sewer overflows and residential/commercial overboard discharge systems. Unlicensed straight-pipe discharges are another type of point source discharge which causes bacteria problems. Malfunctioning septic systems are a significant nonpoint source of bacteria, especially in coastal areas, but it is virtually impossible to determine the extent to which malfunctioning septic systems contribute to closure of shellfish harvesting areas. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has conducted two special studies on the Saco River which is intensively utilized for canoeing and over- night camping in areas without toilet facilities. Analysis of the data indi- cated that there is no observable difference in bacteria levels in the upper Saco River and bacteria levels which would be expected to occur naturally. Some small brooks and streams have low dissolved oxygen levels which vio- late water quality standards due to nonpoint source pollution. Analysis of existing data, however, indicates that no major rivers in Maine have dissolved oxygen levels which do not attain their classification due to nonpoint source pollution. Often, marshes and bogs cause low dissolved oxygen levels in brooks and streams but these natural conditions do not constitute a violation of dis- solved oxygen standards. Where marshes and farms occupy the same watershed, great care must be taken in assessing the cause of low dissolved oxygen levels. Maine's GW-A groundwater classification requires groundwater to be of such quality that it can be used for public water supplies. The numerical standards used to assess potability are those of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Although Class GW-B does not require that groundwater be suitable for drinking water supply, no groundwater in Maine has been classified as GW-B. Thus, any groundwater in Maine which is not suitable for public water supply due to pol- lution from human activities is not attaining its classification. The classifications, designated uses, water quality standards and some associated requirements of Maine's Water Classification Program are as follows: 38 MRSA, Section 465. Standards for classification of fresh surface waters The board shall have four standards for the classification of fresh surface waters which are not classified as great ponds: 1. Class AA waters. Class AA shall be the highest classification and shall be applied to waters which are outstanding natural resources and which should be preserved because of their ecological, social, scenic or recreational importance. A. Class AA waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of drinking water after disinfection, fishing, recreation in and on the water and navigation and as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat shall be characterized as free flowing and natural. B. The aquatic life, dissolved oxygen and bacteria content of Class AA waters shall be as naturally occurs. C. There shall be no direct discharge of pollutants to Class AA waters. 2. Class A waters. Class A shall be the 2nd highest classification. A. Class A waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of drinking water after disinfection; fishing; recre- ation in and on the water; industrial process and cooling water supply; hydroelectric power generation, except as prohibited under Title 12, sec- tion 403; and navigation; and as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat shall be characterized as natural. B. The dissolved oxygen content of Class A waters shall be not less than 7 parts per million or 75Z of saturation, whichever is higher. The aquatic life and bacteria content of Class A waters shall be as naturally occurs. C. Direct discharges to these waters licensed after January 1, 1986, shall be permitted only if, in addition to satisfying all the requirements of this article, the discharged effluent will be equal to or better than the existing water quality of the receiving waters. Prior to issuing a discharge license, the board shall require the applicant to objectively demonstrate to the board's satisfaction that the discharge is necessary and -2- that there are no other reasonable alternatives available. Discharges into waters of this classification which were licensed prior to January 1, 1986, shall be allowed to continue only,until practical alternatives exist. There shall be no deposits of any material on the banks of these waters in any manner so that transfer of pollutants into the waters is likely. 3. Class B waters. Class B shall be the 3rd highest classification. A. Class B waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of drinking water supply after treatment; fishing; recreation in and on the water; industrial process and cooling water sup- ply; hydroelectric power generation, except as prohibited under Title 12, section 403; and navigation;* and as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat shall be characterized as unimpaired. B. The dissolved oxygen content of Class B waters shall be not less than 7 parts per million or 75Z of saturation, whichever is higher, except that for the period from October lst to May 14th, in order to ensure spawn- ing and egg incubation of indigenous fish species, the 7-day mean dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 9.5 parts per million and the 1-day minimum dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 8.0 parts per million in identified fish spawning areas. Between May 15th and September 30th, the number of Escherichia coli bacteria of human origin in these waters may not exceed a geometric mean of 64 per 100 milliliters or an instantaneous level of 427 per 100 milliliters. C. Discharges to Class B waters shall not cause adverse impact to aquatic life in that the receiving waters shall be of sufficient quality to. support all aquatic species indigenous to the receiving water without detrimental changes in the resident biological community. 4. Class C waters. Class C shall be the 4th highest classification. A. Class C waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of drinking water supply after treatment; fishing; recreation in and on the water; industrial process and cooling water sup- ply; hydroelectric power generation, except as prohibited under Title 12, section 403; and navigation; and as a habitat for fish and other aquatic life. B. The dissolved oxygen content of Class C water shall be not less than 5 parts per million or 60Z of saturation, whichever is higher, except that in identified salmonid spawning areas where water quality is suffi- cient to ensure spawning, egg incubation and survival of early life stages, that water quality sufficient for these purposes shall be maintained. Between May 15th and September 30th, the number of Escherichia coli bacte- ria of human origin in these waters may not exceed a geometric mean of 142 per 100 milliliters or an instantaneous level of 949 per 100 milliliters. The department shall promulgate rules governing the procedure for designa- tion of spawning areas. Those rules shall include provision for periodic review of designated spawning areas and consultation with affected persons prior to designation of a stretch of water as a spawning area. C. Discharges to Class C waters may cause some changes to aquatic life, provided that the receiving waters shall be of sufficient quality to support all species of fish indigenous to the receiving waters and maintain the structure and function of the resident biological community. 38 MRSA, Section 465-A. Standards for classification of lakes and ponds. The board shall have one standard for the classification of great ponds and natural lakes and ponds less than 10 acres in size. Impoundments of rivers -3- that are defined as great ponds pursuant to section 392 shall be classified as GPA or as specifically provided in section 467 and 468. 1. Class GPA waters. Class GPA shall be the sole classific.ation of great ponds and natural ponds and lakes less than 10 acres in size. A. Class GPA waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of drinking water after disinfection, recreation in and on the water, fishing, industrial process and cooling water supply, hydroelectric power generation and navigation and as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat shall be characterized as natural. B. Class GPA waters shall be described by their trophic state based on measures of the chlorophyll "a" content, Secchi disk transparency, total phosphorus content and other appropriate criteria. Class GPA waters shall have a stable or decreasing trophic state, subject only to natural fluctua- tions and shall be free of culturally induced algal blooms which impair their use and enjoyment. The number of Escherichia coli bacteria of human origin in these waters may not exceed a geometric mean of 29 per 100 mil- liliters or an instantaneous level of 194 per 100 milliliters. C. There shall be no new direct discharge of pollutants into Class GPA waters. Aquatic pesticide treatments or chemical treatments for the purpose of restoring water quality approved by the board shall be exempt from the no-discharge provision. Discharges into these waters which were licensed prior to January 1, 1986, shall be allowed to continue only until practical alternatives exist. No materials may be placed on or removed from the shores or banks of a Class GPA water body in such a manner that materials may fall or be washed into the water or that contaminated drain- age therefrom may flow or leach into those waters, except as permitted pursuant to section 391. No change of land use in the watershed of a Class GPA water body may, by itself or in combination with other activities, cause water quality degradation which would impair the characteristics and designated uses of downstream GPA waters or cause an increase in the trophic state o-,' those GPA waters. 38 MRSA Section 465-B. Standards for classification of estuarine and marine waters. The board shall have three standards for the classification of estuarine and marine waters. 1. Class SA waters. Class SA shall be the highest classification and shall be applied to waters which are outstanding natural resources and which should be preserved because of their ecological, social, scenic, economic or recreational importance. A. Class SA waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of recreation in and on the water, fishing, aqua- culture, propagation and harvesting of shellfish and navigation and as habitat for fish and other estuarine and marine life. The habitat shall be characterized as free-flowing and natural. B. The estuarine and marine life, dissolved oxygen and bacteria con- tent of Class SA waters shall be as naturally occurs. C. There shall be no direct discharge of pollutants to Class SA waters. 2. Class SB waters. Class SB waters shall be the 2nd highest classifica- tion. A. Class SB waters shall be of such quali ty that they are suitable for the designated uses of recreation in and on the water, fishing, aqua- -4- culture, propagation and harvesting of shellfish, industrial process and cooling water supply, hydroelectric power generation and navigation and as a habitat for fish and other estuarine and marine life. The habitat shall be characterized as unimpaired. B. The dissolved oxygen content of Class SB waters shall be not less than 85Z of saturation. Between May 15th and September 30th, the numbers of enterococcus bacteria of human origin in these waters may not exceed a geometric mean of 8 per 100 milliliters or an instantaneous level of 54 per 100 milliliters. The numbers of total coliform. bacteria or other specified indicator organisms in samples representative of the waters in shellfish harvesting areas may not exceed the criteria recommended under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations, Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas, United States Department of Food and Drug Adminis- tration. C. Discharges to Class SB waters shall not cause adverse impact to estuarine and marine life in that the receiving waters shall be of suffi- cient quality to support all estuarine and marine species indigenous to the receiving water without detrimental changes in the resident biological community. There shall be no new discharge to Class SB waters which would cause closure of open shellfish areas by the Department of Marine Resources. 3. Class SC waters. Class SC waters shall be the 3rd highest classifica- tion. A. Class SC waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable for recreation in and on the water, fishing, aquaculture, propagation and restricted harvesting of shellfish, industrial process and cooling water supply, hydroelectric power generation and navigation and as a habitat for fish and other estuarine and marine life. B. The dissolved oxygen content of Class SC waters shall be not less than 70Z of saturation. Between May 15th and September 30th, the numbers of enterococcus bacteria of human origin in these waters may not exceed a geometric mean of 14 per 100 milliliters or an instantaneous level of 94 per 100 milliliters. The numbers of total coliform bacteria or other spe- cified indicator organisms in samples representative of the waters in restricted shellfish harvesting areas may not exceed the criteria recom- mended under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Oper- ations, Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas, United States Food and Drug Administration. C. Discharges to Class SC waters may cause some changes to estuarine and marine life provided that the receiving waters are of sufficient quality to support all species of fish indigenous to the receiving waters and maintain the structure and function of the resident biological commu- nity. 38 MRSA, Section 465-C. Standards of classification of ground water. The board shall have two standards for the classification of ground water: 1. Class GW-A. Class GW-A shall be the highest classification and shall be of such quality that it can be used for public water supplies. These waters shall be free of radioactive matter or any matter that imparts color, turbidity, taste or odor which would impair usage of these waters, other than that occurring from natural phenomena. 2. Class GW-B. Class GW-B, the 2nd highest classification, shall be suitable for all usages other than public water supplies. -5- APPENDIX B. METHODOLOGY USED FOR THE ESTIMATION OF THE EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER IN MAINE NOT ATTAINING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. Maine's GW-A groundwater classification includes a standard which requires groundwater to be of such quality that it can be used for public water supplies. The numerical standards used to assess potability are those of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Although Class GW-B does not require that groundwater be suitable for drinking water supply, no groundwater in Maine has been classified as GW-B. Thus, any groundwater in Maine which is not suitable for public water supply due to pollution from human activities is not attaining its classification. During the two years since Maine's 1986 Water Quality Assessment was made, some limited advances have been made in understanding the nature of groundwater contamination in Maine. Most notable are (1) the registrations of underground storage tanks and sand-salt storage sites which are now available, (2) investigations of contamination plumes from those sources and (3) continuing studies on the impact of agriculture on groundwater quality. It cannot be overly emphasized that this 1988 assessment, although an improvement over that done in 1986, is an inexact estimation of the extent of groundwater contamination in Maine. The purpose of this appendix is to describe some of the difficulties inherent in such an assessment and to document the assumptions which made for the assessment. The major difficulty in assessing groundwater quality is inaccessability. By comparison, a person monitoring surface waters needs only to drive to a bridge or use a boat to get to the desired sampling site. once there, samples can be collected with ease from any point in the water column. Conversely, knowledge of groundwater quality is derived largely from existing private wells. When dealing with contaminated domestic wells, there are two major problems inherent in estimating the extent of groundwater contamination: (1) there are usually too few existing wells and (2) those wells available for monitoring are not usually positioned at the optimum locations and depths to accurately define the spatial boundaries of contaminant plumes. Compounding the difficulty of assessment is the present difficulty of retrieving existing data on domestic water supplies. Groundwater monitoring wells in Maine installed specifically for assessment purposes number less than 1200 with the majority of these clustered around known contamination sites. One major assumption used in this assessment is that the unpotable area around a pollution source is defined as that area where if monitoring wells were installed, a majority of those sampled at some depth in each portion of the area would yield unpotable water. This assumption was necessary to account for perched contaminant plumes as well as the channelized, erratic nature of contaminant plumes in bedrock aquifers. Another major assumption is that average plume sizes for a particular pollution source can be developed to assess the statewide extent of groundwater pollution, including sites where pollution is present but has not yet been detected. Groundwater pollution is a highly site-specific phenomenon. Surficial geology, bedrock geology, hydrogeologic conditions, type of pollutants, concentration of pollutants and duration of pollutant discharge are the principal factors affecting the extent of contaminant plumes. Even at -6- those few hazardous substance sites in Maine where intensive studies have been done, the influence of these factors on plume extent are not well understood. While acknowledging the limitations inherent in this assessments, the potentialbenefits it can provide (for long-range planning and identifying regional differences) justify it. Subsequent assessments will be based on increased understanding of the nature of groundwater pollution as well as an improved data base. Assumptions made for the extent of contamination associated with each type of pollution source are as follows: Agricultural Areas - A recent study (-Neil et al, 1987) found that 27Z of domestic wells adjacent to and downgradient of fields used for row crops containednitrate levels above drinking water standards '10 ppm) * This study was based on sampling 70 wells, most of them in Aroostook County and should be .regarded as-a preliminary assessment of groundwater pollution associated with agriculture. The major limitation of this study is that it attempted no analysis of the extent of contamination plumes associated with particular fields. Without substantial expenditures devoted to a program of monitoring and a.ss,essment it is unlikely that the accuracy of this preliminary assessment can be improved. Although it seems likely that this assessment of agricultural areas is subject to more error than are the assessments for pollution due to other nonpoint sources, a statistic of 27Z of the State's area devoted to cultivation of row crops has been used as an estimate ofgroundwater nonattainment due to agriculture. This does not account for regional diffe.rences in geology and agricultural practices or for the added dilution area which would be required for attenuation of nitrate levels above 10 ppm. Landfills - Unpotable groundwater is assumed to underlie an area twice that which is -filled with solid waste. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks - The estimated total number of leaking -underground storage tanks is based on both the number of tanks and tank sites registered. This statistic was adjusted by county to account for the following assumptions: (1)Only 75Z of all tanks are registered with all the unregistered tanks being 1-tank rather than multiple-tank sites. (2)Of the tank sites registered since 1986, 1OZ have been discontinued or had their tanks replaced with ones of improved design. (3)The USEPA estimate of a 302 failure rate for older types of tanks is applicable to tank sites in Maine. (4)Plume size - DEP staff estimates the size of plumes associated with known leaks from underground storage tanks to range from 1.4 to 11.5 acres with most of the plumes tending to be in the low end of the range. Splitting the range 2/3 towards the low end yields an average plume size of 5 acres. -7- Sand-Salt Piles - An assessment of the extent of groundwater contamination at 41 uncovered sand-salt storage areas (Locke, 1988) used terrain conductivity, well water samples, etc. to estimate the extent of contamination plumes. The average plume size of 10 acres was used to estimate the extent of unpotable groundwater at the 659 sites not assessed. The assessment of contamination due to sand-salt piles may be the most accurate of any nonpoint sources estimated in this report but is still uncertain in its statistical validity. Septic Systems - The number of unsewered year-round households in each county was estimated by dividing the unsewered population by Maine's average rural household size (2.53). This statistic was used for the estimated number of septic systems. Corrections were not made for population increases since 1984, septic systems in seasonal dwellings, commercial septic systems, homes without plumbing and homes discharging to surface waters. The average zone where groundwater was unpotable (primarily due to nitrate levels prior to dilution) was estimated at 0.25 acre per septic system. This is equal to a nonattainment zone extending 36 feet beyond the edges of a typical 20 x 45 foot leach field. Typical leach fields in Maine, however, are usually built into sloped ground where the area of unpotable groundwater beneath them would extend further from the edge of the field on the downslope side than on the upslope side. Hazardous Substances - Where site-specific estimates derived from intensive studies could not be obtained, an estimated nonattainment zone of 10 acres per suspected site was used. Roadsides - Groundwater contamination (even if chloride levels above 250 mg/l occur only seasonally) due to road salting seems to be linked to poor roadside drainage. An estimated nonattainment zone 50 feet in width has been applied to 20Z of the centerline miles of State and Locally maintained year-round roads. Wastewater Lagoons - Unpotable groundwater is assumed to underline an area twice that of the lagoon's surface area. REFERENCES Locke, D.B. (1988) An Assessment of the Extent of'Ground Water Contamination in Maine Due to Uncovered Salt-Sand Storage Piles. Neil, C.D., Williams, J.S. & Weddle, T.K. (1987) Second Annual Report Pesticides in Ground Water Study. Maine Geological Survey Open File Report 87-20. -8- Appendix III. Areas in Maine overlying Groundwater Not Attaining Water Quality Standards Due to Nonpoint Source Pollution. ABBREVIATIONS USED: AC=Acres; CY=Cubic Yards; EST=Estimated; HZSS=Hazardous Substance Site; I=Island; LAT=Latitude; LONG=Longitude; LUST=Leaking Underground Storage Tanks; MW=Monitoring Well; POLD=Polluted; POLN=Pollution; PW=Private Well; PWS=Public Water Supply; SWLF=Solid Waste Land Fill; THND=Threatened; UPSP=Uncovered Pure Salt Pile; USSP=Uncovered Sand-Salt Pile & WWTL=Waste Water Treatment Lagoon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YEAR YEAR POLN POLN COUNTY TOWN TYPE ID # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Androscoggin Auburn USSP 1 1955 -- 2500 CY Androscoggin Auburn USSP 2 1972 -- 300 CY Androscoggin Auburn HZSS 1 -- -- Manufacturing; phenol Androscoggin Auburn SWLF 1 -- -- 440727 0701418 Filled area is 5-10 AC Androscoggin Danville USSP 3 1961 -- 1200 CY Androscoggin Durham USSP 4 1978 -- ? Androscoggin Durham SWLF 2 -- -- 435748 0700653 Filled area is 1-5 AC Androscoggin Greene USSP 5 1970 -- ? Androscoggin Greene USSP 6 1962 -- 1600 CY Androscoggin Greene LUST 1 -- -- A-55-85; I PW POLDO Androscoggin Greene SWLF 3 -- -- 441248 0700832 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Androscoggin Leeds USSP 7 1948 -- 3500 CY Androscoggin Leeds SWLF 4 -- -- 441926 0700744 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Androscoggin Lewiston USSP 8 1945 -- 20000 CY Androscoggin Lewiston SWLF 5 -- -- 440248 0701058 Fitted area is >10 AC Androscoggin Lisbon USSP 9 1968 -- 8000 CY Androscoggin Lisbon LUST 2 -- -- P-514-86; 1 PW POLD Androscoggin Lisbon HZSS 2 -- -- Manufacturing; solvents & oil Androscoggin Lisbon SWLF 6 -- -- 440114 0700749 Filled area is >10 AC Androscoggin Lisbon SWLF 7 -- -- 440023 0700213 Filled area is 2 AC Androscoggin Livermore USSP 10 1955 -- 2400 Androscoggin Livermore SWLF 8 -- -- 442219 0701515 Filled area is 1-5 AC Androscoggin Livermore Falls USSP 11 1950 -- 2500 Androscoggin Livermore Falls LUST 3 -- -- A-137-85; 1 PW POLD Androscoggin Livermore Falls SWLF 9 -- -- 442547 0700934 Filled area is 1-5 AC Androscoggin Mechanic Falls USSP 12 1973 -- 2000 CY; Near Androscoggin R. Androscoggin Mechanic Falls SWLF 10 -- -- 440552 0702209 Filled area is 2 AC Androscoggin Minot USSP 13 1982 1985 3000 CY Androscoggin Minot USSP 14 1985 -- 3000 CY Androscoggin Poland USSP 15 1968 -- 3000 CY; 1 PW POLD, 1 THND Androscoggin Poland USSP 16 <1960 -- 5000 CY Androscoggin Poland SWLF 11 -- -- 440404 0702443 Filled area is <1 AC Androscoggin Sabattus USSP 17 ? -- 3000 CY; PWS THND Androscoggin Sabattus USSP 18 1965 -- 300 CY Androscoggin Sabattus SWLF 12 -- -- 440248 0700509 Filled area is 1-5 AC Androscoggin Turner USSP 19 1956 -- 2800 CY; 5 PW POLO, 2 THND Androscoggin Turner USSP 20 1975 -- 4300 CY Androscoggin Turner HZSS 3 -- -- Manufacturing; solvents & phenols Androscoggin Turner SWLF 13 -- -- 441531 0701629 Filled area is 1-5 AC Androscoggin Turner SWLF 14 -- -- 441400 0701551 Filled area is 2 AC Androscoggin Wales USSP 21 1972 -- 2500 CY Aroostook Allagash USSP 22 1980 -- 1500 CY Aroostook Allagash SWLF 15 -- -- 470433 0690409 Filled area is <1 AC Aroostook Amity USSP 23 1965 -- 3000 CY Aroostook Amity USSP 24 1960 -- 600 CY Aroostook Amity SWLF 16 -- -- 455707 0674926 Filled area is <1 AC Aroostook Ashland USSP 25 1978 -- 2000 CY Aroostook Ashland USSP 26 1967 -- 9000 CY Aroostook Ashland USSP 27 1978 -- 450 CY Aroostook Ashland LUST 4 -- -- 1-5-85; 1 PW POLO Aroostook Ashland LUST 5 -- -- 1-68-86; 1 PW POLD Aroostook Ashland WWTL 1 1965 -- 3 WWTL's; 9.5 AC Aroostook Ashland SWLF 17 -- -- Filled area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Benedicta USSP 28 1974 -- 750 CY Aroostook Benedicta USSP 29 ? -- ? Aroostook Blaine USSP 30 1950 -- 1500 CY Aroostook Blaine LUST 6 -- -- 8-3-83; 1 PW POLD Aroostook Blaine LUST 7 -- -- 1-137-86; 1 PW POLO, 3 PW THND Aroostook Bridgewater USSP 31 1955 -- 1500 CY III-l COUNTY TOWN TYPE ID # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Aroostook Bridgewater SWLF 18 -- 462743 0675035 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Aroostook Caribou USSP 32 1967 9000 CY Aroostook Caribou USSP 33 1930 4500 CY Aroostook Caribou LUST 8 -- B-130-82; 2 PW POLO Aroostook Caribou WWTL 2 1983 3 WWTLIS; 13.0 AC Aroostook Caribou SWLF 19 -- 1980 465449 0680246 Fitted area is 5 AC Aroostook Caribou SWLF 20 -- -- 465431 0680246 Filled area is 2 AC Aroostook Cary Pit USSP 34 1979 600 CY Aroostook Cary Pit LUST 9 -- B-486-86; 1 PW POLO Aroostook Caswell USSP 35 1983 30 CY Aroostook Connor Twp. SWLF 21 -- 465814 0675853 Filled area is <1 AC Aroostook Crystal USSP 36 1964 5000 CY Aroostook Crystal USSP 37 ? 2500 CY Aroostook Crystal USSP 38 ? 200 CY Aroostook Oyer Brook USSP 39 1965 200 CY Aroostook E. Plantation USSP 40 1982 375 CY Aroostook Eagle Lake USSP 41 1978 1550 CY; Site has 2 USSP Aroostook Eagle Lake WWTL 3 -- 4 WWTL's; 9.41 AC Aroostook Eagle Lake SWLF 22 -- 470226 0683652 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Easton USSFF- 42 1985 ? - Aroostook Easton USSP 43 ? ? Aroostook Easton LUSt-- 10 -- B-18-83; 2 PW POLO Aroostook Easton LU: 11 B-54-84; 1-PW POLO Aroostook Easton 12 1-30-84; 3 PW POLO Aroostook Easton LU 1-63-86; 2 PW POLD, 4 PW THND ST LUS 13 Aroostook Easton HZSS 4 Pesticides Storage; pesticides; 4 MW POLO Aroostook Easton SWLF 23 -- 463927 0675204 Filled area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Fort Fairfield USSP 44 1926 3000 CY Aroostook Fort Fairfield USSP 45 1967 4500 cy Aroostook Fort Fairfield SWLF 24 -- 465146 0675431 Fitted area is 15 AC Aroostook Fort Fairfield SWLF 25 -- 464927 0675319 Fitted area is 2 AC Aroostook Fort Kent USSP 46 ? ? Aroostook Fort Kent USSP 47 1968 8000 CY Aroostook Fort Kent USSP 48 1964 2000 CY Aroostook Fort Kent SWLF 26 -- 471426 0683222 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Frenchvitte USSP 49 1964 3500 CY Aroostook Frenchvitte USSP 50 1965 1800 CY Aroostook Frenchvitte SWLF 27 -- 1981 471652 0682030 Fitted area is 3 AC Aroostook Glenwood Pit USSP 51 ? -- 32 CY Aroostook Grand Isle USSP 52 1950 2000 CY Aroostook Grand Isle USSP 53 1975 1000 CY Aroostook Grand Isle SWLF 28 -- 471749 0680928 Fitted area is <1 AC Aroostook Hammond USSP 54 1958 400 CY Aroostook Haynesvitte USSP 55 ? 0 Aroostook Maynesvilte LUST 14 -- B-104-80; 1 PW POLO Aroostook Haynesvitte SWLF 29 -- 454932 0675841 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Hodgdon USSP 56 ? 800 CY Aroostook Hodgdon USSP 57 1985 2000 CY Aroostook Hodgdon LUST 15 -- 1-136-86; 5 PW POLD, 3 PW THNO Aroostook Moulton USSP 58 1953 11500 CY; Site has 2 USSP Aroostook Moulton LUST 16 -- 1-18-84; 2 PW POLO Aroostook Moulton WWTL 4 1 WWTL; 0.69 AC Aroostook Moulton SWLF 30 -- 460740 0675126 Fitted area is >10 AC Aroostook Island Falls USSP 59 1968 900 CY Aroostook Island Falls SWLF 31 -- 460112 06816,48 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Limestone USSP 60 1955 2000 cy Aroostook Limestone LUST 17 -- 1-26-85; 1 PW POLO Aroostook Limestone HZSS 5 465629 6175623 Air Base; solvents & oil Aroostook Limestone SWLF 32 1980 465230 0674747 Filled area is 3 AC Aroostook Linneus USSP 61 1964 -- 3200 CY Aroostook Linneus USSP 62 1984 1400 CY Aroostook Linneus USSP 63 1973 300 CY Aroostook Littleton USSP 64 1966 4000 CY Aroostook Littleton USSP 65 1965 1500 CY Aroostook Littleton LUST 18 -- 1-10-84; 3 PW POLO Aroostook Littleton LUST 19 1-155-86; 2 PW FOLD, 2 PW THND Aroostook Littleton SWLF 33 461606 0674813 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Aroostook Ludlow USSP 66 ? ? Aroostook Macwahoc USSP 67 ? ? Aroostook Macwahoc USSP 68 ? ? Aroostook Macwahoc PLt. SWLF 34 453658 0681539 Filled area is <1 AC Aroostook Madawaska USSP 69 ? ? Aroostook Madawaska ussp 70 ? Aroostook Madawaska USSP 71 ? III - 2 COUNTY TOWN TYPE 10 # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Aroostook Madawaska SWLF 35 19a4 472038 0681754 Fitted area is 2 AC Aroostook Madawaska SWLF 36 471314 0681233 Fitted area is 3 AC Aroostook Mapleton USSP 72 ? Site has 3 USSP Aroostook mars Hitt USSP 73 ? ? Aroostook mars Hitt USSP 74 ? ? Aroostook Mars Hitt SWLF 37 463045 0675130 Filled area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Masardis USSP 75 ? Aroostook Masardis SWLF 38 462932 W2102 Fitted area is 0 AC Aroostook Merritt USSP 76 ? ? Aroostook Monticello USSP 77 1975 1350 CY Aroostook Monticello LUST 20 -- a-M-79; 1 PW POLD Aroostook Monticello LUST 21 - 1-109-86; 1 PW POLD, 4 PW TNND Aroostook Monticello SWLF 39 -- 461917 0675340 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Nashville Pit USSP 78 1974 300 CY Aroostook New Canada USSP 79 1982 500 CY Aroostook New Sweden USSP 80 1976 1800 CY; Site has 2 USSP Aroostook New Sweden SWLF 40 -- 465913 0681008 Filled area is <1 AC Aroostook OakfieLd USSP 81 1967 8000 CY Aroostook OakfieLd USSP 82 1978 240 CY Aroostook OakfieLd USSP 83 1970 1500 CY Aroostook Oakfietd SWLF 41 -- 460438 0680854 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Orient USSP 84 1960 500 CY Aroostook Orient SWLF 42 -- 455050 0675107 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Oxbow Plt. USSP 85 1982 750 CY Aroostook Perham USSP 86 <1950 550 CY Aroostook Portage SWLF 43 -- 464710 0682834 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Portage Lake USSP 87 1974 1986 800 CY; Site has-2 USSP Aroostook Presque Isle USSP 88 1968 -- 9000 CY Aroostook Presque Isle USSP 89 1962 5000 CY Aroostook Presque Isle WWTL 5 -- 1 WWTL; 2.66 AC Aroostook Presque Isle WWTL 6 3 WWTL's; 2.98 AC Aroostook Presque Isle SWLF 44 -- 464059 0680348 Fitted area is >10 AC Aroostook Reed Pit. USSP 90 1960 550 CY; Site has 2 USSP Aroostook Reed Pit. SWLF 45 -- 4538Q8 0680448 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Sherman USSP 91 1967 8000 CY Aroostook Sherman USSP 92 1965 1300 CY Aroostook Sherman LUST 22 -- B-122-85; 1 PW POLD Aroostook Sherman LUST 23 -- B-43-82; 1 PWS THND Aroostook Sherman USSP 93 1963 1300 CY Aroostook Sherman SWLF 46 -- 455123 0682246 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Sinclair SWLF 47 471152 0682308 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Smyrna USSP 93 223 CY Aroostook Smyrna SWLF 48 460728 0680815 Filled area is 5-10 AC Aroostook St* Agatha USSP 94 1951 1400 CY Aroostook St. Agatha SWLF 49 -- 471416 0682308 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Aroostook St. Francis USSP 95 1984 100 CY Aroostook St. Francis LUST 24 -- 1-1-84; 3 PW POLD Aroostook St. Francis SWLF 50 470944 0685345 Fitted area is <1 AC Aroostook St. John Pit. SWLF 51 471226 0684736 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook StacyvilLe LUST 25 B-414-86; 1 PW POLO Aroostook Stockholm USSP 96 1971 2500 CY Aroostook Stockholm USSP 97 1985 500 CY Aroostook Stockholm SWLF 52 -- 470414 0680829 Filled area is 1-5 AC Aroostook T12R8 USSP 98 1975 10 CY Aroostook T13R11 USSP 101 1975 10 CY Aroostook T14-R6 USSP 102 1965 2000 CY Aroostook T9R8 USSP 103 1983 250 CY Aroostook Van Buren USSP 104 1965 4500 CY Aroostook Van Buren USSP 105 1968 1500 CY Aroostook Van Buren SWLF 53 -- 471011 0675758 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Wade USSP 106 1955 600 CY Aroostook Wa(Lagrass SWLF 54 -- 470927 0683510 Filled area is <1 AC Aroostook Washburn uSSP 107 1951 1000 CY Aroostook Washburn HZSS 6 -- Salvage Yard; PC8 & soLvents,.Superfund Aroostook Washburn WWTL 7 2 WWTL1s; 91.83 AC Aroostook Washburn SWLF 55 -- 1981 464939 0680921 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Westfield USSP 108 1945 -- 1200 CY Aroostook Westfield SWLF 56 -- 463448 0675532 Filled area is <1 AC Aroostook Weston USSP 109 1985 1000 C1 Aroostook WinterviLLe Ptt.SWLF 57 -- 465941 0683610 Fitted area is 2 AC Aroostook WinterviLLe P1t.SWLF 58 -- 465816 0683642 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Aroostook Woodland uSSP 113 1970 800 CY; I PW POLO, PWS THND Aroostook Woodland USSP 114 1966 3500 CY CumberLand Baldwin LUST 33 -- UTE-183-86*; 1 PW FOLD, 2 PW THND III - 3 COUNTY TOWN TYPE ID # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Cumberland SaLdwin USSP 115 ? ? Cumberland Bridgeton SWLF 59 440137 0704205 Fitted area is 15 AC Cumberland Bridgton HZSS 7 Manufacturing; Lead Cumberland Bridgton USSP 116 1968 3500 CY; I PW POLO Cumberland Bridgton USSP 117 19T7 5000 CY Cumberland Brunswick HZSS 8 Air Base; solvents, metals & oil PWS THND Cumberland Brunswick USSP 118 1955 4000 CY Cumberland Brunswick USSP 119 1960 300 CY; Near Merrymeeting Bay (tidal) CumberLand Brunswick SWLF 60 -- 435324 0700145 Fitted area is 50 AC Cumberland Cape Elizabeth LUST 26 -- P-69-a6; 1 PW POLO Cumberland Cape Elizabeth USSP 120 1948 3000 CY Cumberland Cape Elizabeth SWLF 61 -- 433512 0701432 Fitted area is 2 AC Cumberland Casco LUST 27 -- P-74-79; I PW POLO Cumberland Casco USSP 121 1950 2200 CY Cumberland Casco SWLF 62 -- 435913 0703258 Fitted area is 15 AC Cumberland Cumberland HZSS 9 434833 701940 Source Unknown, solvents; 7 PW POLO Cimbertand Cumbertand USSP 122 Soo CY Cumberland Cumberland USSP 123 ? 5000 CY Cumberland Cumberland SWLF 64 434352 0700725 Chebeague ].Fitted area is 10 AC Cumberland Cuimber I and SWLF 63 434717 0701507 Fitted area is 15 AC Cumberland Falmouth USSP 124 1969 5000 CY Cumberland Falmouth SWLF 65 -- 434416 0701248 Fitted area is 15 AC Cumberland Freeport LUST 28 -- P-1a6-86; I PW POLO Cumberland Freeport USSP 125 1947 5500 CY CumberLard Freeport SWLF 66 -- 435219 0700746 Fitted area is 20 AC Cumberland Gorham HZSS 10 Manufacturing; metals Cumberland Gorham LUST 29 P-51-85; 1 PW POLO, 1 PW THND Cumberland Gorham USSP 126 1960 4000 CY CumberLard Gorham USSP 127 1965 3500 CY CLiribertand Gorham USSP 128 1985 150 CY Cumberland Gorham USSP 129 1984 200 CY Cumberland Gorham SWLF 67 -- 433953 0702414 Fitted area is 10 AC Cumberland Gray HZSS 11 455302 701740 'Recycterl; solvents & metals; 51 PW POLO Cumberiand Gray LUST 30 P-148-79 Cumber I and Gray USSP 130 1968 3500 CY Cumbertand Gray USSP 131 1955 3500 CY Cumberland Gray USSP 132 1960 5500 CY Cumberland Gray SWLF 68 -- 435353 0702054 Filled area is 15 AC Cumberland Harpswett LUST 31 P-40-80; 1 PW POLO Cumberland Harpswelt LUST 32 P-501-86; 3 PW POLO, 2 PW THND Cumberland Harpswelt USSP 133 1970 2000 CY Cumberland Harpswett USSP 134 1980 1000 CY Cumberland Harpswelt SWLF 69 -- 434815 0695603 Fitted area is 10 AC Cumberland Harrison USSP 135 1957 4000 CY; Severe tree kilt Cumberland Harrison SWLF 70 -- 440920 07(13654 Fitted area is 10 AC Cumbertand N. Yarmouth USSP 136 1979 3500 CY Cumberland Naples LUST 34 -- P-94-86; 1 PW POLO, 2 PW THND Cumberland Naples USSP 137 1970 2500 CY Cumbertand Naples SWLF 71 -- Fitted area is 10 AC Cumbertard New Gloucester LUST 35 P-23-86; 2 PW POLO, 2 PW THNO CumberLard New Gloucester LUST 36 P-68-81; 3 PW THND Cumberland New Gloucester USSP 138 1935 5000 CY; 2 PW POLO, 11 THND Cumbe r I and New Gloucester USSP 139 ? ? Cumberland New Gloucester SWLF 72 435936 0701804 Filled area is 10 AC Cumberland North Yarmouth SWLF 73 435137 0701224 Fitted area is 10 AC Cumberland Portland HZSS 12 434055 701730 Freight Terminal; solvents CLxribertand PortLard HZSS 13 Manufacturing; Lead & acids Cunibertand Portland LUST 37 P-511-86; 1 PWS POLO, Cliff Island Cumberland PortLard UPSP 145 ? 50000 CY; On pad near ocean Cinbertard PortLard USSP 140 1984 4 CY CLsrber I and Portland USSP 141 1980 100 CY Cumberland Portland USSP 142 1978 250 CY Cumberland Portland USSP 143 1945 2000 CY; Near ocean Cumberland Portland USSP 144 1980 30 CY; Near ocean Cumbertand Porttand SWLF 74 -- 434100 0700954 Long I.; Fitted area is 5 AC Cumberland Portland SWLF 75 434154 0701601 Ocean Ave.; Fitted area is 20 AC Cumberland Portland SWLF 76 433924 0701109 Peaks I.; Fitted area is 10 AC Cumberland Portland SWLF 77 434226 0701920 Riverside; Fitted area is 20 AC Curnbertand Portland SWLF 78 434000 0701700 Woodford's Corner Cumbertand Pownal USSP, 146 1965 1000 CY; 3 PW POLO, 5 THND Cumberland Raymond USSP 147 1982 2000 CY Cumberland Raymond SWLF 79 -- 435559 0702453 Filled area is 10 AC Cumberland S. Portland USSP 148 1955 3500 CY Cumberland S. Portland USSP 149 1950 6000 CY ]]I - 4 COUNTY TOWN TYPE ID 0 BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Cumberland Scarborough LUST 38 -- 1 PW POLO, 3 PW THND Cumberland Scarborough USSP 150 1969 4000 CY Cumberland Scarborough USSP 151 1980 60 CY Cumberland Scarborough USSP 152 1945 1500 CY; Near Nonesuch R. (tidal) Cumberland Scarborough USSP 153 ? Near Nonesuch R. (tidal) Cumberland Scarborough SWLF 80 433617 0701802 Fitted area is 20 AC Cumberland Sebago LUST 39 P-182-85; 1 PW POLO, 3 PW THND Cumberland Sebago LUST 40 P-41-79; 1 PW POLO Cumberland Sebago USSP 154 1949 2500 CY Cumberland Sebago SWLF 81 -- Fitted area is 10 AC Cumberland So. Portland HZSS 14 -- manufacturing; solvents Cumberland So. Portland SWLF 82 -- 433654 0701721 Filled area is 20 AC Cumberland Standish USSP 155 1960 3500 CY Cumberland Standish USSP 156 1976 3000 CY Cumberland Standish SWLF 83 -- 434537 0703252 Fitted area is 15 AC Cumberland Westbrook USSP 157 1969 4000 CY Cumberland Westbrook USSP 158 1973 100 CY Cumbertand Westbrook SWLF 84 -- 433911 0702255 Fitted area is 20 AC Cumbertand Windham LUST 41 -- P-131-86; 2 PW POLO, I PW THND CuTberland Windham USSI 159 19611 6500 CY; I PW POLO Cumberland Windham ussP 160 1980 200 CY; Located at landfill site Cumberland Windham SWLF 85 -- 435135 0702721 Fitted area is 15 AC Cumber I and Yarmouth ussP 161 1967 4500 CY Cumberland Yarmouth USSP 162 <1960 3000 CY CLarberLand Yarmouth SWLF 86 -- 434900 0700950 Fitted area is 20 AC Franklin Avon USSP 163 1959 3000 CY Franklin Carrabassett SWLF 87 -- 450314 0701221 Fitted area is 2 AC Franklin Carrabassett ValWWTL 8 -- 14.0 AC Franklin Carthage USSP 164 1971 1000 CY Franklin Carthage USSP 165 1978 70 CY Franklin Carthage SWLF 88 -- 443715 0702704 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin Chain of Ponds USSP 166 1969 3500 CY Franklin Chestervilte USSP 167 1974 3000 CY; Located at old landfill Franklin Chestervilte SWLF 89 -- 443244 0700436 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin Coburn Gore SWLF 90 -- 452240 0704817 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin CopLin PLt ussp 168 1985 98 CY Franklin Dallas usSP 169 1965 7000 CY Franklin Eustis usSP 110 1985 Site has 2 USSP Franklin Eustis SWLF 91 -- 451006 0702521 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin Fairbanks ussP 171 1959 3500 CY; Near Sandy R. Franklin Farmington USSP 172 1975 5000 CY Franklin Farmington ussP 173 1985 500 CY; Near Sandy R. Franklin Farmington WWTL 9 1979 3 WWTL's; 0.35 AC Franklin Farmington SWLF 92 -- 443827 0700536 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Franklin Farmington SWLF 93 444154 0700654 Fitted area is 2 AC Franklin Industry LUST 42 A-10-83; 2 PW POLO Franklin Industry ussP 174 1974 1250 CY Franklin Industry SWLF 94 -- 444539 0700029 Fitted area is 2 AC Franklin Jay ussp 175 1966 7000 CY; Near Androscoggin R. Franklin Jay WWTL 10 1976 1 WWTL; 34.0 AC Franklin Jay SWLF 95 -- 443138 0701355 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Franklin Kingfield USSP 176 1962 2000 CY Franklin Kingfield ussp 177 1971 3500 CY; Near Carrabassett R. Franklin Kingfield ussp 178 1983 2000 CY Franklin Kingfield ussp 179 1980 4500 CY Franklin Kingfield SWLF 96 -- 445733 0700719 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin Madrid USSP 180 1984 1000 CY Franklin Madrid SWLF 97 -- 445325 0702609 Filled area is 2 AC Franklin N. Jay USSP 181 1964 2100 CY Franklin New Sharon ussP 182 1967 1500 CY Franklin New Sharon SWLF 98 -- 443907 0700016 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin New Vineyard LUST 43 A-170-86; 1 PW POLO Franklin New Vineyard USSP 183 ? 2000 CY; Near Lemon Str. Franklin New Vineyard SWLF 99 444855 0700653 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin New Vinyard LUST 44 A-10-86; 1 PW POLO, 1 PW THND Franklin Phillips ussP 184 1971 4000 CY Franklin Phillips SWLF 100 -- 445031 0702107 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin Rangeley LUST 45 -- A-134-85; 1 PW POLO, 1 PW THND Franklin Rangeley USSP 185 1963 2500 CY Franklin Rangeley ussP 186 1945 3500 CY Franklin Rangeley SWLF 101 -- 445831 0704357 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin Rangeley Plt. USSP 187 1955 1000 CY Franklin Rangeley Plt. SWLF 102 -- 445542 0703953 Fitted area is <1 AC Franklin Rangley LUST 46 P-117-83 5 COUNTY TOWN TYPE 10 # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Franklin SaLem SWLF 103 445428 0701659 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin Stratton LUST 47 A-T7-85; 1 PW THND Franklin Strong USSP 188 1960 '2000 CY; Near Sandy R. Franklin Strong SWLF 104 -- 444907 0701344 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin Temple USSP 189 1960 1400 CY Franklin Temple SWLF 105 -- 444116 0701317 Fitted area is 1-5,AC Franklin W. Farmington USSP 190 1955 3000 CY Franktin Weld USSP 191 1975 1000 CY Franklin Weld SWLF 106 -- 444406 0702740 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Franklin Witton USSP 192 1952 5500 CY Franklin Witton SWLF 107 -- 443540 0701143 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Hancock Amherst USSP 193 1979 1987 400 CY; Moved under cover in 1987 Hancock Aurora USSP 194 1966 -- ? Hancock Aurora USSP 195 1965 Boo CY Hancock Aurora SWLF 108 -- 445134 0681729 Filled area is 1-5 AC Hancock gar Harbor UssP 196 1962 2800 Cy Hancock Bar Harbor UssP 197 1925 5500 CY Hancock Blue Hitt HZSS 15 -- Manufacturing; lead Hancock Blue Hilt LUST 48 B-146-86; 2 PW POLD, 3 PW THND Hancock Blue Hitt LUST 49 8-226-85; 1 PW THND Hancock Blue Hit[ USSP 198 1968 3500 CY Hancock Blue Hilt USSP 199 1973 4000 CY Hancock Blue Hill SWLF 109 -- 442633 0683425 Filled area is 5-10 AC Hancock Brooktin USSP 200 1973 1650 CY Hancock BrookLin SWLF 110 -- 441735 0683358 Fitted area is-1-5 AC Hancock Brooksville USSP 201 1966 3000 CY Hancock 8ucksport USSP 202 1968 4400 CY Hancock Bucksport SWLF Ill -- 443654 0684628 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Hancock Castine LUST 50 -- B-116-82; 1 PW POLD Hancock Castine UssP 203 1969 900 CY; 1 PW POLD, 2 THND Hancock Castine USSP 204 1969 1000 CY Hancock Castine SWLF 112 -- 442523 0684742 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Hancock Cranberry Isles USSP 205 ? ? Hancock Dedham USSP 206 1971 1400 CY Hancock Dedham UssP 207 1953 460 CY Hancock Dedham USSP 208 1974 1000 CY Hancock Deer Isle LUST 51 -- B-175-85; 1 PW POLD Hancock Deer Isle LUST 52 B-487-86; 1 PW THND Hancock Deer Isle LUST 53 B-530-86; 1 PW POLD Hancock Deer Isle USSP 209 1978 3000 CY Hancock Deer Isle SWLF 113 -- 441412 0683934 Filled area is 1-5 AC Hancock Eastbrook SWLF 114 444054 0681202 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Hancock Ellsworth LUST' 54 B-118-85; 1 PW THND Hancock Ellsworth LUST 55 B-181-85; 1 PW POLD Hancock Ellsworth USSP 210 1957 6000 CY Hancock Ellsworth USSP 211 1952 7a6O CY Hancock Ellsworth 6VTL 11 -- 0.99 AC Hancock Ellsworth SWLF 115 -- 443336 0682421 Filled area is >10 AC Hancock Franklin USSP 212 1951 3000 CY; 1 PW POLD Hancock Franklin USSP 213 1960 1800 CY Hancock Franklin SWLF 116, -- 443544 0681532 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Hancock Goutdsboro USSP 214 1978 3350 CY Hancock Goutdsboro USSP 215 1981 2000 CY Hancock Great Pond USSP 216 1985 100 CY Hancock Hancock USSP 217 1970 2500 CY Hancock Hancock SWLF 117 -- 443251 0681857 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Hancock Lamoine USSP 218 1948 2000 CY Hancock Lamoine SWLF 118 -- 442818 0681943 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Hancock Mariavitte USSP 219 1975 1800 CY; Site has 2 USSP Hancock Mount Desert USSP 221 ? 6000 CY Hancock Mount Desert I WWTL 12 3 WWTL's; 3.44 AC Hancock Orland LUST 56 B-86-84; 1 PWS PW THND Hancock Orland USSP 222 1968 5280 CY Hancock Orland USSP 222 1983 1987 2000 CY Hancock Otis LUST 57 -- -- B-407-86; 1 PW POLD, 1 PW THND Hancock Otis SWLF 119 444202 0682609 Filled area is cl AC Hancock Penobscot LUST 58 B-80-84; 8 PW POLD, 2 THND;l MW POLD, 2 THND Hancock Penobscot ussP 223 1950 1000 CY Hancock Penobscot SWLF 120 -- 442846 0684350 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Hancock Sedgewick USSP 224 107 1000 CY Hancock Sedgwick USSP 225 1977 2200 CY Hancock Sedgwick SWLF 121 -- 441952 W3930 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Hancock Sorrento USSP 226 1977 950 CY Hancock Sorrento SWLF 122 -- 443017 0681120 Fitted area is <1 AC III - 6 COUNTY TOWN TYPE 10 # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS ........ ............ =,===== -------- ==== ------------ Hancock Southwest HarborSWLF 123 -- 441733 682052 Filled area is >10 AC ancock Southwest Hbr USSP 227 1977 800 CY Hancock Stonington USSP 228 1965 1600 CY Hancock Stonington SWLF 124 -- 441041 0684154 Filled area is 1-5 AC Hancock Sullivan USSP 229 1979 1500 CY Hancock Sullivan SWLF 125 -- 443106 0680758 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Hancock Sullivan SWLF 126 443252 0681358 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Hancock Surry LUST 59 8-4-82; 3 PW POLD Hancock Surry USSP 230 1981 3000 CY Hancock Swan's island SWLF 127 -- 441019 0682725 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Hancock Swans Island UISI 231 ? 200 CY Hancock Tremont LUST 60 B-21-82; 1 PW POLD Hancock Tremont LUST 61 B-49-83; 1 PW POLD Hancock Tremont USSP 232 1976 1500 CY Hancock Tremont SWLF 128 -- Fitted area is 1-5 AC Hancock Trenton USSP 233 1985 1000 CY Hancock Verona USSP 234 1978 800 CY Hancock Waltham USSP 235 ? 1200 CY; 1 PW POLD Hancock Waltham SWLF 129 -- 443934 0682126 Fitted area is <1 AC Hancock Winter Harbor USSP 236 1945 3000 CY Hancock Winter Harbor SWLF 130 -- "2456 0685129 Filled area is 1-5 AC Kennebec Albion LUST 62 -- A-345-86; 2 PW POLD, 4 PW THND Kennebec Albion USSP 237 1976 1200 CY Kennebec Albion USSP 238 1981 3000 CY Kennebec Albion USSP 239 1967 1100 CY Kennebec Albion USSP 240 1960 1000 CY Kennebec Albion SWLF 131 -- 443113 0692543 Fitted area is <1 AC Kennebec Augusta HZSS -- -- PCBs Superfund; Salvage Yard Kennebec Augusta USSP 240 1966 2500 CY Kennebec Augusta USSP 241 1920 3 CY , Kennebec Augusta USSP 242 1960 12000 CY Kennebec Augusta USSP 243 1973 350 CY; Near Kennebec R. Kennebec Augusta SWLF 132 -- 442531 0693148 Fitted area is >10 AC Kennebec Belgrade USSP 144 1970 4500 CY Kennebec- Belgrade USSP 245 ? 3000 CY Kennebec Be(grdde SWLF 133 442821 0695301 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Kennebec Belgrade SWLF 134 443043 0695150 Fitted area is 2 AC Kennebec Benton USSP 246 1950 2000 CY; Near Sebasticook R. Kennebec Chelsea LUST 63 -- A-15-83; 2 PW POLD Kennebec Chelsea USSP 247 1972 144 CY Kennebec Chelsea USSP 248 1972 1600 CY; Covered in 1987 Kennebec Chelsea SWLF 135 -- 441437 0694225 Filled area is 2 AC Kennebec China LUST 64 -- A-293-86; 1 PW POLD, 1 PW THNO Kennebec China USSP 249 1970 3000 CY Kennebec China SWLF 136 -- 442531 0693148 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Kennebec Clinton WWTL 13 1987 AC 3 WWTL1s; 25.0 AC Kennebec Clinton SWLF 137 -- 443751 0693023 Filled area is 1-5 AC. Kennebec Fairfield LUST 65 -- 8-53-82; 1 PW POLD Kennebec Farmingdale USSP 250 1977 >300 CY; Near Kennebec R. Kennebec Farmingdale USSP 251 ? ? Kennebec Fayette USSP 252 1978 2500 CY Kennebec Gardiner USSP 253 1969 5000 CY Kennebec HattoweiL USSP 254 1966 2500 CY; Near Kennebec R. Kennebec Hallowell SWLF 138 -- 441753 0694902 Fitted area is 2 AC Kennebec Litchfield USSP 255 1955 2500 CY; 1 PW POLD, 1 THND Kennebec Litchfield USSP 256 1972 3500 CY Kennebec Litchfield SWLF 139 -, 44119411 1691638 Filled area is 1-10 AC Kennebec Manchester USSP 257 1956 2000 CY Kennebec Monmouth LUST 66 -- A-189-86; I PW POLD, 2 PW THND Kennebec Monmouth LUST 67 -- A-7-86; 1 PW POLD Kennebec Monmouth USSP 258 1950 4000 CY Kennebec Monmouth SWLF 140 -- 441431 0700112 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Kennebec Mount Vernon SWLF 141 -- 442949 0695832 Fitted area is <1 AC Kennebec Mt. Vernon USSP 259 1979 2000 CY; 1 PW POLD Kennebec Mt. Vernon WWTL 14 -- AC 1 WWTL; 0.08 AC Kennebec Oakland LUST 68 -- A-176-84; 3 PW POLD Kennebec Oakland USSP 260 1945 240 CY Kennebec Oakland USSP 261 1976 5000 CY; Near Messatonskee Str. Kennebec Oakland SWLF 142 -- 443231 0694544 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Kennebec Pittston LUST 69 -- P-43-80; I PW POLD Kennebec Pittston USSP 262 1975 1987 3500 CY Kennebec Pittston SWLF 143 -- -- 440946 0694454 Filled area is 5-10 AC Kennebec Randolph USSP 263 1966 3500 CY Kennebec Readfield LUST 70 -- A-121-83; 1 PW POLD 7 COUNTY TOWN TYPE ID # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Kennebec Readfield LUST 71 -- P-136-81 & A-33-84;9PWPOLD,1 THND; 2 MW POLD Kennebec ReadfieLd USSP 264 1976 2000 CY Kennebec Readfield SWLF 144 -- 442256 0695610 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Kennebec Richmond LUST 72 -- A-23-83; I PW POLD, 2 PW THND Kennebec Rome USSP 265 1975 2500 CY; I PW POLD Kennebec Rome SWLF 145 -- 443557 0695401 Fitted area is 2 AC Kennebec S. China LUST 73 -- A-171-85; 4 PW POLD, 2 PW THND Kennebec S. China USSP 266 1968 5000 CY Kennebec Sidney USSP 267 1960 5000 CY Kennebec Sidney USSP 268 1969 3500 CY Kennebec Sidney SWLF 146 -- 442742 0694514 Filled area is 1-5 AC Kennebec VassaLboro LUST 74 A-51-a6; 1 PW POLD, 1 PW THND Kennebec Vassatboro USSP 269 1960 1500 CY Kennebec Vassatboro USSP 270 1970 3000 CY Kennebec Vassalboro SWLF 147 -- 442746 0693615 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Kennebec Vienna USSP 271 1952 400 CY Kennebec Vienna SWLF 148 -- 443511 0700145 Fitted area is 2 AC Kennebec Vienna SWLF 149 -- 443342 0700157 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Kennebec Waterville USSP 272 1955 2000 CY Kennebec Waterville SWLF 150 -- 443122 0694215 Fitted area is >10 AC Kennebec Wayne USSP 273 1980 1500 CY Kennebec Wayne SWLF 151 -- 441943 0700214 Filled area is 1-5 AC Kennebec West Gardiner USSP 274 1968 5000 CY; 3 PW POLD by USSP 274 & 275 Kennebec West Gardiner USSP 275 1955 2000 CY; 3 PW POLD by USSP 274 & 275 Kennebec West Gardiner ussp 276 1966 3500 CY Kennebec Windsor USSP 277 1970 2000 CY Kennebec Windsor SWLF 152 -- 441659 0693537 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Kennebec Winslow HZSS 16 -- Manufacturing; solvents Kennebec Winslow USSP 278 1980 5000 CY; 7 PW POLD Kennebec Winslow SWLF 153 -- 443004 0693543 Fitted area is 2 AC Kennebec Winthrop HZSS 17 -- 441632 695919 Landfill; solvents; Superfund; 1 PW POLD Kennebec Winthrop USSP 279 1957 6000 CY; PWS THND Kennebec Winthrop USSP 280 1956 4500 CY Kennebec Winthrop SWLF 154 -- 441632 0695919 Savage Site, Fitted area is 1-5 AC Knox Appleton USSP 281 <1970 1200 CY Knox Appleton SWLF 155 -- 441642 0691500 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Knox Camden USSP 282 1972 2500 CY Knox Camden USSP 283 1969 3800 CY Knox Cushing USSP 284 1974 11000 CY Knox Friendship LUST 75 -- A-151-84; 12 PW POLO, 27 PW THND Knox Friendship LUST 76 -- A-472-86; 1 PW POLO Knox Friendship USSP 285 1950 500 CY Knox Friendship SWLF 156 -- 440147 0691701 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Knox Hope USSP 296 1975 .1500 CY Knox N. Haven USSP 287 ? 300 CY Knox North Haven SWLF 157 Fitted area is <1 AC Knox Owl's Head LUST 77 A-280-86; 1 PW POLO, 1 PW THND Knox Owls Head USSP 291 1980 1150 CY Knox Rockland HZSS 18 -- Manufacturing; metals Knox Rockland LUST 78 A-146-85; 1 House Exptoded;5 MW FOLD &5 THND Knox Rockland LUST 79 A-451-86; I PW POLD, 3 PW THND Knox Rockland USSP 292 1960 1800 CY Knox Rockland SWLF 158 -- 440528 0690808 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Knox Rockport USSP 293 1971 3000 CY Knox Rockport USSP 294 1950 1986 2500 CY; moved to covered site in 1986 Knox Rockport SWLF 159 -- -- 441152 0690405 Fitted area is 5 AC Knox S Thomaston LUST 80 A-71-86; 1 PW POLD, 1 PW THND Knox South Hope HZSS 19 'Recycler'; solvents; 1 PW POLO Knox South Thomaston USSP 295 1985 1500 CY Knox St. George USSP 296 7 1000 CY Knox St. George USSP 297 1960 1000 CY Knox St. George SWLF 160 -- 435819 0691339 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Knox Thomaston HzSS 20 -- Manufacturing; solvents Knox Thomaston USSP 298 1970 1500 CY Knox Union USSP 299 1966 2500 CY Knox Union SWLF 161 -- 441308 0692024 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Knox VinaLhaven USSP 301 1985 200 CY; Near ocean Knox VinaLhaven SWLF 162 -- 440413 0684833 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Knox Warren LUST 81 A-38-86; 1 PW POLD, 1 PW THND Knox Warren LUST 82 A-39-86; 1 PW POLD Knox Warren USSP 302 1975 3500 CY Knox Warren SWLF 163 -- 440937 0691804 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Knox Warren SWLF 164 -- 440946 0691054 Fitted area is 2 AC Knox Washington USSP 303 1962 5000 CY; 3 PW POLD, 3 THND III - 8 IOU111 TOWN 1111 11 # 11GA1 STOP LAI IOIG 11MA111 Knox Washington USSP 304 1977 -- 2000 CY Knox Washington SWLF 165 -- -- 441546 0692415 Fitted area is <1 AC Lincoln ALna USSP 305 <1974 1985 2500 CY; 1 PW POLD, 3 THNO covered in 1985 Lincoln Atna SWLF 166 -- -- 440511 0693824 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Lincoln Boothbay LUST 83 A-167-84; 1 PW POLD, 1 PW THNO Lincoln Boothbay LUST 84 A-73-84; 4 PW POLD, 2 PW THND Lincoln Boothbay USSP 306 1979 1400 CY Lincoln Boothbay WWTL 15 -- AC 1 WWTL; 0.34 AC Lincoln Boothbay SWLF 167 -- 435252 0693650 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Lincoln Boothbay Harbor USSP 307 1965 1000 CY LincoLn Bremen USSP 3011 1971 1000 CY Lincoln Bristol USSP 309 1981 3000 CY Lincoln Bristol SWLF 168 -- 435415 0692947 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Lincoln Damariscotta USSP 310 1975 1300 CY Lincoln Damariscotta WWTL 16 1987 AC 3 WWTL1s; 2.30 AC Lincoln Damariscotta WWTL 17 -- AC 1.72 AC Lincoln Oamariscotta SWLF 169 -- 440218 0692915 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Lincoln Dresden USSP 311 1976 3000 CY; I PW POLD, 3 THND Lincoln Edgecomb LUST 85 -- A-208-85; I PWS POLO Lincoln Edgecomb USSP 312 1960 7500 CY; Near ocean Lincoln Jefferson USSP 313 1958 4000 CY; Site has 2 USSP Lincoln Jefferson SWLF 170 -- 441154 0693106 Filled area is 1-5 AC Lincoln Newcastle USSP 314 1966 2000 CY Lincoln Newcastle SWLF 171 -- 440458 0693345 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Lincoln Nobteboro USSP 315 1984 1200 CY Lincoln NobLeboro USSP 316 1986 1300 CY Lincoln NobLeboro SWLF 172 -- 440442 0693006 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Lincoln S. Bristol LUST 86 A-331-86; 1 PW POLD, 4 PW THND Lincoln Somerville LUST 87 B-145-82; 1 PW POLD Lincoln Somervi I te USSP 317 1940 1000 CY Lincoln Somerville Pl.t. SWLF 173 -- 441501 0692645 Filled area is <1 AC Lincoln South Bristol USSP 318 1946 2000 CY Lincoln Southport USSP 319 ? 500 CY; 1 PW POLD Lincoln Waldoboro 1ZSS 21 -- -- 440501 692211 Manufacturing; sol en1s & metals; PWS THNO Lincoln WaLdoboro LUST 88 A-14-83; 2 PW POLD Lincoln Watdoboro LUST 89 A-3-83; 1 PW POLD, I PW THND Lincoln WaLdoboro USSP 321 19T7 3500 CY Lincoln Waldoboro USSP 322 1975 3000 CY Lincoln WaLdoboro USSP 323 1961 240 CY Lincoln Waldoboro SWLF 174 -- 440817 0692613 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Lincoln WaLdoboro SWLF 175 -- 440600 0692138 Fitted area is 2 AC Lincoln Westport USSP 324 1981 2000 CY Lincoln Westport USSP 325 ? ? Lincoln WhitefieLd USSP 326 1985 3500 CY Lincoln Whitefietd SWLF 176 -- 1982 441438 0693442 Filled area is <1 AC Lincoln Wiscasset LUST 90 -- -- A-135-85; I PW POLD Lincoln Wiscasset USSP 327 1950 4500 ICY Lincoln Wiscasset SWLF 177 -- 440206 0694011 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Oxford Andover USSP 328 1975 2200 CY Oxford Andover SWLF 178 -- 443700 0704452 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Oxford Bethel USSP 329 1965 5000 CY Oxford Bethel USSP 330 1956 1300 CY Oxford Bethel SWLF 179 -- 442851 0704733 Fitted area is 15 AC oxford 'Brownfield USSP 331 ? 1200 CY Oxford Brownfield SWLF 180 435521 0705141 Fitted area is 10 AC Oxford Buckfield HZSS 22 'Recycterl; solvents oil; 1 PW POLD ford Buckfietd USSP 332 1984 3000 CY oxford Ruckfield SWLF 181 441833 0702144 Fitted area is 1-5 AC oxford Byron SWLF 182 444329 0703818 Fitted area is 2 AC ox oxford Canton USSP 333 1960 2600 CY Oxford Canton USSP 334 1950 2500 CY oxford Canton WWTL 18 1985 4 WWTL,s; 6.70 AC oxford Canton SWLF 183 -- 442712 0701729 Fitted area is 1-5 AC oxford Denmark USSP 335 1955 2000 CY Oxford Denmark SWLF 184 -- 435927 0704629 Fitted area is 10 AC Oxford Dixfield UISP 336 1966 3100 CY Oxford Dixfietd USSP 337 1980 2300 CY Oxford Fryeburg USSP 339 1962 3000 CY Oxford Fryeburg USSP 340 1940 15000 CY Oxford Fryeburg SWLF 185 -- 440343 705649 Fitted area is 10 AC oxford Gilead USSP 341 1954 1000 CY Oxford Gilead SWLF 186 -- 442342 0705815 Filled area is 10 AC Oxford Greenwood USSP 342 1981 3000 CY oxford Greenwood USSP 343 1967 14 CY III - 9 COUNTY TOWN TYPE ID # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Oxford Greenwood SWLF 187 -- 442351 0704134 Fitted area is 10 AC Oxford Hartford USSP 344 1983 ? Oxford Hartford SWLF 188 -- Fitted area is 1-5 AC Oxford Hebron USSP 345 1965 2300 CY Oxford Hebron SWLF 189 - 441357 0702234 Fitted area is 2 AC Oxford Hebron Academy SWLF 190 -- 441158 0702603 Fitted area is 2 AC Oxford Hiram USSP 338 1967 3800 CY Oxford Hiram USSP 346 -0970 3800 CY; Site has 2 USSP Oxford Lincoln Pit. SWLF 191 -- 445502 0705648 Filled area is 0 AC Oxford Lovett USSP 347 1970 945 CY Oxford Lovett SWILF 192 -- 440815 0705306 Fitted area is 2 AC Oxford Magattoway SWLF 193 -- 445108 710140 Fitted area is 2 AC Oxford Mexico USSP 348 1969 5000 CY; Near Swift R. Oxford Mexico USSP 349 ? ? Oxford Mexico/Rumford SWLF 194 -- 443604 0703207 Fitted area is 2 AC Oxford N. Lovett USSP 350 1960 2300 CY Oxford North Waterford USSP 351 1958 2000 CY Oxford Norway LUST 91 P-515-86; 1 PW POLD Oxford Norway USSP 352 1946 500 CY; Site has 2 USSP Oxford Norway WWTL 19 1965 2 WWTL1s; 9.87 AC Oxford Norway SWLF 195 -- 441216 0703147 Filled area is 15 AC Oxford otisfield USSP 353 <1965 1750 CY Oxford otisfietc! USSP 354 1980 1750 CY Oxford Oxford LUST 92 -- P-168-82; 2 PW THND Oxford Oxford LUST 93 -- P-366-86; I PW POLD, 1 PW THNO Oxford Oxford USSP 355 1955 3500 CY Oxford Oxford SWLF 196 -- 440858 0703004 Fitted area is 10 AC Oxford Paris USSP 356 1957 4000 CY Oxford Paris SWLF 198 -- Fitted area is 20 AC Oxford Paris SWLF 197 441447 0703121 Fitted area is 15 AC Oxford Parkertown SWLF 199 450037 0705932 Filled area is 2 AC Oxford Peru USSP 357 1970 3500 CY Oxford Peru SWLF 200 -- 442848 0702321 Fitted area is 2 AC Oxford Porter SWLF 201 -- 435125 705718 Filled area is 2 AC Oxford Roxbury USSP 358 1983 1500 CY Oxford Roxbury SWLF 202 -- 443748 0703858 Fitted area is 2 AC Oxford Rumford USSP 359 1962 1500 CY Oxford Rumford USSP 360 1973 6000 CY Oxford Rumford WWTL 20 1976 2 WWTL's; 2.69 AC Oxford S. Paris USSP 361 1968 3700 CY Oxford Stoneham USSP 362 1951 900 Cy Oxford Stow USSP 363 1984 1000 CY Oxford Sumner USSP 364 1983 3500 CY Oxford Sumner usSP 365 ?1983 CY Abandoned USSP Oxford Sweden USSP 366 1980 -- 1400 CY Oxford Upton USSP 367 1965 800 CY; 1 PW POLD Oxford Upton SWLF 203 -- 444129 0705837 Filled area is 5 AC oxford Upton SWLF 2D4 -- 444127 0705858 Fitted area is <1 AC oxford Waterford USSP 368 1965 2100 CY; 1 PW POLD, 1 THND oxford Waterford SWLF 205 -- 440854 0704316 Fitted area is 10 AC oxford West Paris USSP 369 1967 3000 CY oxford West Paris SWLF 206 441925 0703346 Filled area is 10 AC oxford West Peru SWLF 207 443101 0702729 Fitted area is 2 AC oxford Wilson's Mitts USSP 370 1971 2500 CY Oxford Woodstock USSP 371 1930 3000 CY oxford Woodstock SWLF 208 -- 442435 0703827 Fitted area is 10 AC Penobscot Alton USSP 372 1985 1000 CY Penobscot Alton USSP 373 1965 2500 CY Penobscot Argyle USSP 374 1985 1200 CY Penobscot Bangor LUST 94 -- B-76-81; 1 PW POLD Penobscot Bangor USSP 375 ? ? Penobscot Bangor USSP 376 1963 9900 CY; Site has 2 USSP Penobscot Bangor USSP 377 1978 4000 CY Penobscot Bangor SWLF 209 - 445137 0684419 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Penobscot Bradford USSP 378 1973 5000 CY Penobscot Bradford SWLF 210 -- 450601 0685512 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Bradley USSP 379 1984 1100 CY Penobscot Bradley USSP 380 1970 1200 CY Penobscot Brewer USSP 381 1940 2500 CY Penobscot Brewer USSP 382 1954 300 CY Penobscot Brewer SWLF 211 -- 444556 0684520 Fitted area is >10 AC Penobscot Burlington USSP 383 1970 ? Penobscot Burlington SWLF 212 - 451231 W2608 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Carmet USSP 384 1955 35001CY III - 10 COUNTY TOWN TYPE 10 N BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Penobscot Carmel ussp 385 1955 2500 CY Penobscot Carmel ussp 386 ? 3000 CY Penobscot Carmel SWLI 113 1916 444131 0690411 Filled area is <1 AC Penobscot Charleston LUST 95 -- 8-171-84;2 PW POLD, 1 THND;3 MW POLD, 1 THNO' Penobscot Charleston ussp 387 1963 -- ? Penobscot Charleston USSP 388 <1965 1500 CY Penobscot Charleston SWLF 214 -- 450431 0690413 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Chester USSP 389 1981 1600 CY Penobscot Chester SWLF 215 -- 452413 0683126 Filled area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Clifton USSP 390 1985 700 CY Penobscot Corinna HZSS 23 -- Source Unknown; solvents; 6 PW POLD Penobscot Corinna LUST 96 -- 8-251-86; 1 PW POLD Penobscot Corinna USSP 391 1960 3500 CY Penobscot Corinna SWLF 216 445845 0691337 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Corinth LUST 97 B-4-85; 1 PW POLD Penobscot Corinth ussP 392 1976 800 CY P enobscot Corinth USSP 393 1966 3000 CY Penobscot Corinth SWLF 217 -- 445802 0690000 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Dexter HzSS 24 Manufacturing; solvents & metals; 5 MW POLD Penobscot Dexter LUST 98 B-168-86; 1 PW POLD, 1 PW THNO Penobscot Dexter LUST 99 B-87-81; I PW POLD, 1 PW THNO Penobscot Dexter USSP 394 1967 ? Penobscot Dexter USSP 395 1964 3000 CY Penobscot Dexter WWTL 21 1987 5 WWTL's; 14.2 AC Penobscot Dexter SWLF 218 450115 0691610 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Penobscot Dixmont LUST 110 13-406-86; 1 PW POLD, I PW THND Penobscot Dixmont USSP 396 ? 1500 CY; 2 PW POLD Penobscot Dixmont USSP 397 1980 200 CY Penobscot Dixmont SWLF 219 - 444220 0691032 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Drew PLtn. USSP 398 1962 400 CY Penobscot E. MiLLinocket USSP 400 1971 2000 CY Penobscot E. Millinocket USSP 401 1985 840 CY Penobscot East MittinocketWWTL 22 1976 2 WWTL,s; 27.0 AC Penobscot East MillinocketSWLF 220 -- 453756 0683507 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Eddington LUST 101 -- B-239-85; 1 PW POLD, 1 PW THNO Penobscot Eddington USSP 402 1966 2500 CY Penobscot Eddington USSP 403 ? ? Penobscot Enfield USSP 404 1966 11000 CY; 2 PW POLD, 9 THNO Penobscot Enfield USSP 405 ? 2000 CY Penobscot Enfield SWLF 221 451445 0683506 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Etna LUST 102 B-103-85; 2 PW THNO Penobscot Etna USSP 406 7 ? Penobscot Exeter USSP 407 1970 3200 CY Penobscot Exeter SWLF 222 -- 445825 0691054 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Garland USSP 407 1940 3000 CY Penobscot Garland SWLF 223 .. 450318 0690944 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Gtenburn USSP 409 1980 1000 CY Penobscot Glenburn USSP 00 1972 2000 CY; 2 PW POLD, 9 THHD; Covered in 1987 Penobscot Glenburn SWLF 224 -- 441631 1615055 Filled area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Greenbush USSP 411 1985 2200 CY Penobscot Greenbush USSP 412 ? ? Penobscot Greenbush SWLF 225 450651 0683429 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Greenfield LUST 103 B-153-86; 1 PW POLD, 4 PW THNO Penobscot Greenfield SWLF 226 450221 0682854 Filled area is <1 AC Penobscot Grindstone USSP 413 1978 2000 CY Penobscot Hampden LUST 104 -- 8-149-85; 1 PW THNO Penobscot Hampden USSP 414 1960 3500 CY; 1 PW POLD, 2 THND; Covered in 1988 Penobscot Hampden SWLF 245 - 444607 685158 Filled area is >10 AC P:nobscot Hermon USSP 415 1945 3250 CY; Moved under cover.in 1987 P nobscot Hermon SWLF 227 -- Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Holden USSP 416 1982 3600 CY Penobscot Howland USSP 417 1985 800 CY Penobscot Howland USSP 418 1952 1600 CY Penobscot Howland SWLF 228 .. -- 451405 0684238 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Penobscot Hudson USSP 419 1975 -- 2000 CY Penobscot Hudson SWLF 229 -- 445935 0685818 Filled area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Indian 3 Twp USSP 420 1974 400 CY Penobscot Kenduskeag LUST 105 -- B-129-80; 3 PW POLD,2 THND; 2 MW POLD,3 POLO Penobscot Kenduskeag LUST 106 B-32-86; 3 PW POLD, 3 PW THND Penobscot Kenduskeag LUST 107 B-7-83; 1 PWS THND Penobscot Kenduskeag USSP 421 1951 3000 CY P:nobscot Kenduskeag USSP 422 1960 1600 CY P nobscot Kenduskeag SWLF 230 -- 445355 0685654 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Lagrange LUST 108 B-345-86; 3 PW POLO, 2 PW & I PWS THWO COUNTY TOWN TYPE ID # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Penobscot Lagrange USSP 423 1960 2500 CY Penobscot LaGrange USSP 424 1975 ? Penobscot Lagrange SWLF 231 - 451035 0685110 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Lee LUST 109 -- B-112-82; 4 PW POLO, 3 PW THND; 10 MW POLD Penobscot Lee USSP 425 1984 1000 CY Penobscot Lee SWLF 232 -- 452140 0681734 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Levant LUST 110 -- 8-99-84; 1 PW POLO, 2 PW THND Penobscot Levant USSP 426 1952 2750 CY; 1 PW POLD, 2 THND; Covered in 1988 Penobscot Levant SWLF 248 445400 0690155 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Lincoln USSP 427 1984 6000 CY; Site has 2 USSP Penobscot Lincoln USSP 428 7 400 CY Penobscot Lincoln USSP 429 ? 200 CY Penobscot Lincoln WW[TL 23 1976 1 WWTL; 1.65 AC Penobscot Lincoln SWLF 233 - 452206 0683210 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Long A USSP 430 1968 ? Penobscot Lowell USSP 431 1962 800 cy Penobscot Mattawamkeag SWLF 234 -- 453058 0682041 Filled area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Maxfietd USSP 432 ? ? Penobscot Medway LUST 111 8-220-84; 1 PW POLD Penobscot Medway USSP 433 7 ? Penobscot Medway USSP 434 ? ? Penobscot Medway SWLF 235 -- 1978 453706 0683212 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Milford USSP 435 ? -- ? %Penobscot Milford SWLF 236 445637 06,83405 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot MilLinocket LUST 112 B-203-83; 1 PW FOLD, 2 PW THND Penobscot Mittinocket USSP 436 7 Site has 2 USSP Penobscot MiLLinocket USSP 437 ? ? Penobscot MiLtinocket WWTL 24 1973 3 WWTL1s; 4.36 AC Penobscot Miltinocket WWTL 25 1976 1 WWTL; 6.0 AC Penobscot Mittinocket SWLF 237 -- 454030 0684336 Fitted area is 7 AC Penobscot Mt. Chase USSP 438 1984 1200 CY; 1 PW POLD, 4 THND Penobscot Mt. Chase USSP 439 ? ? Penobscot Mt. Chase Pit. SWLF 2.38 460525 0683253 Fitted area is 1 AC Penobscot Newburgh LUST 113 B-238-85; 1 PW POLD Penobscot Newburgh USSP 440 1985 1400 CY Penobscot Newport USSP 441 1981 120 CY Penobscot Newport USSP 442 1978 2000 CY Penobscot Newport SWLF 239 - 444914 0691633 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Penobscot Old Town LUST 114 -- B-537-86; 1 PW POLD, 2 PW THND Penobscot Old Town USSP 443 1969 5000 CY Penobscot Old Town USSP 4" 1980 14 CY Penobscot Old Town USSP 445 1970 100 CY Penobscot Old Town USSP 446 1970 100 CY Penobscot Old Town WWTL 26 1976 1 WWTL; 11.0 AC Penobscot Old Town SWLF 240 -- 444941 0684142 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Penobscot Orono LUST 115 B-198-84; 1 PWS THND Penobscot Orono LUST 116 B-264-85; 1 PW THND Penobscot Orono LUST 117 B-332-86; 1 PW FOLD, 3 PW THND Penobscot Orono USSP 447 1966 3500 CY Penobscot Orono USSP 448 ? ? Penobscot Orono SWLF 241 445408 0684332 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Orrington LUST 118 B-155-85; 4 PW THND Penobscot Orrington USSP 449 @c 1975 2000 CY Penobscot Pasasadumkeag SWLF 242 -- 451207 0683552 Fitted area is <1 AC Penobscot Passadumkeag USSP 450 1980 700 CY; I PW POLD, 1 THND Penobscot Patten USSP 451 1960 1450 CY Penobscot Patten USSP 452 1971 2500 CY Penobscot Patten SWLF 243 -- 455934 0682602 Fitted area is >10 AC Penobscot Plymouth HZSS 25 Source Unknown; solvents & oit Penobscot Plymouth LUST 119 B-497-86; 1 PW POLD, 9 PW THND Penobscot Plymouth USSP 453 1963 8000 CY Penobscot Plymouth USSP 454 1982 1550 CY Penobscot Plymouth SWLF 244 -- 444516 0691200 Fitted area is 1 AC Penobscot Prentiss Pit. USSP 455 1980 1900 CY Penobscot Springfield USSP 456 1984 1000 CY; 1 PW POLD Penobscot Springfield USSP 457 1968 4500 CY Penobscot Springfield USSP 458 1984 500 CY Penobscot Springfield SWLF 246 -- 452632 0680702 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Stetson USSP 459 1973 1898 CY Penobscot Stittwater USSP 460 1980 500 CY Penobscot Veazie USSP 461 -0945 640 CY; Site has 2 USSP Penobscot Veazie SWLF 249 -- 444941 0684206 Fitted area is <1 AC Penobscot Webster Pit USSP 462 1971 450 CY Penobscot Winn LUST 120 -- B-508-86; 1 PW POLO III - 12 COUNTY TOWN TYPE ID # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Penobscot Winn USSP 463 1963. 6000 CY Penobscot Winn area is 1-5 AC Penobscot Woodville ussP 464 1978 1500 CY Piscataquis Abbot USSP 465 1974 1300 CY Piscataquis Abbot SWLF 251 -- 451130 0692655 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Piscataquis Atkinson uSSP 466 1965 1000 CY Piscataquis Bowerbank usSP 467 1960 ? Piscataquis Bowerbank SWLF 252 -- 451629 0691236 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Piscataquis Brownville USSP 468 1961 600 CY Piscataquis Brownville USSP 469 1962 4000 CY Piscataquis Brownville SWLF 254 -- 1973 451802 0690131 Fitted area is 2 AC Piscataquis Brownville ict. SWLF 253 -- 1973 452058 0690259 Fitted area is <1 AC Piscataquis Burbank Twp USSP 470 1974 -- 3500 CY Piscataquis Dover Foxcroft USSP 471 1980 2000 CY Piscataquis Dover-Foxcroft HZSS 26 -- 451057 691300 Manufacturing; metals Piscataquis Dover-Foxcroft LUST 121 8-265-85; 1 PW THNO Piscataquis Dover-Foxcroft SWLF 255 - 451206 0691220 Filled area is 5-10 AC Piscataquis Ettiotsvitte PttUSSP 472 1981 675 CY Piscataquis Greenville USSP 473 1980 1500 CY Piscataquis Greenville USSP 474 1960 2800 cy Piscataquis Greenville WWTL 27 1979 5 WWTLIs; 1.86 AC Piscataquis Greenville SWLF 256 -- 452846 0693333 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Piscataquis Guilford USSP 475 1961 4500 CY Piscataquis Guilford USSP 4T6 1969 1200 CY Piscataquis Guilford USSP 47 1968 1800 CY Piscataquis Guilford WWTL 28 1988 4 WWTLIs; 9.6 AC Piscataquis Hartford's PointLUST 122 -- B-139-85; 1 PW THND Piscataquis Lakeview PLt. SWLF 257 451914 0685526 Filled area is 1-5 AC Piscataquis Lily Bay Twp. SWLF 258. 453343 0693240 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Piscataquis Milo USSP 478 ? Piscataquis Milo LISSP 479 ? ? Piscataquis Milo SWLF 259 -- 451632 0685927 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Piscataquis Monson USSP 480 1964 2500 CY Piscataquis Monson SWLF 260 - 451737 0692947 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Piscataquis Parkman USSP 481 1963 1185 CY Piscalaquis Parkman SWLF 261 -, 1979 451913 0692326 Filled area is 1 AC Piscataquis Sangerville LUST 123 -- -- 8-143-86; 1 PW POLO Piscataquis SangerviLle USSP 482 1975 2500 CY Piscataquis SangerviLle USSP 483 ? ? Piscataquis SangerviLle SWLF 262 -- 450837 0692041 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Piscataquis Sebec USSP 484 1975 1000 CY Piscataquis Sebec: SWLF 263 -- 451643 0690546 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Piscataquis Shirley USSP 485 1970 4000 CY Piscataquis Shirley USSP 486 1970 300 CY Piscalaquis Shirley SWLF 264 -- 451211 1693622 Filled area is 11 AC Piscataquis T-AR12 USSP 487 1985 1500 CY Piscataquis TWO-Abot USSP 488 1974 3850 CY Piscataquis T2R10-Horserace USSP 489 1974 2000 CY; Near West Branch Penobscot R. Piscataquis T3R14 USSP 490 1974 400 CY Piscataquis T4R11 USSP 491 1974 2000 CY Piscataquis T5R11 USSP 492 1974 200 CY Piscataquis Wellington USSP 493 ? ? Piscataquis Wellington USSP .494 ? 1000 CY Piscataquis Willimantic SWLF 265 451757 0692250 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Piscataquis Willimantic SWLF 266 451826 0692301 Fitted area is 2 AC Sagadahoc Bath USSP 495 1965 3000 CY & metals; 11 PW POLO Sagahahoc Bath HZSS 27 -- Landfill; solvents Sagahahoc: Bath HZSS 28 manufacturing; phenots agadahoc Bath SWLF 267 -- 435624 0694932 Fitted area is 35 AC Sagadahoc Bowdoin USSP 496 1974 1372 CY SSagadahoc Bowdoinham LUST 124 -- P-211-84; 1 PW POLD, 1 PW THND Sagadahoc Bowdoinham USSP 497 <1960 2000 CY; Near Cathance R. (tidaL) Sagadahoc Bowdoinham SWLF 268 -- 440138 0695257 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Sagadahoc Georgetown USSP 498 19T? 1000 CY Sagadahoc Georgetown SWLF 269 434802 0694521 Fitted area is 5 AC Sagadahoc Phippsburg LUST 125 P-34-86; I PW POLD Sagadahoc Phippsburg LUST 126 P-384-86; 1 PW POLD, 3 PW THNO agadahoc: Phippsburg LUST 127 P-517-86; 2 PW POLD, 2 PW THNO Sagadahoc Phippsburg ussP 499 1600 CY Sagadahoc Phippsburg SWLF 270 -- 434720 0694930 Fitted area is 5 AC S Sagadahoc' Richmond USSP 500 1956 6000 CY Sagadahoc: Richmond USSP 501 1983 3800 CY Sagadahoc Richmond SWLF 271 -- 440602 0694758 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Sagadahoc Topsham USSP 502 1971 6000 CY it[ - 13 COUNTY T OWN TYPE ID # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Sagadahoc Topsham USSP 503 1927 2500 CY Sagadahoc Topsham SWLF 272 -- 435606 0695520 Fitted area is 15 AC Sagadahoc: W. Bath USSP 504 1970 1700 CY Sagadahoc Woolwich USSP 505 1982 1500 CY Sagadahoc Woolwich USSP 506 1982 500 CY Sagadahoc Woolwich USSP 507 1979 500 CY Sagadahoc Woolwich SWLF 273 -- 435551 0694808 Fitted area is 15 AC Somerset Anson USSP 508 1960 1500 cy Somerset Anson SWLF 274 -- 445040 0695203 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Somerset Anson-Madison WWTL 29 1975 AC 2 WWTLIs; 8.0 AC Somerset Athens LUST 128 B-176-85; 1 PW FOLD Somerset Athens USSP 509 1946 1100 CY Somerset Athens USSP 511 1961 3000 CY Somerset Athens SWLF 275 -- 445757 0693810 Filled area is 1-5 AC Somerset Big Six Twp USSP 511 1981 250 CY Somerset Bingham USSP 512 1975 3000 CY; Site has 2 USSP Somerset Bradford LUST 129 B-123-82; 1 PW POLD Somerset Brighton USSP 513 1976 2000 CY Somerset Brighton Pit. SWLF 276 -- 450242 0694107 Fitted area is <1 AC Somerset Brighton Pit. SWLF 277 450225 0694127 Filled area is 2 AC Somerset Cambridge LUST 130 B-5-86; 1 PW POLD, 1 PW THND Somerset Cambridge LUST 131 8-6-86; 1 PW POLD Somerset Cambridge USSP 514 1984 600 CY Somerset Cambridge SWLF 278 -- 450214 0692803 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Somerset Canaan USSP 515 1965 2000 CY Somerset Canaan USSP 516 1975 2000 CY Somerset Canaan USSP 517 7 Near TweLvemite Bk. Somerset Canaan SWLF 279 -- 444952 0693601 Fitted area is 2 AC Somerset Concord Twp./SinSWLF 280 -- 450106 0695203 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Somerset CornviLLe USSP 518 1983 2062 cy Somerset CornviLte SWLF 281 -- 444959 0693919 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Somerset Detroit USSP 519 1945 1100 Cy Somerset Dixfield SWLF 282 -- 443147 0702420 Fitted area is 2 AC Somerset Dole Brook Twp. USSP 520 1974 250 CY Somerset Embden USSP 521 ? 2000 CY_ Somerset Fairfield USSP 522 1966 11000 CY Somerset Fairfield USSP 523 ? ? Somerset Fairfield SWLF 283 -- 443554 0693610 Filled area is >10 AC Somerset Harmony USSP 524 1981 1650 CY Somerset Harmony SWLF 284 -- 445958 0693422 Fitted area is <1 AC Somerset Harmony SWLF 285 -- 445908 0693328 Fitted area is 2 AC Somerset Hartland USSP 525 1939 1000 CY Somerset Hartland SWLF 2a6 -- 445329 0692M Fitted area is 1-5 AC Somerset Highland Pit USSP 526 1985 750 CY Somerset Highland Pit. SWLF 287 -- 450314 0700441 Fitted area is <1 AC Somerset Jackman USSP 527 1964 4500 CY Somerset Jackman USSP 528 1969 400 CY Somerset Jackimn SWLF 288 -- 453836 0701346 Filled area is 1-5 AC Somerset Madison USSP 529 ? ? Somerset Madison SWLF 289 -- -- 444550 0695244 Fitted area is 2 AC Somerset Mayfield Twp. USSP 530 ? ? Somerset Mercer USSP 531 ? ? Somerset Mercer USSP 532 ? ? Somerset Mercer SWLF 290 -- 444157 0695544 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Somerset Moscow USSP 533 1979 ? Somerset Moscow USSP 534 1968 ? Somerset New Portland SWLF 291 445426 0700312 Fitted area is 2 AC Somerset Norridgewock LUST 132 -- A-427-86; 1 PW POLD, I PW THND Somerset Norridgewock USSP 535 0965 ? Somerset Norridgewock SWLF 292 -- 444314 0694856 Fitted area is 15 AC Somerset North Anson USSP 536 1965 1200 CY Somerset Palmyra USSP 537 1978 600 CY Somerset Partin Pond SWLF 293 -- 453118 0700545 Fitted area is 2 AC Somerset Pittsfield HzSS 29 -- Manufacturing; solvents Somerset Pittsfield USSP 538 1964 5500 CY Somerset Pittsfield USSP 539 1967 2000 CY Somerset Pittsfield WWTL 30 1978 AC 2 WWTL's; 68.87 AC Somerset Pittsfield SWLF 294 444553 0692125 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Somerset Pleas.Ridge Pit USSP 540 1940 1450 CY Somerset Pleasant Ridge PSWLF 295 450403 0695628 Fitted area is <1 AC Somerset Ripley USSP 541 1962 1600 CY Somerset Rockwood USSP 542 1967 2000 CY; 2PW POLD, 9 THND; Covered in 1985 Somerset Rockwood USSP 543 1985 100 CY; Covered in 1985 Somerset Rockwood Strip SWLF 296 -- 453904 0694534 Fitted area is 1-5 AC III - 14 COUNTY TOWN TYPE ID # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG, REMARKS, Somerset Skowhegan LUST 133 -- B-5-82; 1 PW POLO Somerset Skowhegan USSP 544 <1950 5000 CY Somerset Skowhegan USSP 545 1983 3000 CY Somerset Skowhegan WWTL 31 1976 AC 3 WWTL1,s; 23.1 AC Somerset Skowhegan SWLF 297 -- 444759 0694308 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Somerset Smithfield USSP 546 1960 2500 CY; 1 PW POLO Somerset Smithfield SWLF 298 -- 443957 0694956 Fitted area is <1 AC Somerset Solon USSP 547 1967 4000 CY Somerset Solon USSP 548 1962 1000 CY Somerset Solon SWLF 299 -- 445442 0695052 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Somerset St. Albans USSP 549 1950 2500 CY Somerset St. Albans SWLF 300 -- --@,445416 0692451 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Somerset Starks LUST 134 -- A-152-85; 2 PW POLO Somerset Starks USSP 550 1965 2000 CY Somerset Starks SWLF 301 -- 444438 0695756 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Somerset 12 R7 uSSP 551 19111 2000 CY Somerset T2R6 USSP 552 1977 4000 CY Somerset T4R18 USSP 553 1974 3750 CY; Near North Branch Penobscot R. Somerset T5R17 USSP 554 1979 1500 CY Somerset T6 R17 WELS LUST 135 -- B-2-86; 1 PW TMND Somerset The Forks SWLF 302 452025 0695736 fitted area is 1-5 AC Somerset West Forks LUST 136 B-263-86 & 8-463-86; 3PW&1PWS POLD,10 PW THN Somerset West Forks USSP 555 1964 3000 CY Waldo Belfast LUST 137 -- B-131-85; 1 PW THND Waldo Belfast LUST 138 B-134-85; 1 PW THND Waldo Belfast LUST 139 B-59-80; 2 PW POLO Waldo Belfast uSSP 556 1965 2000 CY Waldo Belfast SWLF 303 -- 442511 0690406 Fitted area is 5-10 AC Waldo Belmont USSP 557 1500 CY a(do Brooks LUST 140 9-25-85; 5 PW POLD, 3 PW THND Waldo Brooks USSP 558 1956 3000 CY Waldo Brooks USSP 559 1964 1500 CY W Waldo Brooks SWLF 304 -- 443316 0690600 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Waldo Frankfort USSP 560 1974 2000 CY Waldo Freedc(n LUST 141 -- A-130-84; 1 PW THND Waldo Freedom USSP 561 1978 1400 CY Waldo Freedom SWLF 305 -- 442956 0691914 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Waldo Istesboro USSP 562 1976 2800 CY Waldo IsLesbro SWLF 106 -- 442239 06,15131 Filled area is 1-5 AC Waldo Jackson USSP 563 ? 1500 CY Waldo Knox USSP 564 1959 3000 CY; 2 PW POLD, 1 PWS THND Waldo Knox USSP 565 1983 1500 CY Waldo Liberty LISSP 566 ? 1200 CY Waldo Liberty SWLF 307 -- 442333 0692256 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Waldo LincolnviLLe USSP 567 1970 2750 CY; 1 PW POLD, 1 PWS THNO Waldo Monroe USSP 568 1965 3000 CY Waldo Monroe SWLF 308 -- 443712 0690036 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Waldo Montville USSP 569 1985 2500 CY Waldo Montville USSP 570 1972 3500 CY; 2 PW POLO; Covered in 1985 Waldo Montville SWILF 309 -- 442525 0691957 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Waldo Morrill USSP 571 1966 800 CY Waldo Northport LUST 142 -- A-91-84; 1 PW POLO Waldo Northport USSP 572 1938 3500 CY Waldo Northport USSP 573 1960 700 CY Waldo Northport SWLF 310 -- 441935 0685847 Fitted area is 2 AC Waldo Palermo USSP 574 1978 1800 CY Waldo Prospect USSP 575 1965 1800 CY: 1 PW POLD, 1 THND Waldo Prospect SWLF 311 -- 443257 0685241 Fitted area is <1 AC Waldo Searsmont LUST 143 -- A-416-86; 2 PW POLO Waldo Searsmont USSP 576 1982 2000 CY Waldo Searsmont SWLF 312 -- 442129 0690803 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Waldo Searsport UPSP 579 ? on pad next to ocean Waldo Searsport usSP 577 1961 3500 CY Waldo Searsport uSSP 578 1978 2000 CY Waldo Searsport SWLF 313 -- 442716 0685738 Filled area is 5-10 AC Waldo Stockton SpringsUSSP 580 1948 2400 CY Waldo Swanvilte LUST 144 - B-85-82; 2 PW POLD, 1 PW THND Waldo Swanville USSP 581 <1960 2000 cy Waldo Swanvitte SWLF 314 - 442915 0690025 Fitted area is 1-5 AC Waldo Thorndike USSP 582 1964 3000 CY Waldo Troy USSP 583 1971 1500 CY Waldo Unity USSP 584 1955 2000 CY Waldo Unity USSP 585 1950 1500 CY Waldo Unity WWTL 32 1974 AC 2 WWTL1s; 1.50 AC 15 COUNTY TOWN TYPE ID # BEGAN STOP LAT LONG REMARKS Waldo Unity SWLF 315 443512 0691726 Filled area is 1-5 AC Waldo Waldo USSP 586 1000 CY Waldo Waldo SWLF 316 442750 0690850 Filled area is 1-5 AC Waldo Winterport USSP 587 1976 6000 CY Waldo winterport USSP 588 1953 2000 CY Waldo Winterport SWLF 317 -- 443759 0685222 Fitted area is 1-5 AC 111 16 I I I I I . I t I I I 111101111011mill 11 3 6668 000-00 6751 1 1 I -1 -I il