DOCSLIB.ORG

1998 CCSWCD Royal River Water Quality Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

" . ROYAL RIV£~ WATERSHED: A W1AT£R QUALITY .'l ·MANA6£M£NT PLAN 1 I I J \ ] ( J J J J j J Cumberland County SWCD Project Staff & Report Production Forrest Bell, Project Manager Alison Kisch, Conservation Technician Linda Johnson, Research Assistant ACKNOW'LED6.MENTS The Royal River Watershed Project and this report would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals, groups and agencies. We would like to recognize and thank the following contributors: Royal River Watershed Advisory Committee Charlie Chandler, resident, New Gloucester Bill Ecyleshymer, resident, Yarmouth Judith Ecyleshymer, resident, Yarmouth Dottie Laber, public relations advisor, Orono Edwin Springer, resident, Brunswick Ted Teidemann, resident, North Yarmouth Royal River Watershed Technical Advisory Committee and Report Review Team Deb Aja, Maine DEP Susan Beede, US EPA John Boland, ME Inland Fish & Wildlife Lenny Brooks, New Gloucester David Chiapetta, USDA NRCS Ross Cudlitz, CCSWCD Chris Curtis, Yarmouth Water District Cliff Curtis, Maine DOT Lee Doggett, Maine DEP Betty Farley, CCSWCD Melissa Gormley Florence Grosvenor, Maine DEP Katherine Groves, Casco Bay Est. Project Sherry Hanson, Casco Bay Est. Proj. Phoebe Hardesty, Andy Valley SWCD Mary Holman, Friends of Royal River Bob Houston, North Yarmouth resident John Jemison, UMaine Coop. Exten. Don Kale, Maine DEP Steve Linnell, Greater Portland COG Greg & Lisa Taylor Lord, Americorps Janet Mclaughlin, Town of Yarmouth Wayne Munroe, USDA NRCS Steve Ranney, City of Auburn Diane Switzer, US EPA Leon Tsomides, Maine DEP Peter Wagner, UMaine Coop. Extension Lois Winter, US Fish & Wildlife Serv. Don Witherill, Maine DEP Diane Yorke, US Forest Service Project sponsors/partners and their roles • Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District (CCSWCD) is the main sponsor of the Royal River Watershed 104(b)(3) Planning Project. The CCSWCD is responsible for carrying out the objectives of the grant and completing the Royal River Watershed Management Plan. • United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is the provider of funds for the Royal River Watershed 104(b)(3) Planning Project and is responsible for overseeing the timely and effective completion of the project. • United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) is a close partner of the CCSWCD and provided guidance, technical assistance, and coordination assistance for the watershed project. The USDA NRCS initiated a PL 83-566 Small Watershed Planning Project in the Royal River Watershed. • Casco Bay Estuary Project (CBEP) provided guidance, Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, technical assistance, and coordination assistance for the watershed project. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 II. Watershed Description ....................................................................... .. 2 III. Water Quality Issues in the Watershed ..................................................... 9 IV. Site Specific Water Quality Problems and Solutions .................................. .. 14 v. General Recommendations for Addressing Water Quality Issues .................. .. 22 VI. Glossary of Terms ............................................................................. .. 26 VII. Bibliography ................................................................................... .. 31 VIII. Appendices A. Results from Freeport Public Meeting - 1994. ...... ... .... .. ......... .... .. .... .. .. ...... .. 33 B. Chronology of Events and Structure of the Royal River Project ..... .. .. .... .. ....... 35 C. 1997 State of Maine Fish Consumption Advisories........................................ 38 D. Water Quality Concerns of the Municipalities in the Watershed......................... 40 E. Department of Marine Resources 1995 Sanitary Survey for R.R. Estuary............. 47 F. Royal River 1995-96 Dredging Project Summary............................................ 51 G. Existing, Ongoing, and Previous Water Quality Efforts in Watershed................. 52 H. McKin Site Summary and Information on TCE..... .... .... .... ...... .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. 60 I. Hazardous Substance Emergency Response Plan........................................... 63 J. State of Maine 1996 Water Quality Assessment Summary ................................. 64 Listing of Maps, Tables, and Figures Location M 1 Royal River Watershed Base Map.............................................................. 1-2 M 2 Royal River within the Casco Bay Watershed ................................................ 1-2 T 1 Percentage of Land, by Town, in Royal River Watershed ................................. 2 F 2-1 U.S. Census Population Figures for Watershed.............................................. 6 F 2-2 Population Increase 1970-90...................................................................... 6 F 2-3 Projected Increase in Housing Units 1990-2000.... .... .. .... .. .......... ..... ..... .... .. .. 7 M 3 Monitoring Site Locations - Friends of the Royal River.................................... 11-12 M 4 Monitoring Site Locations - Maine Department of Environmental Protection ......... 11-12 M 5 Surface Water Quality Problem Sites ........................................................... 14-15 M 6 Threats to Ground·water in Watershed......................................................... 20-21 I. INTRODUCTION In February of 1994, the Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) held a public forum to identify the environmental concerns of Royal River Watershed residents and to form a consensus of watershed resource issues. Later these problems, concerns, and issues were reviewed and prioritized by the project sponsors and technical advisors. The results of this meeting (See Appendix A for a complete listing) initiated a planning project for the Royal River Watershed. The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) received and approved a request from the Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District to sponsor a Public Law 83-566 Small Watershed Project in this region. In addition, a Clean Water Act 104(b)(3) grant was issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to aid in the assessment of the Royal River Watershed and to develop this water quality management report. During the next two years (1995-96), the Royal River Watershed Planning Project was launched with the help of several individuals, groups, and agencies. The project was overseen by two groups - a technical steering team and a watershed advisory committee. (Appendix B gives a detailed breakdown of the structure of the project). These two groups donated much of their time to assessing the watershed and assisting the project sponsor - the Cumberland County SWCD - to provide outreach and education to the citizens of the watershed. A mission statement was developed to help guide the project. MISSIONSTATEMENT The mission of the Royal River Watershed Project is to develop a long-term water quality management plan to protect and enhance the river anditswatershed so thatfuture generations can benefit from the full potential of the natural resources. · In the winter of 1996, it became evident that the PL 83-566 process was not going to be advantageous for the Royal River Watershed. Federal funding under the program was drastically cut, and the project committees decided to focus efforts on completing the Royal River Water Quality Management Plan. While goals of the project were streamlined to fit with the objectives of this water quality management plan, the mission of the groups and agencies remains the same. The Royal River Water Quality Management Plan is designed for the residents of the watershed so that they can work together to improve, restore, and protect surface waters and groundwater in the Royal River Watershed. In addition to assessing and describing the present state of water quality in the Royal River Watershed, this management plan offers suggestions on how to provide long and short term protection of surface waters and groundwater. In particular, the plan recommends ways to restore and enhance indigenous and resident fisheries and other aquatic life in the surface waters of the watershed, and increase opportunities for human enjoyment of surface waters through water quality protection and improvements. Note: The Royal River Water Quality Management Plan includes technical terms that many people may be unfamiliar with. Some of these terms are included in a Glossary, which begins on page 31. 1 l l \ J. l } USGS Roads USGS Streams USGS Rivers ' J Town Boundary ·•· I Data Soi.cee: 0 2 3 4 Miles Maine~ ol GIS Stale House Stallon #125 Aug1111ta, ME 04333 0 2 3 4 5 6 Kilometers ' 1 Scale 1 :187 ,000 SEP-11-1997 hxl/go1mwoMroyal/royal3.aml \ \ J l } t J 1 0 2 3 4 Milas Data So1JCe8: Malrtfil Ollloe of GIS 0 2 3 4 5 6 Kilometers State Houae Stallon #125 Aug..,ta, ME 04333 Scala 1:187,000 SEP-10-1997 ibd.'gormvlor1</r""'1ro)'812.nml J } II. WATERSHED DESCRIPTION General Description l~ The Royal River Watershed, which is drained by the Royal River, Chandler Brook and their tributaries, is one of five major watersheds that constitute the larger Casco Bay Watershed in southern Maine. The Royal River enters the tidal waters of Casco Bay in the town of Yarmouth. t The 150 square mile watershed is located in the towns of Auburn, Durham, and Poland in Androscoggin
Recommended publications
  • KENNEBEC SALMON RESTORATION: Innovation to Improve the Odds

    KENNEBEC SALMON RESTORATION: Innovation to Improve the Odds

    FALL/ WINTER 2015 THE NEWSLETTER OF MAINE RIVERS KENNEBEC SALMON RESTORATION: Innovation to Improve the Odds Walking thigh-deep into a cold stream in January in Maine? The idea takes a little getting used to, but Paul Christman doesn’t have a hard time finding volunteers to do just that to help with salmon egg planting. Christman is a scientist with Maine Department of Marine Resource. His work, patterned on similar efforts in Alaska, involves taking fertilized salmon eggs from a hatchery and planting them directly into the cold gravel of the best stream habitat throughout the Sandy River, a Kennebec tributary northwest of Waterville. Yes, egg planting takes place in the winter. For Maine Rivers board member Sam Day plants salmon eggs in a tributary of the Sandy River more than a decade Paul has brought staff and water, Paul and crews mimic what female salmon volunteers out on snowshoes and ATVs, and with do: Create a nest or “redd” in the gravel of a river waders and neoprene gloves for this remarkable or stream where she plants her eggs in the fall, undertaking. Finding stretches of open stream continued on page 2 PROGRESS TO UNDERSTAND THE HEALTH OF THE ST. JOHN RIVER The waters of the St. John River flow from their headwaters in Maine to the Bay of Fundy, and for many miles serve as the boundary between Maine and Quebec. Waters of the St. John also flow over the Mactaquac Dam, erected in 1968, which currently produces a substantial amount of power for New Brunswick. Efforts are underway now to evaluate the future of the Mactaquac Dam because its mechanical structure is expected to reach the end of its service life by 2030 due to problems with the concrete portions of the dam’s station.
  • Mainedot Work Plan Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 Maine Department of Transportation

    Mainedot Work Plan Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 Maine Department of Transportation

    Maine State Library Digital Maine Transportation Documents Transportation 2-2019 MaineDOT Work Plan Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 Maine Department of Transportation Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs Recommended Citation Maine Department of Transportation, "MaineDOT Work Plan Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021" (2019). Transportation Documents. 124. https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs/124 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Transportation at Digital Maine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transportation Documents by an authorized administrator of Digital Maine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MaineDOT Work Plan Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 February 2019 February 21, 2019 MaineDOT Customers and Partners: On behalf of the 2,000 valued employees of the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT), I am privileged to present this 2019 Edition of our Work Plan for the three Calendar Years 2019, 2020 and 2021. Implementation of this plan allows us to achieve our mission of responsibly providing our customers with the safest and most reliable transportation system possible, given available resources. Like all recent editions, this Work Plan includes all capital projects and programs, maintenance and operations activities, planning initiatives, and administrative functions. This plan contains 2,193 individual work items with a total value of $2.44 billion, consisting principally of work to be delivered or coordinated through MaineDOT, but also including funding and work delivered by other transportation agencies that receive federal funds directly including airports and transit agencies. Although I have the pleasure of presenting this plan, it is really the product of staff efforts dating back to the summer of last year.
  • Maine Rivers Study

    Maine Rivers Study

    MAINE RIVERS STUDY Final Report State of Maine Department of Conservation U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Mid-Atlantic Regional Office May 1982 Electronic Edition August 2011 DEPLW-1214 i Table of Contents Study Participants i Acknowledgments iii Section I - Major Findings 1 Section II - Introduction 7 Section III - Study Method and Process 8 Step 1 Identification and Definition of Unique River Values 8 Step 2 Identification of Significant River Resource Values 8 Step 3 River Category Evaluation 9 Step 4 River Category Synthesis 9 Step 5 Comparative River Evaluation 9 Section IV - River Resource Categories 11 Unique Natural Rivers - Overview 11 A. Geologic / Hydrologic Features 11 B. River Related Critical / Ecologic Resources 14 C. Undeveloped River Areas 20 D. Scenic River Resources 22 E. Historical River Resources 26 Unique Recreational Rivers - Overview 27 A. Anadromous Fisheries 28 B. River Related Inland Fisheries 30 C. River Related Recreational Boating 32 Section V - Final List of Rivers 35 Section VI - Documentation of Significant River Related 46 (Maps to be linked to GIS) Natural and Recreational Values Key to Documentation Maps 46 Section VII – Options for Conservation of Rivers 127 River Conservation – Energy Development Coordination 127 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Consistency 127 State Agency Consistency 128 Federal Coordination Using the National Wild & Scenic Rivers Act 129 Federal Consistency on Coastal Rivers 129 Designation into National River System 130 ii State River Conservation Legislation
  • 308 Harbor Waterfront and Boat Ordinance

    308 Harbor Waterfront and Boat Ordinance

    CHAPTER 308 HARBOR, WATERFRONT AND BOAT ORDINANCE Town of Yarmouth, Maine Recodified: 1/15/98 Repealed and Replaced: 2/15/01 Amended: 4/19/01 Amended: 5/17/01 Repealed and Replaced: 2/20/03 Amended: 11/20/03 Repealed and Replaced: 2/17/05 Amended: 4/20/06 Amended: 8/17/06 Revised with Corrections: 7/1/08 Amended: 1/15/09 Amended: 4/15/10 Amended: 8/21/14 Amended: 3/21/19 Amended: 5/20/21 CHAPTER 308 HARBOR, WATERFRONT AND BOAT ORDINANCE Table of Contents ARTICLE I ..................................................................................................................................... 1 A. TITLE ................................................................................................................................... 1 B. PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 1 C. AUTHORITY ....................................................................................................................... 1 D. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED ................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE II .................................................................................................................................... 3 A. APPOINTMENT OF HARBOR MASTER ...................................................................... 3 B. TERM OF OFFICE............................................................................................................. 3 C. APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY ........................................................................................
  • Stratigraphy and Metamorphism in Sothwestern Casco Bay

    Stratigraphy and Metamorphism in Sothwestern Casco Bay

    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository New England Intercollegiate Geological NEIGC Trips Excursion Collection 1-1-1965 Stratigraphy and Metamorphism in Sothwestern Casco Bay Marc W. Bodine, Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/neigc_trips Recommended Citation Marc W. Bodine, Jr., "Stratigraphy and Metamorphism in Sothwestern Casco Bay" (1965). NEIGC Trips. 74. https://scholars.unh.edu/neigc_trips/74 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the New England Intercollegiate Geological Excursion Collection at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in NEIGC Trips by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRIP F Leader: Marc W. Bodine, Jr. State University of New York at Binghamton Objectives of Trip • ® m This excursion will visit the area in Cape Elizabeth where the several formations of the Casco Bay Group as originally defined by Katz (1917) and the older Cushing Formation are exposed with meta­ morphic grade ranging from the chlorite subfacies through the almandine subfacies of the greenschist facies using the Eskola facies classification as modified by Fyfe, Turner, and Verhoogen (1958). Additional stops will be made in Falmouth where the lowest unit of the Casco Bay Group is exposed exhibiting lower almandine amphibolite facies metamorphism in contact with the Pejepscot Forma­ tion (Fisher, 1941), a highly migmatized quartz-biotite-plagioclase schistose paragneiss of the sillimanite subfacies of the almandine- amphibotite facies. The evidence for interpreting this contact as a fault contact is the abrupt change in metamorphic grade and the abrupt appearance of pegmatites, granites, and migmatites.
  • Shellfish Conservation Committee Minutes DATE: 6/4/2019 TIME: 7:00 PM MEETING LOCATION: COMMUNITY ROOM

    Shellfish Conservation Committee Minutes DATE: 6/4/2019 TIME: 7:00 PM MEETING LOCATION: COMMUNITY ROOM

    Shellfish Conservation Committee Minutes DATE: 6/4/2019 TIME: 7:00 PM MEETING LOCATION: COMMUNITY ROOM Commission Members: Attendance: A for absent, P for present Attendance Name Town Term P Harold Hibbard III North Yarmouth June 30, 2020 P Kevin Oliver North Yarmouth June 30, 2021 A Clifford Small North Yarmouth June 30, 2019 P Judy Colby-George Yarmouth December 31, 2020 P Dillon Hough Yarmouth December 31, 2019 P Ben Tupper Yarmouth December 31, 2020 Staff Members: Attendance Name Title/Role P Will Owen Shellfish Warden A Richard Plourde Town Council Liaison A Pete Thayer Dept. of Marine Resources Guests/Diggers Amanda Moeser, Jessica Joyce Minutes Votes/Quorum: All final votes of the commission shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of those members present and voting provided a quorum is present. A quorum shall be deemed present if a minimum of four (4) members are present. A CHAPTER 305 10 quorum shall be required for the transaction of all business except that a smaller number can adjourn to another time. Reviewed Minutes for May, a motion was made and seconded to accept the minutes as amended – note that Will Owen and Richard Plourde were in attendance at the May meeting . Vote taken, 4 for, 0 against, 0 abstain. Agenda topics 1. DISCUSSION Warden’s Report See attached report PERSON ACTION ITEMS DEADLINE RESPONSIBLE 2. DISCUSSION Grant Proposal Judy has done nothing more on the project this month. The fields she is currently gathering include: MapLot Status (active, removed, remediated, question) Problem (description from DMR or field observation) ObserveDate (Date of Observation) Action (recommended action or next steps) ActionDate (Date action taken) Comments PERSON ACTION ITEMS DEADLINE RESPONSIBLE Judy will continue to work on developing a process for collecting the data and which parcels we need to Judy July 15 collect data for.
  • Sea Level Rise and Casco Bay's Wetlands

    Sea Level Rise and Casco Bay's Wetlands

    Sea Level Rise and Casco Bay’s Wetlands: A Look at Potential Impacts FREEPORT EDITION Muskie School of Public Service University of Southern Maine www.cascobayestuary.org PO Box 9300 Portland, ME 04104-9300 207.780.4820 (phone) 207.228.8460 (fax) Sea Level Rise and Casco Bay’s Wetlands: A Look at Potential Impacts • Curtis Bohlen • Marla Stelk • Matthew Craig • Caitlin Gerber This report is one of a series of ten reports focusing on the following Casco Bay municipalities: Brunswick Phippsburg Cape Elizabeth Portland Falmouth South Portland Freeport West Bath Harpswell Yarmouth Assistance with field work and other data collection provided by Melissa Anson and Melissa Smith. GIS analysis provided by Lauren Redmond and Caitlin Gerber. These reports were funded in whole or in part by the Maine Coastal Program under NOAA award no. NA10N0S4190188 and the US EPA under grant #CE 9614191. The report does not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring agencies, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Casco Bay Estuary Partnership 2013 Overview The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report in 2007 documenting a rise in average global temperatures, ocean temperatures and sea level rise. The sea level off Maine’s 3,478 miles of coastline, as measured by the Portland, Maine tide gauge, has been rising at a rate of 1.8 + 0.1mm/yr since 1912. This is markedly similar to the global average sea level rise determined by the IPCC. The most likely impacts of sea level rise in Maine will be inland migration of beaches, dunes and tidal wetlands over the next century.
  • Assessment of LIDAR for Simulating Existing and Potential Future Marsh Conditions in Casco Bay

    Assessment of LIDAR for Simulating Existing and Potential Future Marsh Conditions in Casco Bay

    Assessment of LIDAR for Simulating Existing and Potential Future Marsh Conditions in Casco Bay Peter A. Slovinsky, Coastal Geologist Stephen M. Dickson, Marine Geologist Maine Geological Survey, Department of Conservation The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership under U.S. EPA assistance agreement CE 97134601 to the University of Southern Maine. TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................................................1 2006 FEMA LIDAR DATA ...............................................................................1 PROJECT PURPOSE.................................................................................................................................2 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................2 REAL TIME KINEMATIC GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM SURVEYS ...................................2 Cousins River, Yarmouth ..........................................................................3 Back Cove, Portland ................................................................................4 Thomas Bay, Brunswick ...........................................................................6 FEMA LIDAR DATA PROCESSING.......................................................................6 Bare Earth XYZ files ................................................................................6
  • Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project

    Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project

    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Barker’s Mill Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2808-017 Maine Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 September 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 APPLICATION .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ......................................... 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .......................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Need for Power .............................................................................................. 3 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................. 3 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ......................................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ...........................................................................................
  • The Dirty History of Portland Harbor

    The Dirty History of Portland Harbor

    Reprinted from a 1994 publication The Dirty History of Portland Harbor hen scientists began looking closely at the sediments and at W the bottom of Casco Bay beginning in the early 1980s, they confronted a pollution puzzle. Sediments taken from various locations throughout the Bay, and especially in Portland Harbor, held a wide variety of potentially toxic chemicals. Until we know more about how these heavy metals, pesticides and other compounds affect marine life, it’s hard to know what lasting impact the pollution in Casco Bay may have. But it was decided that the more we know about where those pollutants came from, the better chances we will have in preventing future problems. The Casco Bay Estuary Project (now Casco Bay Early industry was limited by natural energy sources, like this tidal mill at Estuary Partnership) commissioned environmental Stroudwater. (courtesy: Sullivan Train & Photo) historian Edward Hawes to do some detective work, hoping that he could turn up some puzzle pieces from the Casco Bay. Lead, cadmium and mercury concentrations were watersheds that feed the Bay. The industrial legacy he found comparatively high in Back Cove, as were lead and mercury was a surprise to almost anyone who thinks they know the in the inner Fore River. Lead was also relatively high in the Portland area. Presumpscot River estuary. Additional metals — nickel, silver, arsenic, chromium A Pollution Problem and zinc — were evident in lesser concentrations. This widespread contamination was a little mystifying. In this age hen investigators began sampling Casco Bay’s of environmental regulation, how could so much pollution sediments in the 1980s, levels of pollution have landed in the Bay? W were found that merited additional attention.
  • Do the Rivers, Streams and Estuaries in the Casco Bay Watershed Meet State Water= Ouality Standards?

    Do the Rivers, Streams and Estuaries in the Casco Bay Watershed Meet State Water= Ouality Standards?

    Do the Rivers, Streams and Estuaries in the Casco Bay Watershed Meet State Water= Ouality Standards? I Answer--: Overall, y~~, waters in the Casco Bay watershed meet State water quality standards. ere are some areas that do not meet State water quality standards. Which Waters Vo Not Meet Water Quality Standards? The table on page 42 lists the waters in the Casco Bay watershed that do not meet water quality stan­ dards and are required to have an improvement plan produced (known as a Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL) by the Maine DEP. The Presumpscot River and Highland Lake (Duck Pond) in Windham, Falmouth and Westbrook also do not reach water quality standards but have completed TMDL plans. The New Meadows Lake and the Upper New Mead­ ows estuary do not meet water quality standards. Studies are being conducted with the coordination of the CBEP to determine if the source of the prob­ Why Are State Water Quality Standards lem is from flow restrictions or nonpoint pollution Important? sources. The map on the opposite page illustrates the waters that do not meet state standards, including ater quality standards help the State man­ the Presumpscot, Highland Lake (Duck Pond) and the age its waters. The State of Maine enacted New Meadows. W laws to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 to manage its waters for specified "designated uses" such as swimming, fishing, boating, What Are the Trends? habitat for aquatic life, drinking water supply, naviga­ Overall the water quality in the watershed is good and tion, agriculture, hydropower, industrial process and has remained so over time.
  • Fisheries & Aquatic Habitat Restoration Feasibility Study Royal River

    Fisheries & Aquatic Habitat Restoration Feasibility Study Royal River

    FISHERIES & AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY ROYAL RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT YARMOUTH, MAINE Prepared For: Town of Yarmouth Yarmouth Town Hall 200 Maine Street Yarmouth, Maine 04096 Prepared By: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 30 Park Drive Topsham, Maine 04086 November 2010 Project Partners: This document shall be considered a draft version provided for the convenience of the user and shall not be considered an instrument of service of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. unless it bears the professional engineers stamp and original signature. This document may not be altered by others or used for projects or purposes other than the project for which it was prepared without the express written consent of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Portions of this document were prepared by others. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions that may be incorporated herein as a result. The copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Reproduction or use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. is forbidden. Designs and drawings contained herein shall not be used for construction. Fisheries & Aquatic Habitat Restoration Feasibility Study Page i Royal River Restoration Project, Yarmouth, Maine TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................