With this, State revenue reductions & a School Committee PAC to massage a new High School referendum its going to be brutal to be an Auburn Tax Payer (ATP)
It appears 80-90% of the phosphorus was existing from the historic lake bottom, stirred up during the unusual mixing season of 2011 & 2012. There hasn't been any new development in years and local ordinances prevent anything of any consideration to happen. There has been a great deal of logging by the Commission on steep slopes near the lake the last few years and problems from culvert redirects from the 2009 North Auburn Road reconstruction but that would fall in about 3-4% of the loading, leaving the remaining non-point source 5-8% coming from other tributaries......rough numbers but accurate for this discussion on treating the P.
This email was forwarded to the water authorities back in FEB, why they chose the pesticide may have to do with cost and the fact that if they get JUST ONE MORE BLOOM this year they become ineligible for a MDEP permit with copper-sulfate. No one is liking this.
I couldn't make the meeting last night and I wish them the best of luck.
From: Lemin, Ronald [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:26 AM
To: 'Smagula, Amy'
Cc: Sid Hazelton
Subject: RE: RFP for algaecide application
Thanks for the RFP. I work as an herbicide distribution in Maine working in the Aquatic market throughout NE. I have forwarded your RFP to the two most qualified applicators in our region.
Will you be at the Milfoil Summit next Friday in Lewiston? I would love to talk to you about this project. I’m curious why we want to treat the Algae which is a result of the high Phosphorous in the lake. Why don’t you treat the lake to reduce the Phosphorous and hence eliminate the Algae blooms?
This can be done with a product call Phoslock.
I can send you the info if you desire
Vegetation Management Sales Consultant
Crop Production Services
291 Lincoln St
Bangor, Maine 04401
"Long-term solutions could involve stronger regulations around the lake and the ponds and streams that feed it."
If stronger regulations around the Lake is necessary to maintain the water quality to satisfy a very UNUSUAL waiver from EPA filtration requirements than the WATER SYSTEMS need to PAY the cost of those stronger regulations. CLEARLY with just 13 ac of land developed in a 6000 ac watershed in the last five years these lake neighborhoods in Auburn are not a significant factor. Public education and out reach through recreation venues and cooperative projects (relationSHIPS) may out perform what regulations and regulationSHIPS will do for the water.
Dan, President Lake Auburn Watershed Neighborhood Association (LAWNA)
Just an FYI, things must be tight for CLT as the last few weeks before the opening of their current production The WIZ the heat was barely on or it was off leaving practices a little fridged for those idling around.
I support the ARTS but I also supported the decision to clean (and dismantle) house, a money sucking issue for years.
Consider the basics, increase funding for heat and other items the public needs when they go to these INCREDIBLE local productions. This is the heart and soul of Auburn arts, it's the people, including the children of this community that give so much to please others. It takes you far away from the problems of every day life.
Lastly, the music director and co-director for the latest production and probably one of the hardest working CLT members was out spray painting parking space lines in the hardened reclaimed asphalt parking lot the other day. This is the type of support they could use from the city, from public works, from heating assistance from the soul of the city council. Don't we have a line painter?
PS The SHOW MUST go on, so please take the time to see one:)
The story implies that water quality testing and positive results is mandatory before our families can play and swim and before city councilor's approve funding for the beach.
The lake authority (Commission) has an extensive bird mitigation program at a cost of $175,000 year (less than a football field away) and part of that program allows the fowl to fly to "other" areas to roost (and crap) at night, like the outlet beach and Taylor Pond creating HAVOC for adjacent water bodies.
It seemed to never be a problem before the 2005 EPA/bird threat (remember Lake Auburn water is not filtered like 95% of other public surface water sources) and now the owners of the beach (Commission) do not want to pay for the maintenance of this area but really want the public to feel their educational and outreach programs, present and future ($65,000), are neighborhood friendly and above all they encourage human interface with Lake Auburn......PR bull.
The sad reality is a power struggle between the Commission and the City of Auburn as this city, as a municipality, has NO representation on the Commission.
Only the City of Lewiston (water division) and the Auburn Water District are invited stake holders to issues of Lake Auburn. How about that Lake Auburn (loss in recreation) study that might clear some municipal minds:)
If I was a city councilor I would get it on an agenda for workshop: TAKING THE OUTLET BEACH BY EMINENT DOMAIN (you would only be taking it from an organization that uses a defunct septic ordinance to devalue and take lands from private Auburn ownership @ 800/ac. that otherwise could be assessed and valued at $10,000/ac) AND THEN the Commission may include this public GEM in their scope of responsibility for water quality and oh ya, public outreach.
If the city takes the land, it could than study and develop a plan using volunteers and local scholars to remove the birds, not the funding from such a wonderful asset for the community. Respectfully, the RIVER isn't there yet Mr. LaBonte.
Please, if anyone cares about this issue TAKE THE WALK along the Whitman Spring Road trail and witness for yourself the extensive logging that has taken place in the last three years on Commission property. They benefit from the healthier forest and the tree sales, BUT they do not use the more stringent Best Management Practices (BMP's) for commercial ops leaving dozens of acres of exposed, highly erodible soils to grow vegetation naturally. Not good.
You can report this at:
"Storer said he is confident that the water district's and the Lake Auburn Watershed Protection Commission's forestry work along the lake have not made erosion worse," today's Sun Journal news.
It would appear any soil erosion near LAKE AUBURN, especially within the shore-land zoning would increase Phosphorus so I'm not sure what Mr. Storer is saying here.....his forestry equipment and muddy skidder rows are exempt from science?
I would recommend LAWPC/AWD/LWD implement Maine's Best Management Practices (BMP's) for construction applications in addition to forestry BMP's. This more stringent standard would require ALL exposed soil areas to be seeded/mulched and more temporary and permanent erosion measures to be implemented to insure the destructive vegetation removal required for insuring the forest remains healthy has an expedited means to grow back.
Surely a new Lake Auburn residential development, much further away from the Lake would require this and be monitored by water regulator's so in that respect a "double standard" is prevalent and that's another rub that won't easily go away.
By bringing in lots of equipment to get more oxygen in the water? :(.....MAYBE STOP THE LOGGING THAT THE COMMISSION IS DOING ON THE SHORES OF LAKE AUBURN. The BMP's (best management practices) for forestry is less stringent than the state BMP's for commercial development however the water regulator's have not endorsed this more stringent practice. Thousands of tons of muddy soils went into Lake Auburn last year and today, off the Whitman Spring Road trail, you can see thousands more heading into the lake from the most recent cut. I am not saying this can't be properly managed if the correct BMP manual is used for the job, especially being so close to the community water supply.
Mr. Orestis let me please offer you this. Mr. Dench is on the other side of the argument protecting a group of elitist Commissioner's that break FOA rules of meetings by illegally communicating by email.
Mr. Dench has suggested and authorized his client, the Auburn Water District (AWD) to hire an IT consultant and forward those charges (at $85.00) to the FOA requester. In addition, you can charge Mr. Dench $15.00/hr for your time to redact that data that the consultant provided to you.....please Chris, take your time on this.
When questioned by the Assistant Attorney General (enclosed) Mr. Dench still argues this fee to be valid. It is heading for court soon, but regardless, Mr. Dench and his personal emails will be FULLY MADE available to you and the other councilor's if needed as they clearly show him resting firmly on the other side of the argument.
Good luck and congratulations, I am CERTAIN the better man is sitting on the Falmouth Council. Dan
From: Pistner, Linda [Linda.Pistner@maine.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 3:13 PM
To: Dench, Bryan M.
Subject: LAWPC FOAA issue
Dear Mr. Dench:
I have received some information from Dan Bilodeau about a FOAA request he made of the LAWPC, and the consultant fees of $85/hour that it intends to charge for retrieval of requested email messages from a server. I believe he gave you a copy of my email to him, and he informed me that at a meeting yesterday you said that there is a case that supports charging these services at more than the statutorily prescribed $10 per hour (now 15/hr). I would be interested in the citation to the case you’re referring to.
Linda M. Pistner
Chief Deputy Attorney General
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Sorry, non of the relationships you are assuming are true. I blogged behind fact, I have been watching the progress through every step, I don't think you are there yet. Public hearings are where you might make a difference, that's what they are for, where were you?