city of saco, maine

SACO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2016 – 6:00 PM

CITY HALL AUDITORIUM

I. CALL TO ORDER II. PUBLIC COMMENT III. AGENDA

A. Saco River Dredging Project and Camp Ellis Beach Erosion P2 B. Update on Saco Mill Building #4 C. MS4 Permit Presentation P7 D. Review of Goosefare Brook Watershed-Based Management Plan P10 E. York County Government Budget Update F. Sewer and Water Infrastructure Expansion Plan and P17

Comprehensive Plan Update G. K-9 Retirement and Transfer of Property P18 H. Polystyrene Foam Ban Discussion P20

IV. ADJOURNMENT

CITY OF SACO, MAINE Administration Kevin L. Sutherland, City Administrator Saco City Hall Telephone: (207) 282-4191 300 Main Street Email: [email protected] Saco, Maine 04072-1538 Facebook: /sacomaine Twitter: @sacomaine

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.facebook.com/sacomaine

https://twitter.com/sacomaine

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor Michaud and Saco City Council

FROM: Kevin Sutherland, City Administrator

DATE: June 8, 2016

RE: Saco River Dredging Project and Camp Ellis Beach Erosion

Communication from the Shoreline Commission and the Coastal Water Commission has been shared with council

over the last few months in relation to the status of the dredging of the Saco River and the beach erosion in Camp

Ellis.

Below is language sent to me via email on May 2nd from the two groups.

The Coastal Waters and the Shoreline Commission were formed to appraise and advise the Saco City

Council on matters regarding the Saco River and its beaches. The Commissions are united in our concern and

frustration with the inactivity on two major federal projects through the Army Corps of Engineers

(USACOE).

A. The Beach Restoration Project has been ongoing since 1997 with the USACOA admitting full

responsibility.

B. The Dredging Project which was last done in 1994 is long overdue. Repeated attempts to obtain

approval and funding have not been successful. The dredging is the responsibility of USACOE.

We suggest and are requesting that Saco begin to take a more aggressive stance on these two projects through

our State and National representatives. We also suggest a workshop with the Saco City Council to review the

projects and the negative impact this inactivity will have on the city if they do not go forward.

Attached are several documents that are relevant to the conversation we hope to have with members from both

commissions at Monday night’s workshop on next steps for Council. I look forward to their presentation and a good

discussion over the future of Saco’s riverfront and coastline.

CITY OF SACO, MAINE Administration Kevin Sutherland, City Administrator Saco City Hall Telephone: (207) 282-4191 300 Main Street Email: [email protected] Saco, Maine 04072-1538 Facebook: /sacomaine Twitter: @sacomaine

WORKSHOP ITEM: A Date: June 13, 2016

2




April 2016 Senator Angus King Senator Susan Collins Representative Chellie Pingree Representative Bruce Poliquin Via Email Dear Sirs and Madams: I am writing to alert you all to a situation that is having a significant deleterious effect on the Maine economy, and one that only you and your fellow legislators can resolve. I am speaking of the blatant mismanagement of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund was established by Congress in 1986 to provide a funding mechanism for the maintenance of the nation’s harbors and waterways. It receives about $1.8 billion in annual revenues from a tax on shipping of imported goods. Sadly, far less than this amount makes it to maintenance of harbors. Administered by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACoE), funding for maintenance projects is authorized annually, but never at a level that would achieve fully operable navigation. Our pleas for relief are consistently met with claims of “limited available funding”, but the HMTF has consistently maintained a surplus (currently estimated to be $9 billion), far exceeding the annual need for maintenance. It just isn’t being disbursed to the intended purpose. The Water Resources Reform & Development Act of 2014 was passed in an attempt to correct this, but spending continues to lag behind the demonstrated need. The money is there – why is it not being spent? The Saco River is a federal navigation project, including the navigation channel, a turning basin and several anchorages. Designated as a Federal Navigation Project (FNP) in 1928, it must be maintained as a navigable waterway from the river entrance at Camp Ellis to the head of tide at Factory Island. Last dredged in 1994, the river is so shallow in places that both commercial and recreational vessels run aground at tides other than high. Even a USCG buoy tender has run aground in the Saco River. A significant portion of the turning basin at the head of tide is dry at low tide, and the available anchorage space is reduced every year as the sandbars grow. This seriously impacts the local economy, and has served as an impediment to further revitalization of the riverfront in both communities. The Cities of Saco and Biddeford have expended extensive and repeated efforts to obtain approval and funding of a dredging project in the Saco River. Dredging applications have been submitted over the last 22 years detailing the economic impact of shallow waters in the FNP. Consistent promises have been received from the ACoE regarding the Saco River maintenance dredging, but it has never been approved, reportedly due to lack of funds.


3

I also note that this is not an isolated instance of failure to maintain our nation’s waterways. Rather, it is now the norm – the same scenario is replayed in nearly every shallow draft harbor on both coasts, and adversely impacts both recreational and commercial boating interests, as well as the related onshore development efforts. I implore you to recognize this failure to meet the intent of Congress, which was not only to provide a funding mechanism for ongoing maintenance of our waterways, but to also actually maintain the waterways. The legislative mechanism has been a success; distribution of the collected funds to necessary maintenance projects has been a dismal failure. Please focus your efforts on disbursing this dedicated funding to the purpose for which it was collected. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should additional information be desired or questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert A. Steeves, PE 165 Ferry Road Saco, ME 04072 [email protected]


4


Camp Ellis Beach Erosion Letter

(May 2016)

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USA COE) under President Lincoln, was authorized to build

the Camp Ellis jetty to maintain the Saco River channel against sand deposits at the river’s mouth.

Construction began in the 1880s and was completed in 1889. Since that time, the jetty has been

modified at least 3 times (1933, 1955 and 1968). Each modifications has exacerbated the original

problem of sand collection with the added erosion of the Camp Ellis beachfront.

The original problem was attributed to beach sand moving into the river. In actuality, the river is the

source of the beach sand. This resulted in each modification making the existing sand and erosion

problems worse. The last modification actually accelerated the erosion through wave reflections and

cut off the source of naturally occurring beach replenishment sand. The last study work completed in

2006 by the Woods Hole Group under contract to USACOE stated that the USACOE design is and has

been a major cause for the erosion since its construction and confirmed the last modification made

conditions dramatically worse. The USACOE has included this statement in its draft report. This is

publically available on the Saco website (www.sacomaine.org).

The erosion has incurred annual city expense of $120,000 to protect and maintain public ways and

infrastructure. In addition 37 homes have been lost to this erosion along with the tax revenue for those

sites.

To date, more than an estimated $10 million has been spent by the USACOE to study the problem and

propose solutions. Since 1997, a team of representatives from USACOE, State of Maine Geological, City

of Saco officials and Saco residents reviewed the problem evaluated 31 alternative mitigations and

agreed upon a way forward. The USACOE developed plans based upon that agreement.

A US statute defining Section 111 work, requires the USACOE to repair the damage it causes, but to date

this has not occurred and delays through red tape and lack of attention continue to plague the project.

Since 2006, a series of delays and road blocks have been presented by USACOE (local approvals at New

England COE) the need for a Partnership Agreement, an Endangered Species Plan, and development of a

viable work plan along with long gaps between meetings have delayed progress.

The project does not have a dedicated project manager. For the last three years, management has been

an additional duty of USACOE management. The City of Saco has repeatedly been told by USACOE over

the last 3 years that the Plan is ready or has been delivered to USACOE Headquarters for review and

decision. Just recently the USACOE informed Saco that additional funds were required to update the

plan for a Headquarters review due to old data. The plan had not been submitted as of this writing.

Over the last 8 years, the City of Saco has requested an example of a 111 Project Partnership agreement

to use as a model. USACOE has yet to provide either a model or a draft agreement. We do not believe

an agreement example exists to be used for a 111 Project Partnership Agreement model. Based upon

other project type Partnership agreements, the City of Saco proactively developed and submitted to the

USACOE a draft Project Partnership agreement. No acknowledgment positive or negative has been

received since submission.


5

USACOE is asking the City of Saco to establish a Project 111 precedence in this agreement as no other

agreement apparently exists.

All documentation needed to support the USACOE processes have been supplied by the City of Saco in a

timely manner and the City continues to cooperate with the USACOE and other agencies to move this

project forward.

In addition to all the above, a continuing safety situation remains and in fact is worsening. During

storms with a significant storm surge, access to the Federal pier and Camp Ellis point area is cut off with

ocean water and sand up to two feet deep. For 2 hours on either side of high tide, passenger vehicle are

in danger of being trapped in this water and sand. On several occasions, emergency assistance has been

required to free a stuck vehicle. This is especially dangerous during the winter when storms are more

severe and water temperatures are below 40 degrees.

Key Points

US Law – Section 111 of Public Law 90-483 (River and Harbor Act of 1968 - states that the

USACOE must repair its mistakes

Since 1908 more than 400 feet of beach have been lost to erosion. This is an unlawful taking of

land.

Lack of action is costing the City of Saco tax dollars. More than 37 homes have been lost

$26.9 million has been allocated to resolve this issue

Latest effort started in 1997 and has intermittently continued until the present. Other efforts

began prior to 1933 and have continued until the present.

USACOE has been engaged on Camp Ellis erosion problems since before 1933. Each proposed

solution made the problem worse

The science to support the modeling and mitigation is now available (since 2005 or so)

Repair would be the largest Project 111 expenditure ever and there is zero local share

USACOE contends a Partnership agreement is delaying progress.

o No precedence for the document under 111

o Draft document submitted by Saco over 5 years ago – no response

o Saco has resolved every USACOE issue presented in a timely manner to date

o Saco has stated its willingness to proceed repeatedly without USACOE collaboration

A Project Manager has not been appointed for this effort in 3 years. USACOE Management has

taken the project leadership as an additional duty and project has languished.

A Safety condition exists that could cause serious injury or death and continued loss of property.


6

MEMO for 6/13/16 Workshop Discussion

TO: Council

FROM: Joseph Laverriere, P.E., City Engineer

DATE: June 8, 2016

AGENDA ITEM: MS4 Permit Presentation

The City of Saco is a regulated community under the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

(MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. One of the

requirements of the MS4 Permit is to provide an annual presentation to municipal officials,

such as the City Council, to provide information and continued awareness about the program.

Background: The City has been regulated through the MS4 Permit since 2008. The MS4

regulated areas are limited to the portion of the City within the designated Urbanized Area (UA)

or Priority Watershed Area (Goosefare Brook) as shown on the attached figure; therefore, the

entire City is not subject to the MS4 Permit requirements. The MS4 Permit authorizes the

direct discharge of stormwater from the regulated MS4 to the waters of the United States. It

does not authorize non-stormwater discharges.

The MS4 Permit requires each permittee to comply with six Minimum Control Measures (MCM)

as listed below:

MCM 1 – Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts

MCM 2 – Public Involvement and Participation

MCM 3 – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination

MCM 4 – Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control

MCM 5 – Post-Construction Stormwater Management in New Dev. and Redevelopment

MCM 6 – Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations

Many components of our annual budget go towards the City’s efforts to comply with the

requirements of this permit.

Current Permit Year (July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016): Highlights of the accomplishments made

during the current permit year are as follows:

Continued participation in the Interlocal Stormwater Working Group (ISWG) to promote

public education and outreach;

Completed amendments to Zoning Ordinance, Section 805 “Stormwater Run-Off” to

improve the Stormwater Standards within the City’s Ordinances to ensure compliance

with the requirements for the MS4 permit; and

WORKSHOP ITEM: C Date: June 13, 2016

7

Continued efforts to locate illicit discharges within the MS4, which included

development of a list of parcels within the Priority Watershed that have subsurface

disposal fields that are 20 years or older.

Increased inspection and monitoring of 114 stormwater outfalls within the Goosefare

Brook watershed and approximately 100 additional stormwater outfalls in the remaining

portion of the Urbanized Area.

Increased inspection, monitoring and maintenance of the City owned stormwater

management facilities throughout the MS4 regulated areas.

The City was audited by the MDEP in November 2015 on compliance with the MS4 Permit. The

MDEP’s audit identified 27 items that required corrective action by the City. All remedial

measures were completed by December 29, 2015 in accordance with the MDEP’s stipulated

response timeline.

Upcoming Permit Year (July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017): During the upcoming permit year, the

City will continue to implement and improve our standard operating procedures with respect to

the MS4 Permit and incorporate changes requested by MDEP during the 2015 audit process.

The major areas of improvement or accomplishments for the upcoming year include:

Sampling and testing of outfalls during dry weather periods;

Increased enforcement of non-stormwater discharge violations;

Development of an Illicit Discharge Detection Program for drainage swales; and

Development of an inspection program for older septic systems within the Priority

Watershed

What you can do as an elected official:

Stay informed on the basics of the MS4 Program and importance of providing and

requiring adequate Stormwater Management facilities and controls on existing and

proposed development;

Point your constituents in the right direction on stormwater related inquiries; and

Support city staff efforts in meeting the increasing requirements of the MS4 Permit.

WORKSHOP ITEM: C Date: June 13, 2016

8

Exhibit Item: 1

9

MEMO for 6/13/16 Workshop Discussion

TO: Council

FROM: Patrick Fox, Public Works Director

DATE: June 8, 2016

AGENDA ITEM: Review of Goosefare Brook Watershed-Based Management Plan

Since 2014, the City of Saco has been working collaboratively with our neighboring community

in Old Orchard Beach, as well as, members from the Maine Department of Environmental

Protection (MDEP); York County Soil and Water Conservation District; F.B. Environmental

Associates; and watershed stakeholders on the development of the Goosefare Brook

Watershed-Based Management Plan (WBMP). The long-term goals are to provide clear and

proactive direction to protect and improve the quality of the Goosefare Brook and improve

significant wildlife and fisheries habitat.

Background: The Goosefare Brook

is designated as a Class B stream

located in the City of Saco and Old

Orchard Beach that drains into the

Saco Bay. The stream’s total length

is 8 miles and has a total watershed

area of 9.2 square miles.

Goosefare Brook has been assessed

by MDEP as not meeting water

quality standards for metals and

aquatic life use. Goosefare Brook

was identified by the MDEP as an

urban impaired stream in 2004.

According to the MDEP’s

Impervious Cover TMDL (2012),

approximately 14% of the

watershed is comprised of

impervious cover (IC) surfaces. The

watershed includes a mixture of

residential, commercial, and

recreational uses.

In addition to metals and aquatic

life impairments, Goosefare Brook

outlets into the Saco Bay between

WORKSHOP ITEM: D Date: June 13, 2016

10

two of Maine’s most popular beaches, just downstream of the Rachel Carson Wildlife Preserve

and proximate to Ferry Beach State Park. Therefore, bacteria-related water quality concerns

are monitored very closely as this area is one of the most visited recreational areas in Southern

Maine.

WBMP Status: The Goosefare Brook WBMP was recently completed and accepted by the MDEP

in May 2016. A complete copy of the WBMP and Appendices is available on the City’s Website

at http://www.sacomaine.org/archives/goosefare_brook.shtml. The executive summary of the

Final WBMP Report has been excerpted and attached to this memo.

The WBMP provides detailed summaries of the past three years efforts to inventory, sample

and analyze the watershed and develop a multi-pronged approach to implementing structural

and non-structural measures to improve Goosefare Brook’s water quality and aquatic habitat to

attain Class B standards. The WBMP presents a two phase plan to be implemented over a 15-

year period at a total estimated cost of approximately $2.1 million dollars or $140,000 per year.

Next Steps: With the MDEP acceptance of the Final Goosefare Brook WBMP, we are now in a

position to begin the implementation phase of the project. The first step of this process is for

the City Council to accept the findings and recommendations contained in this report. This will

aide in raising public awareness of the importance of this plan. The next steps planned are:

Preparation of an EPA Federal Section 319 Grant for Non-Point Source Pollution

Control Projects Watershed Plan Implementation

The City, in partnership with the Town of Old Orchard, is developing a 319 Grant

Application to be submitted to the MDEP by June 28, 2016. This grant is a 60/40 federal

funds to local funding match. The Saco Public Works upcoming budget includes $50,000

that may be used towards this grant application; therefore, the City’s portion of the

grant application will be seeking approximately $90,000 of federal funding that will be

used to implement four to five stormwater retrofit projects and six to seven

erosion\buffer restoration projects. If awarded the grant, the actual implementation

work would be completed in 2017-2018.

Formation of the Goosefare Brook Restoration Committee (GBRC)

The GBRC will serve as a steering committee for the implementation of the WBMP. The

GBRC is envisioned to contain seven to nine members with representation from each

community as well as stakeholders in the watershed. The GBRC first meeting is planned

for September of this year.

Staff Recommendation: Be it ordered that the City Council does hereby accept the completed

Goosefare Brook Watershed-Based Management Plan and will utilize its recommendations to

help improve water quality, protect against future impacts, and raise public awareness towards

the restoration of Goosefare Brook.


11

http://www.sacomaine.org/archives/goosefare_brook.shtml

GOOSEFARE BROOK WATERSHED-BASED MANAGEMENT PLAN

[iii]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Goosefare Brook Watershed-Based Management Plan (WBMP) is a comprehensive plan that serves to provide the City of Saco and the Town of Old Orchard Beach with recommendations for protecting and restoring Goosefare Brook and its tributaries. The goals of the plan include:

Improve Goosefare Brook water quality and habitat so it meets state standards and is safe for human contact.

Protect the stream and its tributaries from current and future impacts. Raise public awareness and create and maintain community support for restoring Goosefare

Brook.

This can be achieved using a combination of on-the-ground stormwater retrofits, stream corridor improvements, sewer and septic system improvements, community education and outreach, and other activities that focus on reducing pollutant sources and other stressors that contribute to the stream's impairment.

Development of this plan included compiling and analyzing historical water quality data with significant input from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP); updating the existing GIS land cover and watershed data; conducting field assessments in the stream and developed watershed areas; evaluating pollutant load reductions; and gathering feedback from local stakeholders. This information was used to identify water quality problems, define management objectives, and prioritize protection and restoration strategies for the watershed.

The Goosefare Brook ‘Gorge” behind the Sweetser School. PHOTO CREDIT: Maine DEP.


12


[iv]

THE GOOSEFARE BROOK WATERSHED

Goosefare Brook is an urban impaired stream located in both the City of Saco and the Town of Old Orchard Beach. This 8.0-mile-long stream flows through both natural and highly developed areas before discharging to the Atlantic Ocean near one of the most popular beach destinations along the coast of Maine. Commercial, industrial and high-density residential development occupies a significant portion of the watershed (land draining to the stream) and contributes stormwater runoff to Goosefare Brook and its tributaries. Refer to map on inside cover and Appendix I, Map A. These areas, such as the Route 1 corridor in Saco and high density residential development in Old Orchard Beach, have large volumes of stormwater runoff and little stormwater filtration before runoff enters groundwater and surface water within the watershed. Additionally, legacy toxics from closed industrial facilities may still be present in groundwater and the stream, compounding the challenging conditions for aquatic life.

Despite these issues, Goosefare Brook has sustained areas of natural beauty that provide motivation and inspiration for stream restoration efforts. This includes the Saco Heath at the headwaters of the stream, several near-pristine tributaries, and the Rachel Carson Wildlife Refuge, which conserves a large segment of the tidal reach of Goosefare Brook. These unique areas offer rich habitats for sustaining a large diversity of terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna.

THE PROBLEM

Goosefare Brook does not meet its statutory Class B classification for aquatic life use, based on non-attainment for macroinvertebrates, and toxic metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, nickel, lead, and zinc; Maine DEP 2003). The stream and its main tributary, Bear Brook, are also on the 303(d) list of impaired waters for bacteria (Maine DEP 2014). Portions of the stream that are not meeting Class B standards are downstream of major development, highlighting the need to minimize stormwater runoff and reduce other impacts from developed areas (Maine DEP 2012).

An analysis of the Goosefare Brook watershed reveals that 14% (832 acres) of the watershed is made up of total impervious cover (IC), such as parking lots, roofs, and sidewalks. However, this IC is primarily concentrated in five of the sixteen subwatersheds (Bear Brook North Branch (31.3%), Industrial Park South (26.5%), Route 1 North (23.6%), Bear Brook South Branch (23.6%), and New Salt Road Tributary West Branch (19.9%). In contrast, several subwatersheds have low total IC (ex. IMAX Stream (4.9%), and Branch Brook 5.4%). Research shows that watersheds with IC greater than 10% often exceed criteria for aquatic life use (Stanfield and Kilgour 2006), and even lower levels of IC (4-6%) can significantly impact the abundance and diversity of fish and macroinvertebrate species (Wenger et al. 2008). Due to a combination of high IC and threats to water quality (see discussion below), four of these five subwatersheds have been designated as high priority for restoration (all but Route 1 North).

IMPERVIOUS COVER (IC), such as parking lots, roofs, and sidewalks, from high density commercial businesses, generates runoff to the stream. Stormwater carrying dirt, metals, and other pollutants is conveyed directly from IC to the stream with minimal pre-treatment, causing increased erosion, sedimentation, increased temperature, and habitat degradation in the stream (CWP 2003).


13


[v]

In the Goosefare Brook watershed, these highly developed subwatersheds have commercial development that appears to be linked to the aquatic life use and bacteria impairments in Goosefare Brook and its tributaries. Stormwater runoff from these impervious surfaces carries contaminants such as excess nutrients, heavy metals, and bacteria into the stream. Restoration of Goosefare Brook and its tributaries is targeted in these subwatersheds with high IC and commercial development as they are most likely the largest contributors to the degraded water quality in the streams. Structural BMPs in this plan are estimated to reduce 42,482 lbs./yr. of total suspended sediments (TSS) in stormwater runoff, as well as 28 lbs./yr. total phosphorus (TP) and 293 lbs./yr. total nitrogen (TN).

The recommendations made in this plan are separated into Phase I and Phase II implementation over a fifteen-year time period (2016-2031). Phase I outlines actions that address sources linked to priority stressors in impaired subwatersheds and actions that provide multiple stream protection benefits. Phase I action items are planned for completion in the first ten years of plan implementation (by 2026). Phase II actions may be needed if Phase I does not result in stream attainment, and the actions are also important to protect the stream from further degradation. Phase II targets lower priority pollution sources that may be linked to stream impairment or provide stream protection benefits from secondary stressors. This plan targets completion of Phase II BMPs by 2031 as needed to reach attainment. While this plan should be viewed as a guideline for achieving attainment, every stream and its aquatic communities will respond differently to restoration activities, and Goosefare Brook may or may not reach attainment before or after Phase I implementation is completed. If Phase I management measures recommended in this plan do not improve water quality to the point of reaching attainment, it is recommended that Saco and Old Orchard Beach re-assess options provided in Phase II of this plan. This plan should be reassessed after five years and updated after ten years to evaluate the goals and achievements of the plan. It is important to note that costs and implementation timelines recommended in this plan are estimates and will need to be adjusted contingent on funding availability, stakeholder involvement, and site-specific design.

Furthermore, in addition to the structural managements mentioned above, non-structural management measures, such as planning to prevent adverse effects from future development, and maintaining existing BMPs will be a priority. Watershed-wide, non-structural management practices (including street sweeping, salt reduction, catch basin cleaning, etc.) are expected to reduce pollutants in the watershed by approximately an additional 10% (Law et al. 2008, FBE 2011).

WHY DEVELOP A WATERSHED-BASED MANAGEMENT PLAN?

A watershed-based management plan (WBMP) helps identify problems, priorities, and actions that are needed to protect and improve the water quality of a waterbody. The Goosefare Brook WBMP

Estimated Reductions from Proposed Stormwater Retrofits in the Goosefare Brook

Watershed 2015 - 2030:

42,482 lbs/yr Total Suspended Sediments (TSS)

28 lbs/yr Total Phosphorus (TP)

293 lbs/yr Total Nitrogen (TN)

A good restoration plan acts as a road map pointing out where to start, what visits to make in the watershed, how long it will take to get there, how much it will cost, and how you know you’ve arrived.


14


[vi]

has been developed with a strong stakeholder process in order to ensure that the major issues and concerns of both the community and the stream are addressed. An Action Plan (Section 5.1.1) was developed based on feedback from the Steering Committee, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the public. These stakeholders met on multiple occasions and discussed what they perceived to be the greatest threats to the stream’s water quality, and developed practical solutions to address them.

Successful implementation of this plan, including final selection of key restoration strategies, requires an integrative and adaptive approach and depends primarily on the involvement of the City of Saco, the Town of Old Orchard Beach, various partners and stakeholders, and the watershed community. These partnerships help strengthen the plan by increasing both public awareness of the problems and public commitment to the solutions. A community-based plan also helps attract private, state, and federal funding and provides opportunities for both recreational and aesthetic improvements. This plan will help foster further thinking about long-term strategies for improving water quality and related natural resources within the Goosefare Brook watershed, and help to promote communication among citizens, municipalities, and state agencies. This plan is contingent on landowner cooperation, since a large portion of the watershed targeted for restoration over the next fifteen years is privately owned. In addition to the reasons listed above, proactive efforts by Goosefare Brook stakeholders will also help prevent citizen lawsuits and U.S. Environmental

KEY PROTECTION AND RESTORATION CATEGORIES Goosefare Brook

Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Reduce the rate of stormwater discharge and the pollutants it carries to Goosefare Brook by installing innovative conservation practices that capture, filter, cool, and slow runoff from paved areas, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces. Bacteria Source Reduction- Continue to seek out and remove bacteria sources in the watershed. Stream Restoration- Improve habitat conditions in and adjacent to the stream by restoring riparian buffers, stabilizing eroding stream banks and removing fish barriers. Education & Outreach- Garner the support and cooperation from community groups while educating business owners, school children, and watershed residents about the need for and importance of clean water. Good Housekeeping Practices- Work with municipal employees and watershed businesses to improve existing stormwater infrastructure, catch basin cleaning, winter sand/salt spreading, snow storage, and street sweeping. Land Conservation & Land Use Planning- Coordinate local efforts to increase the amount of land in permanent conservation and work with municipal officials to expand riparian buffer zoning and improve local stormwater rules in order to protect streams. Water Quality Monitoring- Conduct ongoing water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring to assess stream conditions and changes over time.


15


[vii]

Protection Agency (USEPA) petitions that have been filed in other communities to force restoration of impaired waters. Developing a WBMP that meets USEPA guidelines also enables project partners to seek future USEPA and Maine DEP funding to help implement plans.

WHAT THE PLAN INCLUDES

The plan is divided into seven major sections and includes the US EPA’s nine key planning elements for watershed management plans (referred to as elements a through i):

SECTION 1 describes the purpose of the plan, provides background information about Goosefare Brook, a description of the planning process, and a brief description of recent efforts in the watershed (element a)

SECTION 2 describes the watershed, including local climate, demographics and growth trends of Saco and Old Orchard Beach, land cover, topography, land conservation, soils and geology, and stormwater/sewer infrastructure. This section also describes the sixteen subwatersheds within the Goosefare Brook watershed.

SECTION 3 describes causes of impairment and applicable water quality standards, summarizes water quality and biological assessment data collected from Goosefare Brook, and summarizes the results of a Stream Corridor Assessment (conducted in 2015 by the Maine DEP) geomorphic reconnaissance, and a fish barrier study by the Nature Conservancy and US Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (element a).

SECTION 4 identifies impaired subwatersheds and describes their stressors (element a). SECTION 5 describes watershed restoration goals and objectives. Both structural and non-

structural restoration opportunities and recommendations are discussed. Action strategies are presented in tables describing what needs to be done, how it will be done, who will help get it done, when it will be done, and how much it will cost. Restoration strategies are divided into several primary categories (shown above). Section 5.3 provides the results of a pollutant loading reduction analysis for the recommended structural management measures (elements, b, c, e, f)

SECTION 6 describes plan implementation, including who is in charge of administering the plan, and summarizes actions, costs, and technical assistance needed to ensure progress (element d).

SECTION 7 describes specific recommendations for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of restoration efforts. This includes criteria for measuring progress and measurable milestones along the way (elements g, h, i).

FUNDING THE PLAN

The total estimated cost for implementing the Goosefare Brook WBMP is approximately $1,866,000 – $2,301,700, or approximately $140,000 per year over the next 15 years, including all structural and non-structural recommendations described in this plan. This cost is an estimate to guide plan implementation and should not be considered as finalized for site-specific implementation.

ADMINISTERING THE PLAN

The Goosefare Brook Restoration Committee will be formed to administer the Goosefare Brook WBMP. The City of Saco and Town of Old Orchard Beach will take a lead role in convening the group and serve on the committee. Other stakeholders including elected officials, watershed business owners, and other interested groups will also be involved. The Committee will meet at least two to


16

WORKSHOP ITEM: F Date: June 13, 2016

WORKSHOP ITEM COMMENTARY

AGENDA ITEM: (First Reading) Sewer and Water Expansion Plan and Comprehensive Plan

Amendment STAFF RESOURCE: Howard Carter, Director, Water Resources Recovery Division

Patrick Fox, Director, Department of Public Works Joe Laverriere, City Engineer Bob Hamblen, City Planner

COUNCIL RESOURCE: Councilor Alan Minthorn BACKGROUND: Recent development proposals west of the Turnpike are expanding the parameters

of the City’s existing sewer and water network. City staff recognized several months

ago that a plan for guiding development west of the Turnpike would help avoid

piecemeal expansions of these multi-million dollar systems. For example, could a

new sewer pump station be designed and located so that multiple developments

can be served rather than a new pump station for every new subdivision? And can

the City work with the Maine Water Company so that existing limitations in the

system might be addressed?

Staff worked with Maine Water Company and engineering consultant CDM Smith

to review existing utility systems, topography, natural and man-made constraints,

and to recommend how developers will be guided with current and future

expansion. The Planning Board reviewed this report at its April 5, 2016 meeting.

EXHIBITS: Sewer and Water Infrastructure Expansion Plan, April 2016 (printed copies

provided) RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the report, and recommends that it be accepted by the Council, and that it be added to the Utilities chapter in the 2011 Comprehensive Plan. SUGGESTED MOTION: “The City Council hereby accepts the “Sewer and Water Infrastructure Expansion Plan dated April 2016,” and directs staff to add said Plan as an amendment to the 2011 Comprehensive Plan.”

17

WORKSHOP ITEM: G Date: June 13, 2016

WORKSHOP ITEM COMMENTARY

AGENDA ITEM: K-9 Retirement and Transfer of Property STAFF RESOURCE: Chief Bradley Paul COUNCIL RESOURCE: Councilor Roger Gay BACKGROUND: K-9 Ranger has been a member of the Saco Police Department since January of 2009. He has been teamed with Officer Nic Stankevitz for that entire period of time. Ranger. Ranger is at retirement age (I know, two in two weeks!) and we are beginning the process to replace him. It is customary when a police K-9 retires to allow the handler to adopt him. As K-9 Ranger has lived with Nic and his family during his tenure with the City, we desire to make this transfer of ownership official. Once the transfer has been accomplished, Officer Nicholas Stankevitz will assume responsibility for all bills and liability concerning Ranger. EXHIBITS: 1. Memo from Chief Paul RECOMMENDATION: That the City transfer ownership of K-9 Ranger to Nicholas Stankevitz, effective the date of the vote, if approved. FUNDING: None SUGGESTED MOTION: “…Be it Ordered that the City Council does hereby approve the transfer of police K-9 Ranger, a Belgian Malinois Shepherd to Officer Nicholas Stankevitz” “I move to approve the order.”

18

Bradley S. Paul Chief

Raynald N. Demers Deputy Chief

Operations Bureau

Jeffrey C. Holland Deputy Chief

Support Services

Emergency 911

Non Emergency 207-284-4535

Administration 207-282-8214

Detectives 207-282-8216

Fax 207-282-8215

CITY OF SACO, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE

20 STORER STREET, SACO, MAINE 04072

WITH DEDICATION, PRIDE AND COMMITMENT

=====================================================================

MEMORANDUM

=====================================================================

To: Kevin Sutherland, City Administrator

From: Bradley Paul

Date: June 8, 2016

RE: K-9 Ranger Retirement/Transfer of Ownership

K-9 Ranger has served the City of Saco faithfully since January 2009 when he was first acquired.

During that time, he has executed his mission faithfully, finding lost children, fleeing suspects

and drugs with superior ability and unremitting zeal; in weather good and bad; and enduring

temperatures from the ‘teens to more than 90º. His reward? More playtime with his handler, an

occasional treat, or a chance to chase the ‘toy of the day’.

As he ages and health problems are in his future, it is apparent that we must begin the process to

replace him before the continued stress of work and training accelerate conditions that are

common in older working dogs.

We are asking the Council to permit Officer Nicholas Stankevitz to adopt K-9 Ranger. If

approved, Officer Stankevitz will assume all costs and liabilities that are associated with dog

ownership. This is customary in the law enforcement profession, rather than split a team that has

worked together for many years.

WORKSHOP ITEM: G Date: June 13, 2016

Exhibit Item: 1

19

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor Michaud and Saco City Council

FROM: Kevin Sutherland, City Administrator

DATE: June 13, 2016

RE: Polystyrene Foam Ban Discussion

Councilor Cote has requested a discussion regarding Saco joining the list of Maine communities that have

placed a ban on Polystyrene Foam. I’ve asked Indiana Thompson, one of this summer’s interns to research

some information to share as part of the discussion.

What is polystyrene foam?

Expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) is the product that is made into cups, plates, take-out food containers,

meat trays, egg cartons, and packing materials. These products are often incorrectly referred to as

“Styrofoam”. Polystyrene foam is not biodegradable and is not recyclable. It is made of fossil fuels and

synthetic chemicals. It is argued that exposure to these toxins can be harmful to the environment and a

person’s health. Animal exposure to EPS and toxins can be harmful whether it is through digestion, or

absorption from contaminants in the water. Alternatives to polystyrene foam are readily available.

Current Bans in Maine and other States:

Currently in Maine, the towns/cities of Portland, Brunswick, and Freeport maintain a ban on the use

of polystyrene in food packaging or retail sales.

Freeport’s ban has been in place since 1990, while Portland and Brunswick implemented their bans

in 2015.

Many other states around the country have polystyrene bans including California, Florida,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Washington, D.C.

In 1993, Maine implemented a state-wide ban on the “use of expanded polystyrene for serving

individual portions of food or a beverage at a facility or function of the State or of a political

subdivision unless containers are recycled (which is near-to impossible)” (Surfrider Foundation)

CITY OF SACO, MAINE Administration Kevin Sutherland, City Administrator Saco City Hall Telephone: (207) 282-4191 300 Main Street Email: [email protected] Saco, Maine 04072-1538 Facebook: /sacomaine Twitter: @sacomaine

WORKSHOP ITEM: H Date: June 13, 2016

20




How the polystyrene ban affects establishments in Portland, Maine (per “City of Portland Polystyrene Foam Ban Frequently Asked Questions”)

No food packager or retail establishment in Portland shall serve or sell prepared food and no food

packager shall package meat, eggs, bakery products or other food in polystyrene foam containers.

The City of Portland shall not use, purchase or otherwise acquire polystyrene foam food or beverage

containers.

Parties who contract with the City shall not use polystyrene food or beverage containers at any city

facility or on projects within the City that are funded (in whole or in part) by the City.

Retailers may not offer polystyrene foam products such as cups, plates, trays or coolers for sale.

The sale and packaging of raw seafood is exempt from adhering to the ban’s restrictions

If the City Council expresses an interest in pursuing a polystyrene foam ban, the Code Enforcement Officer

will collaborate with the City Attorney to draft a new Chapter in the City Code. Drafting a new chapter will

require additional research, the development of an implementation plan and timeline, and the determination

of enforcement procedures and a monetary fine system. The process of adopting a new Chapter in the City

Code requires Council discussion during Workshop, First Reading, Public Hearing, and Second and Final

Reading.

WORKSHOP ITEM: H Date: June 13, 2016

21

city of saco, maine

Documents