CITY OF SACO, MAINE Packet 9-10-18.pdf · board’s reasoning is that due to the residential uses...

SACO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 – 6:30 PM

CITY HALL AUDITORIUM

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. PUBLIC COMMENT

IV. AGENDA

A. Cable Committee Presentation (30 minutes)B. Zoning Change for Kennels in MU-3 P 2 C. Chapter 71 Blasting Ordinance P 7 D. Section 111 - Camp Ellis History P 49 E. Response to ACOE Report – Council Discussion P 50 F. Ecomaine - Memorandum of Understanding P 72

V. ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE

VI. COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND COMMENT

VII. ADJOURNMENT

CITY OF SACO, MAINE

Administration Kevin L. Sutherland, City Administrator Saco City Hall Telephone: (207) 282-4191 x341300 Main Street Email: [email protected] Saco, Maine 04072-1538 Facebook: /sacomaine

Twitter: @sacomaine

1

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.facebook.com/sacomaine

https://twitter.com/sacomaine

WORKSHOP ITEM: B Date: September 10, 2018

MEETING ITEM COMMENTARY

AGENDA ITEM: (First Reading) Zoning Change for Kennels in MU-3

STAFF RESOURCE: Zach Mosher, City Planner

COUNCIL RESOURCE: Councilor William Doyle

BACKGROUND: Kendall Beal of 58 Shadagee Rd in Saco has, by petition, asked the city to consider amending the MU-3 zoning district to add the already defined use of “Boarding Kennel” as a permitted use. This could be accomplished via simple amendment by adding “Boarding Kennel” as a permitted use to Section 230-410.6 of the Saco Zoning Ordinance.

Boarding Kennels are currently allowed as a permitted use in the B-2a, B-2b, B-6, and C-1 zones only.

The Planning Board held a public hearing for this request on August 7, 2018. After discussion, the Planning Board decided the Boarding Kennel use is more appropriately added in the MU-3 zoning district as a conditional use, rather than a permitted use. The Planning Board then voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to add the already-defined use of “Boarding Kennel” as a conditional use in the MU-3 zone district.

EXHIBITS: 1. Planning Board Memorandum from City Planner2. Planning Board Application Materials

RECOMMENDATION: Planning Board moved to forward a positive recommendation.

SUGGESTED MOTION: “The Saco City Council hereby ordains and approves the First Reading of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Map that amends the MU-3 zoning district to include the use of boarding kennels as a conditional use and further move to set the Public Hearing for September 17, 2018.”

2

I:\0001-Legislative-City Council\Meeting and Workshop\2018\09-10-18\B. Zoning Kennels\Zone Text Amendment Beal - Council Memo.docx

Planning and Development

Saco City Hall

300 Main Street

Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Zach Mosher

City Planner

[email protected]

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.333

PLANNING BOARD MEMO to CITY COUNCIL

TO: Mayor Lovell and City Council

FROM: Zach Mosher, City Planner

CC: Kevin Sutherland, City Administrator

DATE: September 10, 2018

RE: Zoning Text Amendment

By petition, the applicant has requested the Planning Board to forward a positive recommendation to the

City Council to consider adding the already defined use of "Boarding Kennel" to the Mixed Use 3

district (MU-3) as a permitted use. The applicant is considering acquiring the property at 955 Portland

Road with the goal of establishing such a use, and points to the recent closure of the Paw-zn-Around

boarding kennel on the site of the Precious Hidden Estates subdivision as motivation to open a new

business.

As per Section 230-302 Definitions of the Saco Zoning Ordinance, a BOARDING KENNEL is defined as:

“Any place, building, tract of land, abode, or vehicle wherein or whereon privately-owned dogs or

other pets, or both, are kept for their owners in return for a fee. This definition shall also inc1ude the

temporary keeping of animals for grooming purposes in return for a fee.”

Boarding Kennels are currently allowed as a permitted use in the B-2a, B-2b, B-6 and C-1 zones.

The Planning Board held a public hearing for this request on August 7, 2018. Four members of the public

spoke and were in favor of the zoning change. Jeanne Labonte, the owner of Paw-Zn-Around business,

which was formerly located at the Precious Hidden Estates subdivision on Portland Rd was in attendance

and said many people have voiced to her the need for a dog kennel on Portland Rd.

After public comment and Planning Board discussion, the Board concluded that this use would be better

served as a conditional use, instead of a permitted use which would mean that any application for a

boarding kennel in the MU-3 district would be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. The

board’s reasoning is that due to the residential uses allowed in the MU-3 district and the potential

negative effects a kennel could have adjacent to those uses, site plan approval should be required.

The Planning Board voted 6-0 (motion by Scontras, seconded by Girouard) to forward a positive

recommendation to the City Council to add the boarding kennel use as a conditional use based on the

following findings:


Exhibit Item: 1

3


a. Kennels in the MU-3 district is a reasonable conditional use given this classification is

intended to support a wide range of residential and nonresidential uses.

b. The City of Saco’s Comprehensive Plan says that in this area, “A wide range of retail, service,

office, light industrial, entertainment, recreational, and community uses should be

allowed…” (Chapter 6, 6-23).

The Planning Board materials are attached to this memorandum for your consideration.

__________________________

Zach Mosher

City Planner


Exhibit Item: 1

4

Y:\ZachMosher\PB\PB Meeting 8.7.2018\BEAL, 955 PORTLAND RD - ZONE-TEXT AMENDMENT 050218\Zone Text Amendment - Staff Report - 8.7.18.docx

Planning and Development

Saco City Hall

300 Main Street


Zach Mosher

City Planner

[email protected]

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.333

PLANNING BOARD MEMORANDUM

To: Saco Planning Board

From: Zach Mosher, City Planner

Re: Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment in Article 4

Date: August 7, 2018

I. PROPOSAL – By petition, the applicant is requesting the City to consider adding the already

defined use of "Boarding Kennel" to the Mixed Use 3 district (MU-3). The applicant is considering

acquiring the property at 955 Portland Road with the goal of establishing such a use, and points to

the recent closure of the Paw-zn-Around boarding kennel on the site of the Precious Hidden Estates

subdivision as motivation to open a new business.

The zone text amendment can be accomplished via a simple amendment to Article 4, adding the

proposed use to Section 230- 410.6, the list of uses for the MU-3 zone. Board members may be

aware that other kennels exist elsewhere along Rte. 1, albeit not in the MU-3 zone. There is a

boarding kennel at 750 Portland Rd called Suntars Kennels.

As per Section 230-302 Definitions of the Saco Zoning Ordinance, a BOARDING KENNEL is defined as:

“Any place, building, tract of land, abode, or vehicle wherein or whereon privately-owned dogs or

other pets, or both, are kept for their owners in return for a fee. This definition shall also inc1ude the

temporary keeping of animals for grooming purposes in return for a fee.”

Boarding Kennels are currently allowed as a permitted use in the B-2a, B-2b, B-6 and C-1 zones.

The amendment as proposed:

§ 230-410.6 MU-3 Planned Mixed-Use District.

A.

Permitted uses:

(2) Boarding Kennels.


Exhibit Item: 2

5


II. PLANNING BOARD ACTION – If the Board is in agreement and the public elicits no major concerns,

the Planning Board is being asked to send a positive recommendation on the text amendment to the City

Council.

III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION – Staff recommends the Planning Board send a recommendation of

APPROVAL to the City Council for the text amendment with the following findings:

a. Kennels in the MU-3 district is a reasonable permitted use given this classification is

intended to support a wide range of residential and nonresidential uses.

b. The City of Saco’s Comprehensive Plan says that in this area, “A wide range of retail,

service, office, light industrial, entertainment, recreational, and community uses should

be allowed…” (Chapter 6, 6-23).

__________________________

Zach Mosher

City Planner


Exhibit Item: 2

6

AGENDA ITEM: C

Date: September 10, 2018

I:\0001-Legislative-City Council\Meeting and Workshop\2018\09-10-18\C. Blasting\Item Commentary- Chapter 71 Blasting.doc

WORKSHOP ITEM COMMENTARY

AGENDA ITEM: (First Reading) Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Adoption of Zoning Ordinance to include a Blasting Ordinance as Chapter 71

COUNCIL RESOURCE: Councilor Micah Smart

STAFF RESOURCE: Zach Mosher, City Planner; Dick Lambert, Dir. of Code Enforcement

BACKGROUND: During the Lombard Lane Subdivision development in 2016, ledge was encountered during construction and a blasting company was brought in and neighbors became unhappy and concerned about damage to their foundations. As you are aware, there are currently no regulations in Saco concerning blasting.

The Planning Board workshopped this item on 6/12/2018 and 8/7/2018 and conducted a public hearing on August 21, 2018. The Planning Board also recommended the definition of secured blast area be changed to include a specific area defined by Code Enforcement. They also suggested adding a notification of blasting in a paper of general circulation at least three days prior to any blasting activity. The Planning Board also suggesting removing a few other editorial suggestions that included specifying Chapter 230 when the blasting ordinance referred to Saco’s Zoning Ordinance were recommended by the Planning Board.

Former Mayor Don Pilon spoke at the meeting and just wanted to make sure that if a blasting permit was issued, only Code Enforcement would retain proof of insurance of the party conducting the blasting in case a claim was filed. After recommending the changes described above, the Planning Board voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of a Blasting Ordinance (motion by Girouard, seconded by Scontras).

7

AGENDA ITEM: C

Date: September 10, 2018

I:\0001-Legislative-City Council\Meeting and Workshop\2018\09-10-18\C. Blasting\Item Commentary- Chapter 71 Blasting.doc

EXHIBITS: Draft Blasting Ordinance with comments

Draft Blasting Ordinance with all changes accepted Planning Board Packet, 8/21/2018

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the amendment as recommended by the Planning

Board. SUGGESTED MOTION: “The City Council hereby ordains and approves the First

Reading of the document titled, ‘Amendment to the Saco Code of Ordinances, entitled Chapter 71 Blasting Ordinance’, and further moves to set the Public Hearing for September 17, 2018.”

8

I:\0001-Legislative-City Council\Meeting and Workshop\2018\09-10-18\C. Blasting\Edits Chapter 71 Blasting draft thru Aug 9 RWGA review, TSM edits, ZM edits.docxQ:\0001-Legislative-City Council\Meeting and Workshop\2018\06-18-18\Chapter 71 Blasting draft thru 052218 - RWG&A review Comments.docxH:\MyFiles\Ordinances\Amendments, ZonOrd 2018\Blasting\Chapter 71 Blasting draft thru 052218.docx

Proposed Addition to City Code – Chapter 71. Blasting

Draft Under Review, 5/22/18

Chapter 71: Blasting

GENERAL REFERENCES Earth Removal — See §230-702. Land Use and Zoning — See Ch. 230.

Purpose; statutory authority; enforcement. Chapter 130 : Blasting

§ 71-1 Purpose; statutory authority; enforcement.

§ 71-2 Definitions.

§ 71-3 Blasting permit required; effect on other regulations.

§ 71-4 Permit requirements.

§ 71-5 Performance standards.

§ 71-6 Notices.

§ 71-7 Inspection, monitoring, and recordkeeping.

§ 71-8 Compliance schedule.

§ 71-9 Exceptions for undue hardship.

§ 71-10 Violations and penalties.

§ 71-1 Purpose; statutory authority; enforcement.A. Blasting is an activity essential to the economic viability of Saco. Unregulated blasting and/or irresponsible blasting may cause undue psychological, physical or nuisance damage to the people, property and environment of the City.

B. This chapter establishes specific standards for blasting operations, notice requirements, instrument monitoring requirements of blasting operations, a permit process for blasting and other associated standards and requirements.

C.

WORKSHOP ITEM: C Date: September 10, 2018

Exhibit Item: 1

9

https://www.ecode360.com/30401327

https://www.ecode360.com/30398757#30398757


















It is intended to minimize the effects of airblast overpressure, ground vibration, dust, and noise associated with blasting which may be detrimental to the enjoyment of life, property and the conduct of business for those individuals affected.

D. It is also intended to provide standards that will prevent permanent damage to the geologic, hydrogeologic and wildlife resources and ecological balance in the region outside the immediate blast area. The chapter is intended to protect the quality of life and the homes of residents, neighborhoods, property, groundwater, wildlife resources, scenic beauty and/or businesses, all lying outside the approved work area and potentially affected by the blasting.

E. It is intended to be effectively and efficiently administered without causing undue financial and administrative hardship to blasting operators.

F. It is intended to provide standards and requirements in conjunction with the City of Saco Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 230) if Earth Removal standards are to be utilized in the mineral extraction process.[1] [1] Editor's Note: See §230-720702, Earth Removal.

G. This chapter is enacted pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. § 3001, Ordinance power, as well as the City’s Home Rule authority under the Maine Constitution, and shall be administered by the Code Enforcement Officer.

§ 130-2 Definitions.The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: AIRBLAST

An airborne shock wave resulting from detonation of explosives. Airblast may be caused by burden movement or the release of expanding gas into the air. Airblast may or may not be audible.

APPLICANT The owner or other individual, corporation or other business entity who or which applies for the legal right to conduct blasting at real property which it has the legal right to use.

BLAST SITE The area where explosive material is handled during the loading of drilled blastholes, including the perimeter formed by the loaded blastholes and 50 feet in all directions from loaded blastholes [see 38 M.R.S.A. § 490-W(5)].

BLASTER An applicant who has been awarded a permit to conduct blasting.

BLASTING The use of explosives to break up or otherwise aid in the extraction or removal of rock or other consolidated material.

BLASTING OPERATIONS


Exhibit Item: 1

10




https://www.ecode360.com/30401327#ft30401334-1

https://www.ecode360.com/30401327#ref30401334-1










All processes conducted in association with site or other preparation for blasting, and the detonation of explosives.

DECIBEL The unit of sound pressure commonly used to measure airblast from explosives. The decibel scale is logarithmic.

EXPLOSIVES Any substance, chemical compound or mechanical mixture that is used for the purpose of producing an explosion to fragment rock for mining, quarrying, excavation and construction. Initiating devices (detonators, detonating cords, etc.) are also included under this definition.

EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY Any operation engaged in the removal of more than 20 cubic yards, in a twelve-month period, of topsoil, sand, gravel, clay, rock, peat or other like material from its natural location and for transportation off lot within any twelve-month period, except as may be exempted within the extractive industry performance standards in this chapter.

FLYROCK Rock that is propelled through the air or along the ground, which leaves the secured blast area as a result of the detonation of explosives.

GROUND VIBRATIONS Shaking of the ground caused by blasting. Ground vibrations are to be measured along three principal axes (x, y, z); namely, transverse, vertical, and longitudinal, all of which are subject to the performance standards herein.

GROUNDWATER Water beneath the earth's surface often between saturated soil and rock that supplies wells and streams.

HERTZ A term used, in the case of blasting, to express the frequency of ground vibrations and airblast. One hertz is one cycle per second.

PARTICLE VELOCITY A measure of ground vibration in the case of blasting. Particle velocity describes the velocity at which a particle of ground vibrates when excited by a seismic wave. It is measured in inches per second.

QUARRY The property designated in the application and permit where rock is excavated in an Extractive Industry operation.

SECURED BLAST AREA The area designated by permit in which blasting is permitted as defined by the Code Enforcment Office.

SEISMOGRAPH An instrument that measures and has the capability to provide a permanent record of hertz and decibel readings concerning ground vibrations caused by blasting.

§ 71-3 Blasting permit required; effect on other regulations.A. No blasting within the City of Saco shall be allowed unless a permit has been obtained from the Code Enforcement Department, except as otherwise exempted per this chapter.

Commented [EW1]: Recommend defining. Boundary of property where blasting takes place?

Commented [ZM2]: Planning Board suggested the secured blast area needs to be defined by CEO


Exhibit Item: 1

11



https://ecode360.com/32490906#32490906












B. The requirements of this chapter are in addition to any other applicable ordinances, regulations and statutes; and where different standards are contained therein, the more restrictive standards shall apply.

C. This chapter does not replace or negate federal and/or state requirements pertaining to explosives.

§ 71-4 Permit requirements.A. Blasting permit required. The following shall require a permit:

(1) Site Plan/SubdivisionsEarth Removal. If the Planning Board determines that a project involves or may require blasting, it shall expressly state and set out in its Conditions of Approval for such project that the applicant/developer secure from the Code Enforcement Officer a proper blasting permit in advanced of blasting, and as required herein. An Earth Removal operation shall require approval by the Planning Board as required by §230-702, Earth Removal, or Chapter 230, Zoning Ordinance. After the Planning Board issues an approval authorizing an Earth Removal operation, a blasting permit may be issued by the Code Enforcement Department, subject to conditions as set forth in the ordinance required by the Planning Board.

(2) General ConstructionProject. For any specific construction project, whether reviewed or not reviewed by the Planning Board as part of Site Plan or Subdivision, that is found to need blasting at any time, the owner/developer, or responsible general contractor, shall secure a blasting permit, as described herein, from the Code Enforcement Officer prior to any blasting. The following construction projects where blasting is required shall require a blasting permit: (3a) Extractive Industry and Gravel PitsPlanning Board approved. Any party who operates a gravel pit or who otherwise engages in extractive industry or earth removal operations, all as described in the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 230), shall secure from the Code Enforcement Officer a blasting permit, as described herein, prior to any blasting. Construction projects required by Chapter 230, Zoning Ordinance, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board shall follow the process for approval outlined in Chapter 230. After Planning Board review and approval, the Code Enforcement Department may issue a blasting permit.

(4b) Catch AllNon-Planning Board approved. Any other person or party, regardless of prior review, and regardless of purposes, that may need to conduct blasting construction project that does not require Planning Board review, requires a building permit, and is not exempt from the permit process by § 71-3 of this chapter shall be required to obtain a blasting permit, as described herein from, from the Code Enforcement Department.

No person or party may conduct any blasting within the boundaries of the City of Saco without first having obtained review and approval from the Code Enforcement Officer.(c) Non-Planning Board approved. Any construction project that does not require Planning Board review, and is not exempt from the permit process by § 71-3 of this chapter, shall be required to obtain a blasting permit from the Code Enforcement Department.


Exhibit Item: 1

12










B. Notice required. For any project that does not fit into another category, the Code Enforcement Officer will determine if an application for a blasting permit is required. All proposed blasting activities in Saco shall require notice of blasting to be given to the Code Enforcement Department, in writing, at least three (3) business days prior to the proposed start of blasting. This notice is in addition to and not in lieu of the 14 day review notice detailed below. Notice of the blasting shall be made public in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the area at least three days before such blasting is scheduled to take place.

C. Blasting application information. All applications for permits to conduct blasting shall contain the following information, referred to as the "blast plan". All blast plan applications shall be submitted at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the proposed start of any drilling or blasting operation:

(1) Applicant: the applicant's name, address, daytime telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address.

(2) Owner’s name, address, daytime telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address.

(3) Blasting contractor: the blasting contractor's name, address, daytime telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address (if other than the blaster). Contractor shall submit written evidence of license(s) held, experience and qualifications of the individual who will be responsible for loading and firing each shot.

(4) General contractor: the general contractor's name, address, daytime telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address.

(5) Work site: the street address and Tax Assessor's map and lot number for the proposed blasting activity. If the blast plan is for a property shown on a plan reviewed by the Planning Board, the blast area for which the permit is requested shall be included on the plan.

(66) Information about the blast plan to include the following:

a. Purpose of blast: a brief description of the work for which the blasting activity is requested.b. Volume of material: the estimated number of cubic yards (measured in place) of material to

be removed loosened or fragmented by blasting. c. Number of blasts: the estimated number of blasts required to remove loosen or fragment the

specified amount of material. d. Blast period: the planned starting and ending dates of the blasting activity.

Commented [ZM3]: The Planning Board suggested notice be provided in the newspaper.


Exhibit Item: 1

13









e. Site diagram: a sketch or diagram showing the property where blasting will be conducted,including: the location of adjacent structures and distance to those structures; description and location of blasting signs

f. Description of test blast drill pattern.g. Explosives to be used during both wet and dry conditions.h. Description of matting that will be used to prevent flyrock.i. Type, number, and planned locations of seismograph, and any other instrumentation proposed

for use to monitor vibrations and airblast overpressures. j. Description of proposed transport and storage of explosives.k. Description of safety procedures, security measures, and warning procedures to be employed

before, during and after the blast period. l. Signature of blasting contractor testifying to the accuracy of the blast plan.

D. Insurance. Prior to commencing blasting operations, evidence of liability insurance shall be submitted to the Code Enforcement Office in a minimum amount of $15,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence.

E. Public hearing. A public hearing is not required prior to the issuance of a blasting permit by the Code Enforcement Officer.shall be required for all blasting permits issued by the Planning Board. The Planning Department shall observe all required notification requirements.

F. Fees. Fees for blasting permits shall be as determined, and amended from time to time, by City Council order.

G. Permit duration. (1) Permits shall be valid for a period of 90 days. No blasting after 90 days shall occur excerpt aspermitted herein.

Earth Removal operation: as stipulated by the Planning Board. (2) Lapse and Extension. Any party that does not complete its blasting within the 90 day timeperiod may apply to the Code Enforcement Officer for a reasonable extension, not to exceed 60 days. The Code Enforcement Officer shall have full discretion as to the length and condition of any extension. If the 90 day period lapses prior to a request for extension, the Code Enforcement Officer may require that the party re-apply for a new blasting permit.

Project, Planning Board approved. Blasting permits for projects approved by the Planning Board shall be valid for one year from the date they are issued.

(3) Reserved.Project, non-Planning Board approved. Blasting permits for projects that do not require Planning Board approval shall be valid for 90 days from the date of issue.

H.

Formatted: Left, Space After: 0 pt


Formatted: Font: Not Bold





Exhibit Item: 1

14









Pre-blast survey. The following pre-blast survey requirements shall be required for all blasting permits prior to commencing blasting:

(1) Earth Removal operation: as stipulated by the Planning Board. (2) Project, Planning Board approved. A pre-blast survey shall be performed for all occupied structures within 500 feet of the blast site.

(2) The blasting contractor will hire an independent qualified seismologist, blasting consultant orengineer to perform pre-blast surveys on all structures, contingent upon property owner agreement. The independent seismologist or blasting consultant shall not be an employee of the contractor, subcontractor, explosives manufacturer, or explosives distributor. site, or as prescribed by the Planning Board. (3) Pre-Blast Survey Offer Notice:Project, non-Planning Board approved. A pre-blast survey shall be performed for all occupied structures within 500 feet of the blast site, or as prescribed by the Code Enforcement Department. (4) All other blasting. A pre-blast survey may be required at the discretion of the Code Enforcement Department. (5) a. The blasting contractor will hire an independent qualified seismologist or, blasting consultant orengineer to perform pre-blast surveys on all structures, contingent upon property owner agreement. The independent seismologist or blasting consultant shall not be an employee of the contractor, subcontractor, explosives manufacturer, or explosives distributor.

b. Pre-Blast Survey Offer Notice. Prior to commencement of the pre-blast surveys, the blasting

contractor shall provide the following documentation to the Code Enforcement Department:

• A list of property owners to be contacted (in accordance with the distances listed in thetable, above).

• Verification that the subject property owners were notified of the pre-blast survey work.

• A copy of the pre-blast survey offer notice.

• Whether each offer to conduct a pre-blast survey was either accepted, rejected, or there wasno response. The contractor shall retain a copy of each pre-blast survey offer notice for their records until the development project receives a final certificate of occupancy or is otherwise deemed complete by the City. Nothing herein shall be construed to discourage repeated efforts by the blasting contractor to contact eligible property owners via phone, hand delivery, or other method in addition to provision of the required offer notice letter.

• (4)

Pre-Blast Survey Documentation.

All pre-blast surveys shall include documentation of interior subgrade and above-grade accessible unobscured walls, ceilings, floors, roof and visible exterior as viewed from the grade level. Where significant cracks or damage exist, of for more complex structural defects, photographs or video shall be taken. A high- quality digital video videotapeor videotape survey with appropriate audio description of the locations, conditions, and defects may substitute for a written pre-blast survey.

Commented [EW4]: Surveying all is potentially unattainable if there are unwilling or nonresponsive structure owners. Consider…” shall be offered to property owners, and if offer accepted, then performed for ….

Commented [EW5]: Potentially unattainable. See comment above.

Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0", Space

After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, Pattern: Clear (White)

Commented [EW6]: We suggest defining “no response” such as time after the outreach is made (e.g., 5 days) and/or after a certain number of attempts.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or


Exhibit Item: 1

15



Where necessary, notes and sketches may also be submitted as part of a video pre-blast survey in order to highlight or elaborate on certain aspects of the video documentation. c. (5) Pre-Blast Survey Conditions Report.

All pre-blast surveys shall include an existing conditions report for each property. The conditions report may be presented as narrative, photographs, video or a combination thereof. Conditions reports shall summarize the condition of each building and define areas of concern, including deteriorated structures or utilities, structures housing sensitive equipment, and/or manufacturing processes that are sensitive to vibrations. d.

e.(6) Verification that all pre-blast surveys and conditions reports have been completed shall be submitted to the Code Enforcement Department at least two weeks prior to commencing any drilling and/or blasting operations.

(5) § 71-5 Performance standards.

All blasters shall comply with the following performance standards: A. Hours of detonation. (1) Earth Removal operation. As stipulated by the Planning Board in conjunction with §230-702. (2) All other blasting. Hours of detonation are limited to between sunrise and sunset or between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday inclusive. (3) Emergency situations. Blasting of any type may occur at any time in situations deemed to be emergencies by the Code Enforcement Department, after consultation with other City staff as may be determined to be necessary by Code Enforcement personnel. Emergency situations may include, but are not limited to, blasting to install utilities damaged by weather events or blasting to correct a misfire of explosives in an otherwise permitted blast event.

B. Water quality protection. Water is a precious resource and the applicant must take measures to assure that the quality of the groundwater is protected. Prior to the initial blast, the applicant must conduct water quality tests on all non-applicant-owned wells within 500 feet of the property line or as determined by the Planning Board for Earth Removal operations and Planning Board approved projects. Water quality testing must also be done post-blast if requested by the property owner because of evidence of a substantive change in water quality. Turbidity in wells tested shall be no greater than that which existed prior to the blasting as established in the pre-blast survey.

C. Ground vibration. (1) Peak particle velocity. Peak particle velocity limits (inches per second) not to be exceeded at any time, and in any one of the three principal directions at a structure location: (a) Earth Removal operation:

Commented [EW7]: Submitted to who? For privacy considerations, the City might want to consider NOT requiring submission of survey documents to the City. Alternatives include requiring that the Blaster or Blaster’s surveyor retain the records for a certain duration after the last blasting event and providing to the City when requested. RWG&A is aware that at least one blaster requires their consultant to retain records in order to avoid privacy issues.

Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:

1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 5 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:

0.5" + Indent at: 0.75"

Formatted: Font: Garamond, 12 pt, Underline


numbering



Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:

1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 5 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:

0.5" + Indent at: 0.75"


Commented [EW8]: Offer to conduct? Well owners may be nonresponsive or not authorize testing. See comments above.

Provide test results to owner if requested?

Commented [EW9]: In general, the blasting vibration criteria cited in (b) and (c) below are intended to reduce the potential for structural damage to property.

Setting thresholds too low will be technically burdensome and potentially make blasting in the City financially unviable to conduct. The City may wish to seek the input of a blasting contractor(s)

For perspective on vibration levels (from Siskind (2000)): The threshold for humans to perceive steady vibrations is about 0.01 inches/second, and about 0.06 inches/second for transient vibrations (e.g., blasting). House rattling can occur at about 0.03 inches/second. Vehicle traffic can produce vibrations of about 0.03 inches/second at a distance of 50 feet.


Commented [EW10]: RWG&A is uncertain of intent of (a) but notes it is the same as Augusta’s for quarry operations. It appears that criteria are intended to reduce human complaints and/or reduce the potential for cosmetic cracking.


Exhibit Item: 1

16










Distance from Blast

(feet)

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity

(inches/second)

Less than 300 1.25

300 to less than 500 0.94

500 to less than 5,000 0.75

5,000 or more 0.54

(b) Other.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines USBM RI 8507, 1980

[1] Up to 30 hertz: 0.5 inch per second.

[2] Thirty to 40 hertz: 1.0 inch per second.

[3] More than 40 hertz: 2.0 inches per second.

(2) Measurement. Ground vibration shall be measured as particle velocity. Particle velocity shall be recorded in three mutually perpendicular directions (x, y, z). The maximum allowable peak particle velocity shall apply to each of the three measurements.

(3)

Commented [EW11]: We suggest rotating this graph counterclockwise 90 degrees and widening to make legible.

Commented [EW12]: We suggest adopting (b) of (c) but not both, unless the City’s intent is to apply each to a particular type of site, which should then be defined. The vibration criteria in (b) and (c) are similar and cover the same range of frequencies but not identical. Criteria (b) was developed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and is a common vibration criteria chart used in United States to prevent damage to residential structures.


Exhibit Item: 1

17






https://www.ecode360.com/attachment/AU3534/AU3534-130 Particle Velocity.tif.png


Seismographic record. A seismographic record for all blasts shall be retained by the applicant and provided to the Code Enforcement Department or the Planning Board, if requested. The applicant is responsible for such record and for providing proper instrumentation as specified in this chapter. Personnel conducting such monitoring shall be properly trained in the operation of the equipment being used.

D. Airblast overpressure. Level not to be exceeded at any time: 133 peak dB (linear) two hertz high-pass system.

E. Instrumentation. All seismographs used for compliance with this chapter shall meet the following minimum specifications: (1) Seismic frequency range: two Hz to 200 Hz (±three± Hz).

(2) Acoustic frequency range: two Hz to 200 Hz (±one± dB).

(3) Velocity range: 0.02 inch to 4.0 inch per second.

(4) Sound range: 110 dB to 140 dB linear.

(5) Transducers: three mutually perpendicular axes.

(6) Recording: provide time-history of waveform.

(7) Calibration: laboratory-calibrated as often as necessary, but at least once every 12 months or according to manufacturer's recommendations, whichever is less.

(8) Measurements. The requirements established herein shall be measured at the closest building(s) on abutting properties as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer or Planning Board.

F. Other permits. The applicant must also comply with all standards and conditions contained in other permits issued for such projects and local, state and federal statutes and regulations.

§ 71-6 Notices.A. Required notification of blasting. The following notice requirements for any blast requiring a blasting permit shall be adhered to by the blaster. (1) Initial notice. The following initial notice of blasting shall be required: (a)

Commented [EW13]: Consider specifying the minimum number of seismographs to be used and the locations (see71-4(c)6 above). The number and locations vary in Maine varies with community. One to three monitored by the blaster or by a third party is not uncommon. Westbrook requires a seismograph for each requesting property owner, but this could be burdensome for the blaster especially a project blaster. Access to more than a few seismographs could be problematic.

Blasters routinely monitor blast vibrations for their own liability protection or insurance requirements. Requiring a third party to monitor vibrations is not unusual but will increase the cost of the project by up to several thousand dollars.

Commented [EW14]: For how long (e.g., 6 months, contractor warrantee period, statute of limitations, etc.)


Exhibit Item: 1

18

















Notice to Abuttors/All BlastingEarth Removal operation. Notice shall be sent no less than 10 calendar days prior to the initiation of blasting. The blaster must develop and implement a plan that provides an opportunity for prior notification of a blast to all property owners located within 2,000 feet of the blast site. Notification may be made by telephone, and/or by mail, and/or by public notice in the local newspaper, as set forth in the permit.

(b)

Project blasting (any type). The blaster must send by first class mail an advisory notice to all property owners within 500 feet of the secured blasting area. Notification shall be mailed no later than five calendar days prior to the initiation of blasting. A Certificate of Mailing shall be submitted to the Code Enforcement Department as verification that said mailings were done. Said notice must include the description of the blasting signals to be utilized during the operation. The blaster of either an Earth Removal operation or other project must provide notice to a property owner who has made a written request to the blaster.

(2) Twenty-four-hour requirement. Prior to every blast, the blaster shall notify all property owners within 500 feet of the secured blasting area for project blasting. and 2,000 feet for Earth Removal operations. This will be done whether or not the property owners requested to be notified. The blaster shall also notify all others who have requested in writing to be so notified. Such notification shall be given by telephone, or by door hangers on the door of the residence or business, between 24 hours and 48 hours prior to the blast. The notification shall state the time the blast is proposed to occur. The blast may occur as early as one hour prior to the noticed time and as late as one hour after the noticed time. The burden of proof of notification is the responsibility of the blaster.

B. Waiver of notice. The requirement of notice in accordance with this section for a project blast may be waived by the Code Enforcement Department for the removal of less than 50 cubic yards of rock, as estimated in place, when that rock is unexpectedly encountered after work on the project has begun.

§ 71-7 Inspection, monitoring, and recordkeeping.A. Entry and testing. The Code Enforcement Officer or his authorized representative may enter the secured blasting area or adjacent area to conduct tests and observe any authorized blasting operations and may order that additional ground vibration and airblast overpressure measurements using approved instrumentation be made by persons responsible for blasting operations to ensure that the limits specified in this chapter are not exceeded, if excess readings are indicated.

B. Additional monitoring. The blaster shall maintain a record of each blast. All records shall be retained at least three years following cessation of the blasting operation, and shall be available for inspection by the Code Enforcement Officer and shall contain the following minimum data for traceability purposes: (1)

Commented [EW15]: We suggest that this be reviewed to ensure the City’s intent is met. The reviewer understand that Earth Removal is for mineral extraction operations (pits, quarries) and not construction sites (i.e., subdivisions, house lots, etc.). The radius criteria, if applicable to construction projects (project blasting?), could be prohibitively expensive or burdensome. The reviewer notes the radius is similar to Augusta’s for quarry operations.

Formatted: Justified, Space After: 10 pt

Commented [EW16]: Define.

Commented [EW17]: Might be overly burdensome for project blasting and problematic for quarry operators. Loading explosive into holes takes time, and it can be hazardous to leave explosives in blast holes longer than needed. It appears the ordinance as drafted could require multi-day delays for renotification if the time window expires. Consider revising or perhaps adding an exemption if authorized by City’s designated representative (e.g. CEO, fire chief)

Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough


Commented [ZM18]: The Planning Board suggested removing this from the ordinance at the August 21, 2018 meeting.


Commented [ZM19R18]:



Exhibit Item: 1

19








Name of responsible party: the name of the person(s) responsible for the blasting operation.

(2) Location, date, time,: the location,, number and pattern/spacing of blast holes, total charge weight, charge weight per delay, date and time of each blast.

(3) Blaster: the name(s) of blaster in charge.

(4) Weather: the weather conditions (including such factors as wind direction, cloud cover, etc.).

(5) Data: seismograph and airblast readings, including date, time, and location of instrument.

(6) Notice: name, addresses, date and time of all persons who were notified prior to every blast.

§ 71-8 Compliance schedule.A. Applicability. Upon adoption of this chapter, all existing and new blasting operations are subject to the terms herein, and must obtain a permit to conduct any further blasting.

B. Review. A complete review of all activities under this chapter shall be undertaken by the Code Enforcement Department 12 months after adoption of this chapter to determine if the levels are adequate and reasonable to achieve the purpose for which this chapter is intended. The results of this review shall be reported to the City Administrator, which will report to the City Council with recommendations of the review.

§ 71-9 Exceptions for undue hardship.A. Application. Applications for a permit for exception from the performance standards designated in this chapter may, on the basis of hardship, be made to the Code Enforcement Department. Any permit granted hereunder shall contain all conditions upon which said permit has been granted and shall specify a reasonable time that the permit shall be effective.

B. Standards. The Code Enforcement Officer may grant the exception as applied for only if: (1) Limited in scope: the activity or operation will be of a temporary duration, i.e., a limited number of blasts at a specific site, and cannot be done in a manner that would comply with this chapter;

(2) Reasonable alternative: no other reasonable alternative is available to the applicants; and


Exhibit Item: 1

20















(3) Safety: the applicants represent, and the Code Enforcement Officer finds, that blasting as permitted will not violate recognized safety standards.

C. Conditions. Upon the issuance of any exception permit, the Code Enforcement Officer may limit the scope of the exception and prescribe any reasonable conditions or requirements he deems necessary to minimize adverse effects.

§ 71-10 Violations and penalties.A. Penalties. The submission of willful false information required by this chapter, or the violation of this chapter or the violation of any condition attached to a permit granted under this chapter shall constitute a land use violation for which an enforcement action may be commenced by the City in accordance with 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4452.

B. Reporting. A copy of the violation report and consent agreement reached between the City and the person or entity found in violation of any portion of this chapter will be filed in the permit or license file and the same shall be reported in writing to the City Council.

§ 71-11 Conflict.

Blasting in Saco shall be conducted in compliance with all pertinent section of the City Code of Ordinance, and, except as superseded by the provision of this article, the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code, and NFPA Explosive Materials Code as adopted by the State of Maine. In any particular instance where these regulations are in conflict with any other rules, regulations or ordinances of the City, the more restrictive regulation or provision shall prevail.

§ 71-12 Appeal of denial of a blasting permit.

Where the Planning Board has denied a blasting permit under this article, the appeal procedure for conditional use, site plan, or subdivision review as may be the case shall be followed. If the Code Enforcement Department has denied a blasting permit under this article, the applicant may appeal the denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals within thirty (30) days of the decision by filing a written notice of appeal.


Exhibit Item: 1

21






I:\0001-Legislative-City Council\Meeting and Workshop\2018\09-10-18\C. Blasting\Edits Chapter 71 Blasting draft thru Aug 9 RWGA review, TSM edits, ZM edits - Changes Accepted.docxQ:\0001-Legislative-City Council\Meeting and Workshop\2018\06-18-18\Chapter 71 Blasting draft thru 052218 - RWG&A review Comments.docx











§ 71-6 Notices.







C.


Exhibit Item: 2

22




















It is intended to minimize the effects of airblast overpressure, ground vibration, dust, and noise associated with blasting which may be detrimental to the enjoyment of life, property and the conduct of business for those individuals affected.



F. It is intended to provide standards and requirements in conjunction with the City of Saco Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 230) if Earth Removal standards are to be utilized in the mineral extraction process.[1] [1] Editor's Note: See §230-702, Earth Removal.








BLASTING OPERATIONS


Exhibit Item: 2

23















All processes conducted in association with site or other preparation for blasting, and the detonation of explosives.


EXPLOSIVES Any substance, chemical compound or mechanical mixture that is used for the purpose of producing an explosion to fragment rock for mining, quarrying, excavation and construction. Initiating devices (detonators, detonating cords, etc.) are also included under this definition.








SECURED BLAST AREA The area designated by permit in which blasting is permitted as defined by the Code Enforcment Office.




Commented [ZM2]: Planning Board suggested the secured blast area needs to be defined by CEO


Exhibit Item: 2

24



https://ecode360.com/32490906#32490906














§ 71-4 Permit requirements.A. Blasting permit required. The following shall require a permit:

(1) Site Plan/Subdivisions. If the Planning Board determines that a project involves or may require blasting, it shall expressly state and set out in its Conditions of Approval for such project that the applicant/developer secure from the Code Enforcement Officer a proper blasting permit in advanced of blasting, and as required herein.

(2) General Construction. For any specific construction project, whether reviewed or not reviewed by the Planning Board as part of Site Plan or Subdivision, that is found to need blasting at any time, the owner/developer, or responsible general contractor, shall secure a blasting permit, as described herein, from the Code Enforcement Officer prior to any blasting.

(3) Extractive Industry and Gravel Pits. Any party who operates a gravel pit or who otherwise engages in extractive industry or earth removal operations, all as described in the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 230), shall secure from the Code Enforcement Officer a blasting permit, as described herein, prior to any blasting.

(4) Catch All. Any other person or party, regardless of prior review, and regardless of purposes, that may need to conduct blasting shall be required to obtain a blasting permit, as described herein, from the Code Enforcement Department.

No person or party may conduct any blasting within the boundaries of the City of Saco without first having obtained review and approval from the Code Enforcement Officer.

B. Notice required. All proposed blasting activities in Saco shall require notice of blasting to be given to the Code Enforcement Department, in writing, at least three (3) business days prior to the proposed start of blasting. This notice is in addition to and not in lieu of the 14 day review notice detailed below. Notice of the blasting shall be made public in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the area at least three days before such blasting is scheduled to take place.


Commented [ZM3]: The Planning Board suggested notice be provided in the newspaper.


Exhibit Item: 2

25



















be loosened or fragmented by blasting. c. Number of blasts: the estimated number of blasts required to loosen or fragment the specified

amount of material. d. Blast period: the planned starting and ending dates of the blasting activity.e. Site diagram: a sketch or diagram showing the property where blasting will be conducted,

including: the location of adjacent structures and distance to those structures; description and location of blasting signs






Exhibit Item: 2

26








E. Public hearing. A public hearing is not required prior to the issuance of a blasting permit by the Code Enforcement Officer.



(2) Lapse and Extension. Any party that does not complete its blasting within the 90 day timeperiod may apply to the Code Enforcement Officer for a reasonable extension, not to exceed 60 days. The Code Enforcement Officer shall have full discretion as to the length and condition of any extension. If the 90 day period lapses prior to a request for extension, the Code Enforcement Officer may require that the party re-apply for a new blasting permit.

(3) Reserved.

H. Pre-blast survey. The following pre-blast survey requirements shall be required for all blasting permits prior to commencing blasting:

(1) A pre-blast survey shall be performed for all occupied structures within 500 feet of the blast site.

(2) The blasting contractor will hire an independent qualified seismologist, blasting consultant orengineer to perform pre-blast surveys on all structures, contingent upon property owner agreement. The independent seismologist or blasting consultant shall not be an employee of the contractor, subcontractor, explosives manufacturer, or explosives distributor.

(3) Pre-Blast Survey Offer Notice:

Prior to commencement of the pre-blast surveys, the blasting contractor shall provide the following

documentation to the Code Enforcement Department:


• Verification that the subject property owners were notified of the pre-blast survey work.

• A copy of the pre-blast survey offer notice.

• Whether each offer to conduct a pre-blast survey was either accepted, rejected, or there wasno response. The contractor shall retain a copy of each pre-blast survey offer notice for their records until the development project receives a final certificate of occupancy or is otherwise deemed complete by the City. Nothing herein shall be construed to discourage repeated efforts by the blasting contractor to contact eligible property owners via phone, hand delivery, or other method in addition to provision of the required offer notice letter.




Exhibit Item: 2

27









(4) Pre-Blast Survey Documentation.

All pre-blast surveys shall include documentation of interior subgrade and above-grade accessible unobscured walls, ceilings, floors, roof and visible exterior as viewed from the grade level. Where significant cracks or damage exist, of for more complex structural defects, photographs or video shall be taken. A high- quality digital video or videotape survey with appropriate audio description of the locations, conditions, and defects may substitute for a written pre-blast survey. Where necessary, notes and sketches may also be submitted as part of a video pre-blast survey in order to highlight or elaborate on certain aspects of the video documentation.

(5) Pre-Blast Survey Conditions Report.

All pre-blast surveys shall include an existing conditions report for each property. The conditions report may be presented as narrative, photographs, video or a combination thereof. Conditions reports shall summarize the condition of each building and define areas of concern, including deteriorated structures or utilities, structures housing sensitive equipment, and/or manufacturing processes that are sensitive to vibrations.

(6) Verification that all pre-blast surveys and conditions reports have been completed shall besubmitted to the Code Enforcement Department at least two weeks prior to commencing any drilling and/or blasting operations.








Exhibit Item: 2

28








C. Ground vibration. (1) Peak particle velocity. Peak particle velocity limits (inches per second) not to be exceeded at any time, and in any one of the three principal directions at a structure location: (a)

Distance from Blast

(feet)

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity

(inches/second)

Less than 300 1.25

300 to less than 500 0.94

500 to less than 5,000 0.75

5,000 or more 0.54

(b) Other.





(2)







Exhibit Item: 2

29







https://www.ecode360.com/attachment/AU3534/AU3534-130 Particle Velocity.tif.png


Measurement. Ground vibration shall be measured as particle velocity. Particle velocity shall be recorded in three mutually perpendicular directions (x, y, z). The maximum allowable peak particle velocity shall apply to each of the three measurements.

(3) Seismographic record. A seismographic record for all blasts shall be retained by the applicant and provided to the Code Enforcement Department or the Planning Board, if requested. The applicant is responsible for such record and for providing proper instrumentation as specified in this chapter. Personnel conducting such monitoring shall be properly trained in the operation of the equipment being used.


E. Instrumentation. All seismographs used for compliance with this chapter shall meet the following minimum specifications: (1) Seismic frequency range: two Hz to 200 Hz (±three± Hz).









§ 71-6 Notices.A.





Exhibit Item: 2

30
















Required notification of blasting. The following notice requirements for any blast requiring a blasting permit shall be adhered to by the blaster. (1) Initial notice. The following initial notice of blasting shall be required: (a) Notice to Abuttors/All Blasting. The blaster must send by first class mail an advisory notice to all property owners within 500 feet of the secured blasting area. Notification shall be mailed no later than five calendar days prior to the initiation of blasting. A Certificate of Mailing shall be submitted to the Code Enforcement Department as verification that said mailings were done. Said notice must include the description of the blasting signals to be utilized during the operation. The blaster of either an Earth Removal operation or other project must provide notice to a property owner who has made a written request to the blaster.

(2) Twenty-four-hour requirement. Prior to every blast, the blaster shall notify all property owners within 500 feet of the secured blasting area for project blasting. This will be done whether or not the property owners requested to be notified. The blaster shall also notify all others who have requested in writing to be so notified. Such notification shall be given by telephone, or by door hangers on the door of the residence or business, between 24 hours and 48 hours prior to the blast. The notification shall state the time the blast is proposed to occur. The blast may occur as early as one hour prior to the noticed time and as late as one hour after the noticed time. The burden of proof of notification is the responsibility of the blaster.



B. Additional monitoring. The blaster shall maintain a record of each blast. All records shall be retained at least three years following cessation of the blasting operation, and shall be available for inspection by the Code Enforcement Officer and shall contain the following minimum data for traceability purposes: (1) Name of responsible party: the name of the person(s) responsible for the blasting operation.

(2)



Commented [ZM15]: The Planning Board suggested removing this from the ordinance at the August 21, 2018 meeting.

Commented [ZM16R15]:


Exhibit Item: 2

31











Location, date, time,,, number and pattern/spacing of blast holes, total charge weight, charge weight per delay, date and time of each blast.










(3)


Exhibit Item: 2

32















Safety: the applicants represent, and the Code Enforcement Officer finds, that blasting as permitted will not violate recognized safety standards.


§ 71-10 Violations and penalties.A. Penalties. The submission of false information required by this chapter, or the violation of this chapter or the violation of any condition attached to a permit granted under this chapter shall constitute a land use violation for which an enforcement action may be commenced by the City in accordance with 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4452.

B. Reporting. A copy of the violation report and consent agreement reached between the City and the person or entity found in violation of any portion of this chapter will be filed in the permit or license file.

§ 71-11 Conflict.



If the Code Enforcement Department has denied a blasting permit under this article, the applicant may appeal the denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals within thirty (30) days of the decision by filing a written notice of appeal.


Exhibit Item: 2

33





V:\ZachMosher\PB\PB Meeting 8.21.2018\Blasting\Blasting Memo 8.21.18.docx

Planning and Development Saco City Hall 300 Main Street Saco, Maine 04072-1538 Zach Mosher

City Planner [email protected]

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.333

MEMORANDUM

To: Saco Planning Board

From: Zach Mosher, City Planner

Re: Proposed Blasting Ordinance (Chapter 71)

Date: August 21, 2018

I. PROPOSAL - During the Lombard Lane Subdivision development in 2016 ledge was encountered duringconstruction and a blasting company was brought in and neighbors became unhappy and concernedabout damage to their foundations. As you are aware, there are currently no regulations in Sacoconcerning blasting. Earth removal operations are recognized by the Zoning Ordinance concerning gravelpits and similar uses, but where new residential development is occurring there are no blasting standardsin place.

Staff has compiled a draft ordinance the Board’s review. The original draft ordinance is based on the cityof Augusta’s blasting ordinance. Staff understands that no one internally is an expert in blasting andtherefore a geotechnical firm from Biddeford was hired to review this ordinance. Eric Wiberg, P.E., hasexpertise in this area and has reviewed the draft ordinance and you can find his comments in the margin.In this latest draft, you can also find the comments of Saco’s city attorney, Tim Murphy, included in themargin as well.

The Planning Board workshopped this item on 6/12/2018 and 8/7/2018 and is now being brought backto the Board for a public hearing. The Planning Board wondered if the driving of piles should be part ofthe blasting ordinance and staff will be sure to forward that recommendation to the City Council. Duringthe last workshop, the Board in general seemed eager to forward a positive recommendation to the CityCouncil.

II. PLANNING BOARD ACTION – If the Board is in agreement and the public elicits no major concerns,the Planning Board is being asked to send a positive recommendation on incorporating this blastingordinance into the Saco Code of Ordinances as Chapter 71.


Exhibit Item: 3

34


III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION – Staff recommends the Planning Board send a positiverecommendation to the City Council concerning the adoption of a Blasting Ordinance with thefollowing findings:

a. A Blasting Ordinance would provide a Saco residents proper notification if they arewithin a certain area of the proposed blasting work.

b. A Blasting Ordinance would provide Saco residents protection and safety from thepractice of blasting.

“Move to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed adoption of a Blasting Ordinance (Chapter 71) into the Saco Code of Ordinances.”

__________________________ Zach Mosher City Planner


Exhibit Item: 3

35

V:\ZachMosher\PB\PB Meeting 8.21.2018\Blasting\Chapter 71 Blasting draft thru Aug 9 RWGA review and TSM Edits.docx











§ 71-6 Notices.







C. It is intended to minimize the effects of airblast overpressure, ground vibration, dust, and noise associated with blasting which may be detrimental to the enjoyment of life, property and the conduct of business for those individuals affected.


Exhibit Item: 3

36






















F. It is intended to provide standards and requirements in conjunction with the City of Saco Zoning Ordinance if Earth Removal standards are to be utilized in the mineral extraction process.[1] [1] Editor's Note: See §230-720702, Earth Removal.








BLASTING OPERATIONS All processes conducted in association with site or other preparation for blasting, and the detonation of explosives.


EXPLOSIVES


Exhibit Item: 3

37

















Any substance, chemical compound or mechanical mixture that is used for the purpose of producing an explosion to fragment rock for mining, quarrying, excavation and construction. Initiating devices (detonators, detonating cords, etc.) are also included under this definition.








SECURED BLAST AREA The area designated by permit in which blasting is permitted.








Exhibit Item: 3

38

https://ecode360.com/32490906#32490906















A. Blasting permit required. The following shall require a permit:

(1) Site Plan/SubdivisionsEarth Removal. If the Planning Board determines that a project involves or may require blasting, it shall expressly state and set out in its Conditions of Approval for such project that the applicant/developer secure from the Code Enforcement Officer a proper blasting permit in advanced of blasting, and as required herein. An Earth Removal operation shall require approval by the Planning Board as required by §230-702, Earth Removal, or Chapter 230, Zoning Ordinance. After the Planning Board issues an approval authorizing an Earth Removal operation, a blasting permit may be issued by the Code Enforcement Department, subject to conditions as set forth in the ordinance required by the Planning Board.

(2) General ConstructionProject. For any specific construction project, whether reviewed or not reviewed by the Planning Board as part of Site Plan or Subdivision, that is found to need blasting at any time, the owner/developer, or responsible general contractor, shall secure a blasting permit, as described herein, from the Code Enforcement Officer prior to any blasting. The following construction projects where blasting is required shall require a blasting permit: (3a) Extractive Industry and Gravel PitsPlanning Board approved. Any party who operates a gravel pit or who otherwise engages in extractive industry or earth removal operations, all as described in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, shall secure from the Code Enforcement Officer a blasting permit, as described herein, prior to any blasting. Construction projects required by Chapter 230, Zoning Ordinance, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board shall follow the process for approval outlined in Chapter 230. After Planning Board review and approval, the Code Enforcement Department may issue a blasting permit.

(4b) Catch AllNon-Planning Board approved. Any other person or party, regardless of prior review, and regardless of purposes, that may need to conduct blasting construction project that does not require Planning Board review, requires a building permit, and is not exempt from the permit process by § 71-3 of this chapter shall be required to obtain a blasting permit, as described herein from, from the Code Enforcement Department.

No person or party may conduct any blasting within the boundaries of the City of Saco without first having obtained review and approval from the Code Enforcement Officer.(c) Non-Planning Board approved. Any construction project that does not require Planning Board review, and is not exempt from the permit process by § 71-3 of this chapter, shall be required to obtain a blasting permit from the Code Enforcement Department.

B. Notice required. For any project that does not fit into another category, the Code Enforcement Officer will determine if an application for a blasting permit is required. All proposed blasting activities in Saco shall require notice of blasting to be given to the Code Enforcement Department, in writing, at least three (3) business days prior to the proposed start of blasting. This notice is in addition to and not in lieu of the 14 day review notice detailed below.


Exhibit Item: 3

39
















be removed loosened or fragmented by blasting. c. Number of blasts: the estimated number of blasts required to remove loosen or fragment the

specified amount of material. d. Blast period: the planned starting and ending dates of the blasting activity.e. Site diagram: a sketch or diagram showing the property where blasting will be conducted,

including: the location of adjacent structures and distance to those structures; description and location of blasting signs





Exhibit Item: 3

40









E. Public hearing. A public hearing is not required prior to the issuance of a blasting permit by the Code Enforcement Officer.shall be required for all blasting permits issued by the Planning Board. The Planning Department shall observe all required notification requirements.



Earth Removal operation: as stipulated by the Planning Board. (2) Lapse and Extension. Any party that does not complete its blasting within the 90 day timeperiod may apply to the Code Enforcement Officer for a reasonable extension, not to exceed 60 days. The Code Enforcement Officer shall have full discretion as to the length and condition of any extension. If the 90 day period lapses prior to a request for extension, the Code Enforcement Officer may require that the party re-apply for a new blasting permit.

Project, Planning Board approved. Blasting permits for projects approved by the Planning Board shall be valid for one year from the date they are issued.

(3) Reserved.Project, non-Planning Board approved. Blasting permits for projects that do not require Planning Board approval shall be valid for 90 days from the date of issue.

H. Pre-blast survey. The following pre-blast survey requirements shall be required for all blasting permits prior to commencing blasting:

(1) Earth Removal operation: as stipulated by the Planning Board. (2) Project, Planning Board approved. A pre-blast survey shall be performed for all occupied structures within 500 feet of the blast site.

(2) The blasting contractor will hire an independent qualified seismologist, blasting consultant orengineer to perform pre-blast surveys on all structures, contingent upon property owner agreement. The independent seismologist or blasting consultant shall not be an employee of the contractor, subcontractor, explosives manufacturer, or explosives distributor. site, or as prescribed by the Planning Board.









Exhibit Item: 3

41









(3) Pre-Blast Survey Offer Notice:Project, non-Planning Board approved. A pre-blast survey shall be performed for all occupied structures within 500 feet of the blast site, or as prescribed by the Code Enforcement Department. (4) All other blasting. A pre-blast survey may be required at the discretion of the Code Enforcement Department. (5) a. The blasting contractor will hire an independent qualified seismologist or, blasting consultant orengineer to perform pre-blast surveys on all structures, contingent upon property owner agreement. The independent seismologist or blasting consultant shall not be an employee of the contractor, subcontractor, explosives manufacturer, or explosives distributor.

b. Pre-Blast Survey Offer Notice. Prior to commencement of the pre-blast surveys, the blastingcontractor shall provide the following documentation to the Code Enforcement Department:


• Verification that the subject property owners were notified of the pre-blast survey work.• A copy of the pre-blast survey offer notice.• Whether each offer to conduct a pre-blast survey was either accepted, rejected, or there was

no response. The contractor shall retain a copy of each pre-blast survey offer notice for their records until the development project receives a final certificate of occupancy or is otherwise deemed complete by the City. Nothing herein shall be construed to discourage repeated efforts by the blasting contractor to contact eligible property owners via phone, hand delivery, or other method in addition to provision of the required offer notice letter. • (4)

Pre-Blast Survey Documentation.

All pre-blast surveys shall include documentation of interior subgrade and above-grade accessible unobscured walls, ceilings, floors, roof and visible exterior as viewed from the grade level. Where significant cracks or damage exist, of for more complex structural defects, photographs or video shall be taken. A high- quality digital video videotapeor videotape survey with appropriate audio description of the locations, conditions, and defects may substitute for a written pre-blast survey. Where necessary, notes and sketches may also be submitted as part of a video pre-blast survey in order to highlight or elaborate on certain aspects of the video documentation. c. (5) Pre-Blast Survey Conditions Report.

All pre-blast surveys shall include an existing conditions report for each property. The conditions report may be presented as narrative, photographs, video or a combination thereof. Conditions reports shall summarize the condition of each building and define areas of concern, including deteriorated structures or utilities, structures housing sensitive equipment, and/or manufacturing processes that are sensitive to vibrations. d.

e.(6) Verification that all pre-blast surveys and conditions reports have been completed shall be submitted to the Code Enforcement Department at least two weeks prior to commencing any drilling and/or blasting operations.

Commented [EW3]: Potentially unattainable. See comment above.

Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0", SpaceAfter: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, Pattern: Clear (White)


Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering



Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 5 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75"


Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", No bullets ornumbering



Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 5 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75"



Exhibit Item: 3

42






C. Ground vibration. (1) Peak particle velocity. Peak particle velocity limits (inches per second) not to be exceeded at any time, and in any one of the three principal directions at a structure location: (a) Earth Removal operation: Distance from Blast (feet)

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second)

Less than 300 1.25 300 to less than 500 0.94 500 to less than 5,000 0.75 5,000 or more 0.54

(b) Other.







Commented [EW8]: RWG&A is uncertain of intent of (a) but notes it is the same as Augusta’s for quarry operations. It appears that criteria are intended to reduce human complaints and/or reduce the potential for cosmetic cracking.


Exhibit Item: 3

43














(2) Measurement. Ground vibration shall be measured as particle velocity. Particle velocity shall be recorded in three mutually perpendicular directions (x, y, z). The maximum allowable peak particle velocity shall apply to each of the three measurements.

(3) Seismographic record. A seismographic record for all blasts shall be retained by the applicant and provided to the Code Enforcement Department or the Planning Board, if requested. The applicant is responsible for such record and for providing proper instrumentation as specified in this chapter. Personnel conducting such monitoring shall be properly trained in the operation of the equipment being used.


E.







Exhibit Item: 3

44








https://www.ecode360.com/attachment/AU3534/AU3534-130%20Particle%20Velocity.tif.png


Instrumentation. All seismographs used for compliance with this chapter shall meet the following minimum specifications: (1) Seismic frequency range: two Hz to 200 Hz (±three± Hz).









§ 71-6 Notices.A. Required notification of blasting. The following notice requirements for any blast requiring a blasting permit shall be adhered to by the blaster. (1) Initial notice. The following initial notice of blasting shall be required: (a) Notice to Abuttors/All BlastingEarth Removal operation. Notice shall be sent no less than 10 calendar days prior to the initiation of blasting. The blaster must develop and implement a plan that provides an opportunity for prior notification of a blast to all property owners located within 2,000 feet of the blast site. Notification may be made by telephone, and/or by mail, and/or by public notice in the local newspaper, as set forth in the permit.

(b)

Project blasting (any type). The blaster must send by first class mail an advisory notice to all property owners within 500 feet of the secured blasting area. Notification shall be mailed no later than five calendar days prior to the initiation of blasting. A Certificate of Mailing shall be submitted to the Code

Commented [EW13]: We suggest that this be reviewed to ensure the City’s intent is met. The reviewer understand that Earth Removal is for mineral extraction operations (pits, quarries) and not construction sites (i.e., subdivisions, house lots, etc.). The radius criteria, if applicable to construction projects (project blasting?), could be prohibitively expensive or burdensome. The reviewer notes the radius is similar to Augusta’s for quarry operations.

Formatted: Justified, Space After: 10 pt



Exhibit Item: 3

45















Enforcement Department as verification that said mailings were done. Said notice must include the description of the blasting signals to be utilized during the operation. The blaster of either an Earth Removal operation or other project must provide notice to a property owner who has made a written request to the blaster.

(2) Twenty-four-hour requirement. Prior to every blast, the blaster shall notify all property owners within 500 feet of the secured blasting area for project blasting. and 2,000 feet for Earth Removal operations. This will be done whether or not the property owners requested to be notified. The blaster shall also notify all others who have requested in writing to be so notified. Such notification shall be given by telephone, or by door hangers on the door of the residence or business, between 24 hours and 48 hours prior to the blast. The notification shall state the time the blast is proposed to occur. The blast may occur as early as one hour prior to the noticed time and as late as one hour after the noticed time. The burden of proof of notification is the responsibility of the blaster.



B. Additional monitoring. The blaster shall maintain a record of each blast. All records shall be retained at least three years following cessation of the blasting operation, and shall be available for inspection by the Code Enforcement Officer and shall contain the following minimum data for traceability purposes: (1) Name of responsible party: the name of the person(s) responsible for the blasting operation.

(2) Location, date, time,: the location,, number and pattern/spacing of blast holes, total charge weight, charge weight per delay, date and time of each blast.





Exhibit Item: 3

46


















(3) Safety: the applicants represent, and the Code Enforcement Officer finds, that blasting as permitted will not violate recognized safety standards.


§ 71-10 Violations and penalties.A.


Exhibit Item: 3

47
















Penalties. The submission of willful false information required by this chapter, or the violation of this chapter or the violation of any condition attached to a permit granted under this chapter shall constitute a land use violation for which an enforcement action may be commenced by the City in accordance with 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4452.

B. Reporting. A copy of the violation report and consent agreement reached between the City and the person or entity found in violation of any portion of this chapter will be filed in the permit or license file and the same shall be reported in writing to the City Council.

§ 71-11 Conflict.



Where the Planning Board has denied a blasting permit under this article, the appeal procedure for conditional use, site plan, or subdivision review as may be the case shall be followed. If the Code Enforcement Department has denied a blasting permit under this article, the applicant may appeal the denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals within thirty (30) days of the decision by filing a written notice of appeal.


Exhibit Item: 3

48


Administration

Saco City Hall

300 Main Street


Phone: (207) 282-4191

Kevin L. Sutherland

City Administrator

[email protected]

facebook.com/sacomaine

Twitter.com/sacomaine

Instagram.com/saco.maine

MEMORANDUM


FROM: Kevin Sutherland, City Administrator

DATE: September 6th, 2018

RE: Section 111 - Camp Ellis History

We’d like to provide the Council and members of the public a presentation on the history of the Camp Ellis Jetty and

the efforts that have been led since the 1990’s to put this issue on the Army Corps of Engineers work plan prior to

our discussion on where we are today and what our next steps will be.

There is a lot of background material that can be found on the City Website and a few items of particular interest

include slides that will be referenced Monday night are from the three presentations we’ve presented to the public

over the last three years.

• October 25th, 2016

• June 15th, 2017

• May 23rd, 2018

We intend to host another community meeting later this month to recap this presentation and the ideas/concerns

raised from the next topic on your agenda.

WORKSHOP ITEM: D Date: September 10, 2018

49


https://facebook.com/sacomaine


https://twitter.com/sacomaine?lang=en

https://www.instagram.com/saco.maine/?hl=en

http://www.sacomaine.org/departments/administration/camp_ellis_section_111.php

http://www.sacomaine.org/Camp%20Ellis%20presentation.pdf

http://cms.revize.com/revize/saco/Saco%20River%20and%20Camp%20Ellis%202017%20-%202018.pdf

http://cms.revize.com/revize/saco/Administration/Camp%20Ellis%20Community%20Meeting.pdf

Administration

Saco City Hall

300 Main Street


Phone: (207) 282-4191

Kevin L. Sutherland

City Administrator

[email protected]




MEMORANDUM




RE: Status of and discussion on the Camp Ellis Jetty Spur

This July, the Saco Bay Erosion Working Group received a draft version of the executive summary (draft version

attached to this memo). We worked through this and the full 91-page report (which can be found on the City

website). Our responsibility was to provide a letter of support for the proposed project, however, many concerns

were raised and needed to be addressed if we were going to move forward. Also included are the three versions of

“support” letters that we’ve shared with our federal delegate contacts and the Army Corps of Engineering (ACOE)

district office project manager.

We were informed by the ACOE that the first letter dated August 21st would not be accepted, so we re-wrote the

second letter, dated August 31st and presented it at a meeting with representatives from the Army Corps as well as

representatives from Senators King and Collins offices on September 4th. That letter was also rejected. The final

letter included here, dated September 6, is our third attempt. I have sent it to the ACOE representative for feedback

and hope to have a response at the Workshop on Monday. But before that is officially sent, I’d like to make sure this

is where the Council wants to go.

The next step after the support letter is a partnership agreement that will come back to Council in the form of a vote

which will involve future expenses that Council must be aware of and prepared to fund.

One of the outstanding questions we have for Council for Monday; if we were to incur future costs, should we instead

be advocating for an option that further mitigates our financial responsibility (Option 25A) with the expectation that

we will have to step in when the Federal government has done their part and has parted ways?

If the answer is yes, this will further delay movement on the project (I would assume another 3-5 years) and we may

not have the same political support as we do today. At this point, I am not certain I can offer any additional insight

and will be looking to the Council for advice on how to best approach this.

WORKSHOP ITEM: E Date: September 10, 2018

50






___________________________________________________________________________ Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Maine ES-1 Final Decision Document §111 Shore Damage Mitigation Project Executive Summary – May 2018 Revised

Executive Summary

This Decision Document for shore damage mitigation at the Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach in Saco, Maine was prepared under the continuing authority of Section 111 of the 1968 River and Harbors Act, as amended.

The report consists of a main report summarizing the existing conditions of the project area, problem identification, plan formulation and evaluation, and a recommendation. An Environmental Assessment of the proposed action is included with the report. Appended supporting documentation includes Pertinent Correspondence, Coastal Engineering Study Reports, Geotechnical Design, Engineering Design and Cost Estimates, Economics, Real Estate, and Cultural Resources. The study accomplished the following:

• Examined existing conditions and assessed the extent of problems associated withshoreline erosion caused by the existing Saco River Navigation project.

• Developed and evaluated alternative solutions to shoreline erosion at Camp EllisBeach.

• Determined the extent of Federal interest in participating in mitigating for shorelineerosion.

• Developed the most cost effective plan to mitigate for shoreline erosion caused by theFederal navigation project.

• Assessed the environmental and other impacts of alternative solutions and the selectedplan.

• Scaling that plan to fit within the Federal project cost limit set by the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 2007.

• Identified the capability and willingness of the non-Federal sponsor, the city of Saco,Maine, to participate in recommended improvements.

The Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach are located in the City of Saco, Maine, about 16 miles south of Portland, Maine. The beach is situated on the southern portion of the Saco Bay shoreline at the mouth of the Saco River (See Figure ES-1). The tidal portion of the Saco River forms part of the boundary between the cities of Biddeford to the south and Saco to the north. At the entrance to the river, the Saco River Federal Navigation Project consists of an 8-foot deep channel, 200 feet wide, that is protected by a 6,600-foot-long jetty to the north and by a 4,800-foot-long jetty to the south. The 8-foot channel continues upriver about 6 miles to the head of navigation below the dams at the centers of the two cities. An 8-foot anchorage basin at the head of the project surrounds a shallow shoal known as Half-Tide Island.

The navigation project currently supports a wide variety of commercial and recreational activities. A commercial fishing fleet of nearly 40 vessels anchors and unloads at the fishing pier at Camp Ellis. The pier is also used by several charter and sport fishing boats. A commercial boat yard, situated further upstream on the Biddeford side, manufactures and services commercial and pleasure craft. Until recently approximately 120 tons of paper products were also exported from the pier at this boat yard yearly but those shipments have


51


now ceased. There are three marinas that provide berths or moorings for about 290 recreational boats, and three public boat ramps provide additional access to the river. The State ramp at Meeting House Eddy is the most heavily used ramp in the State with over 300 launches per day. Other related activities, such as marine programs at the University of New England and kayak rentals, are supported by the project.

As shown on Figure ES-2, Camp Ellis Beach lies adjacent to the north jetty and extends about 2,500 feet north to Ferry Beach, which extends further north along the bay to the vicinity of Goosefare Brook. The north jetty separates the river from Camp Ellis Beach to the north. The Federal navigation project was authorized and constructed in several increments between 1828 and 1968. Initial construction included stone and timber crib jetties in the river and two jetties at the river mouth with stone beacons. Persistent inlet instability and shoaling resulted in the reconstruction and extension of the north jetty between 1867 and 1873. Shoaling continued as sediment continued to collect in the navigation channel and areas along the Biddeford coastline south of the inlet. This prompted construction of a south jetty that was initiated in 1891. This jetty has contained the sand that is present in areas to the south, and wave forces in this area have formed a typical crescent shaped beach south of the jetty and accretion on the south side of the jetty.

Following initial construction of the South Jetty channel instability continued and the south jetty was extended to 4,800 feet in 1911. Severe erosion on the north side of the north jetty prompted construction of a 400 foot spur jetty in 1912 to prevent flanking of the jetty. Continued erosion in this area has overwhelmed this small spur jetty which can now be seen as a dispersed ribbon of rocks about 300 feet from shore. Inlet instability continued and sections of the north jetty were raised and tightened, and sections were added in 1930 and 1938 to achieve the current length of 6,600 feet. During the last modification in 1968, the shoreward end of the north jetty was raised and tightened to reduce the maintenance dredging frequency in the river channel by keeping sand from Camp Ellis from working its way through the jetty and into the channel.

The jetties provide for navigation safety at the mouth of the river and a reduction in the frequency of maintenance of the lower river channel and anchorage areas. However the jetties also have impacts to the adjacent shoreline. While the south jetty is largely protective of the Biddeford shoreline in its lee, the north jetty has more adverse effects on the Saco shoreline to the north. The area of Camp Ellis Beach and the south end of Ferry Beach within about 3,250 feet from the north jetty has experienced severe erosion over the past several decades, with losses of over 30 homes and other property, roadways, and public and private infrastructure since the 1950s. These continuing losses prompted the city of Saco to request Federal assistance from the Corps of Engineers to reduce or eliminate further shoreline impacts. Historic shoreline positions and shoreline areas lost to erosion are shown on an aerial photo included as Figure ES-3.


52


Camp Ellis Beach

North Jetty

Figure ES-2

Study Area

Figure ES-1

Saco Bay Location


53


Section 111 provides authorization for the Corps of Engineers to study, plan and implement structural and/or nonstructural measures to prevent or mitigate damage to shorelines to the extent that such damages can be directly attributable to Federal navigation projects. The Federal share of costs for any one project is normally limited to $10 million. However, as costs of plans to mitigate further shoreline erosion were expected to exceed this limit, action by the Maine Congressional delegation resulted in the inclusion of Section 3085 in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 that raised the limit at Camp Ellis to $26.9 million. As current cost estimates for a solution to the erosion problem exceed that limit, the Government would not be able to construct the entire project with Federal funds.

Shoreline change at Camp Ellis has been the subject of numerous studies over the years. These studies, conducted by the Corps and others, indicate that the Saco River has been the primary sediment source for the Saco Bay beaches, and that the primary direction of sediment movement along the shoreline is south to north. However, with construction of the north jetty, sands from the Saco River were retained in the channel or transported offshore into deeper waters, and were not available to nourish Camp Ellis Beach. The other major impacts to the

Figure ES-3 – Historic Shoreline Positions


54


area are significant wave reflection off of the northern jetty and development under certain conditions of stem currents along the face of the structure. Upon impacting the structure, waves are reflected back towards Camp Ellis Beach and a portion of shoreline directly adjacent to the breakwater is impacted not only by incident wave energy, but also by reflected wave energy. The stem currents can also move material off the beach and into deeper water in the Bay. In summary, the destabilization of Camp Ellis Beach and the resultant high erosion rate can be attributed to several factors directly related to construction of the north jetty. These include interruption of natural riverine sediment supply to the downdrift beach, diversion of riverine sediment and beach material farther offshore, and wave focusing along the beach due to reflection of waves by the breakwater.

Mitigating for shoreline loss along Camp Ellis involved the development and evaluation of a wide range of alternatives that included both structural and non-structural measures. More than 30 plans and combinations were modelled and studied. Structural measures included increments of jetty removal or modification, and construction of spur jetties, breakwaters and T-groins along the beach. Beach nourishment, as a stand-alone alternative, or in conjunctionwith other measures was also considered. The primary non-structural alternative was thepurchase and demolition of structures within the potential area of erosion and restoration ofthe area into a more stable frontal dune. The effects of structural alternatives were evaluatedusing the results of extensive modeling studies that were conducted as part of the study.These modeling studies included extensive data collection and numerical modeling tosimulate existing conditions in the vicinity of Camp Ellis. The numerical modeling portion ofthe study was used to evaluate the performance of each considered alternative. Initialscreening phases resulted in carrying four plans forward for final analysis, including the buy-out plan.

1) Beachfill Only Plan (712,000 CY)2) Alternative 6 – 750-foot Spur Jetty and Beachfill (365,000 CY)3) Alternative 25A – 500-foot Spur Jetty, Two Offshore Breakwaters (about 400 feet

each), and Beachfill (328,000 CY)4) Buyout Plan – Property Acquisition, Building Demolition, and Site Restoration

Final screening of alternatives was conducted based on performance criteria of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. Plan selection under Section 111 is based on the least costly plan, as measured by annual cost (including design, implementation and renourishment), that meets the goal of preventing further shore damage to extent that the underlying Federal navigation project is determined responsible for that damage. Benefit-cost analysis is not used in the least cost evaluation. The final least-cost analysis is shown in Table ES-1 below. The annual cost shown is based on the historic rate of sea level change. Analysis of the project plans under conditions of intermediate and high rates of sea level rise yielded the same result for the cost rankings of the several plans.


55


Table ES-1 Annual Costs for Final Array of Alternatives

Alternative Annual Cost Beach Fill Only Plan $1,965,000 Alternative 6 – Jetty plus Beachfill $1,324,000 Alternative 25A – Jetty plus Two Breakwaters plus Beachfill $1,695,000

Buy-Out Plan $1,697,000 Note: Least cost analysis was based on FY17 Price Levels

Final screening resulted in the selection of Alternative 6 (750-foot long spur jetty and about 365,000 CY of beach nourishment) as the least costly, technically feasible, and environmentally acceptable shore damage mitigation plan. However, as the costs of this Selected Plan (Alternative 6) exceed the Federal funding limit of WRDA 2007, it was necessary to scale the plan back to fit that limit.

Scaling the least costly plan to fit the Federal funding limit was determined to best be achieved by reducing the width of the beachfill provided after construction of the spur jetty. Construction of the spur jetty as initially designed is necessary to is a priority to interrupt the wave energy and currents due to the main jetty. Beachfill to the extent of any remaining Federal funding capability would be the second priority. Beachfill, both initial and for future renourishment is also more readily implemented by non-Federal interests compared to jetty construction or modification. The recommended Federal plan will therefore include full construction of the 750-foot-long stone spur jetty and reinforcement of adjacent sections of the main north jetty, followed by construction of a reduced width section of the beachfill component of the project. Non-Federal interests could, if they chose, supplement the initial beachfill volume and width provided by the Federal cost-scaled plan and perform any future beach renourishment at their own cost. This scaled-back version of Alternative 6 will be the Federally Implementable Plan (FIP).

Both Alternative 6 and the recommended Federally Implementable Plan (see Figure ES-4) consist of a 750-foot-long spur jetty and beach fill along Camp Ellis Beach to prevent further shoreline losses north of the existing north jetty. The spur jetty would be attached to the existing north jetty at a point about 1,475 feet from the shoreline. The top of the structure would be about 15 feet wide and at an elevation of 14.5 feet MLLW. Seaward and landward side slopes of the jetty would be 1 vertical on 2 horizontal. Due to increased turbulence at the spur and jetty junction, about 400 feet of the existing jetty seaward on the spur jetty would require reinforcement. Modifications to the first 200 feet of the north jetty include raising the top elevation to reduce overtopping, flattening the slope to 1 vertical on 2 horizontal, adding armor stone, and reinforcing the toe to prevent scour. An additional 200 feet of the north jetty would receive toe reinforcement only.


56


Alternative 6, the least costly plan recommended by the modelling study and cost analysis, also includes a beach nourishment component. Beach fill along Camp Ellis Beach would begin at the north jetty and extend about 3,250 feet to the north. The beach berm elevation proposed in the model and design analysis is 17.4 feet MLLW, which is roughly equivalent to the natural beach berm elevation in areas north of the study area and the top elevation of the north jetty. The design seaward slope of the beach fill would be 1 vertical on 10 horizontal to satisfy requirements for shorebirds. The estimated volume for sand required for initial beach construction under Alternative 6 was about 365,000 cubic yards, with beach renourishment required about every 12 years to maintain an effective beach width, determined to be a beachfill section of no less than 30 percent of the initial placement volume. Sand volumes for each renourishment would vary depending on actual changes in future sea levels. Estimated volumes for 12-year renourishment events under the three potential sea level change scenarios are: 116,000 cubic yards for the historic rate; 192,000 cubic yards for the intermediate rate; and 236,000 cubic yards for the high rate.

The recommended Federally Implementable Plan includes a reduced beachfill component. In order to keep the project cost below the $26.9 million limit established in WRDA 2007 the initial beachfill section was reduced to 225,000 cubic yards by reducing the design berm width and seaward slope. Further there would be no Federal financial involvement in future renourishment activities as the Federal funding limit would be reached by initial construction. Figure ES-4 shows the Federally Implementable Plan for the spur jetty and the reduced beachfill of 225,000 cubic yards. The figure also shows the extent of the full beachfill of 365,000 cubic yards under Alternative 6 – the Selected Plan.

The major environmental impact of the proposed project is the loss of subtidal habitat due to the placement of sand on the beach and construction of the spur jetty. This impact, however, is offset by the creation of stone reef along the spur that will provide habitat for numerous species, the availability of upland sandy beach areas suitable for Piping Plover nesting, and increased stability of the shoreline. Actions related to the project as proposed will provide little measurable cumulative impact.


57


There are three aspects to non-Federal cost-sharing for Section 111 projects: (1) the per-project Federal funding limit measured by the total cost of studies, design and implementation of the project, (2) cost-sharing of design and implementation costs, and (3) cost-sharing for future renourishment.

Per-Project Federal Funding Limit: Section 111 states that the Federal share of costs is limited to $10 million. Section 3085 of the Water resources Development Act of 2007 raised the Federal limit to $26.9 million for mitigation of shore damages at Saco-Camp Ellis. However, as current estimates for studies, ongoing design, and implementation of the least costly alternative identified by modelling and other studies exceeds that increased $26.9 million Federal limit, the beachfill section of the project was reduced to keep costs within the limit.

Cost-Sharing: Design and Implementation of Section 111 projects are cost shared with the non-Federal sponsor in the same proportion as the costs for the navigation project features contributing to the damage were shared. Under the WIIN/WRDA 2016 that cost-sharing basis was also applied to the sharing of feasibility study costs. As all costs associated with the design and construction of the navigation project causing the damage were 100 percent Federal, the Federal government will be responsible for 100 percent of the feasibility costs,

Beachfill – 3,250 Feet Long

365,000 CY – Selected Plan (6)

225,000 CY –Federally

Implementable Plan

Figure ES-4

Recommendation

750 LF Stone

Spur Jetty

(Both Plans)


58


and 100 percent of the initial cost for design and implementation of the project up to the project’s Federal funding limit.

Future Renourishment: Based upon Section 215 of Public Law 106-53 (Water Resources Development Act of 1999), non-Federal interests are responsible for 50 percent of the costs for periodic beach renourishment. Renourishment under the least costly plan was estimated to be required every 12 years, or four times during the 50-year economic life of the project. Each renourishment event is expected to cost about $3.8 to $4.4 million at FY18 price levels. Escalated out to their construction points over the 50-year project economic life these costs total about $47,907,000. The Federal government could provide one-half of those renourishment costs so long as the total project cost does not exceed any limit included in the additional legislative authority required to implement the project. The non-Federal sponsor would be responsible for the remaining half of any renourishment costs. However the Federal funding limit for this project as provided in WRDA2007 will be reached when initial construction of the Federally Implementable Plan is completed, and therefore there can be no Federal participation in future renourishment.

Prior Feasibility Costs: Feasibility costs must also be considered in determining total project cost. Federal feasibility funds for the study of the Saco-Camp Ellis project were allocated in two periods. Between 1991 and 1994 about $648,000 was provided and expended on field investigations and model studies which resulted in the December 1991 coastal process report, the May 1992 Section 111 Reconnaissance Report, the August 1995 Coastal Model Report. This study was formally terminated by memo dated 27 February 1996. A second Federal feasibility study effort began in FY 2001 and continued through FY 2012. These funds were used to prepare the August 2001 Section 111 Feasibility Report and to pursue studies and investigations resulting in the current recommendation. The total allocation of Feasibility funds for this study effort was $520,000. Total feasibility study costs for both efforts totaled $1,168,000.

Prior Design Costs: Additional funding used to pursue the model studies and to prepared design documents and the final report were provided as design phase funds. These funds are not included in the separate final design and implementation phase funds in the cost estimates. These prior design phase funds total $2,285,000 based on funds allocated from FY 2002 to FY 2018.

The estimated cost of both the least costly plan from the design analysis, and the cost scaled Federally Recommended Plan consistent with the Federal fund limit provided by WRDA 2007, are shown below in Table ES-2. These costs are presented for the current fiscal year (FY18) level, the program year (FY19) level, and fully funded level (mid-point of construction). The estimates also account for prior feasibility and design costs.

When escalated to the mid-point of construction the total estimate for the cost-scaled Plan 6 are $26,898,000. The beachfill volume has been reduced to 225,000 cubic yards from that initially recommended to as to fit the WRDA 2007 Federal funding limit. The additional cost of the remaining 140,000 cubic yards of beachfill to reach the originally recommended


59


volume of 365,000 cubic yards is estimated at $4,897,000 at fully funded levels and could be funded by non-Federal interests at their option. Supplementing the initial beachfill volume and width provided under the Federally Implementable Plan by non-Federal interests would improve project performance and reduce the frequency of future renourishment actions.

Table ES-2 Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine

Shore Damage Mitigation Project Costs of Implementing Plan 6 – Both Full and Scaled

Work Item October 2017 Cost (FY18)

Program Year (1Q19) Cost

Fully Funded Cost (FY20)

Federally Implementable Plan Cost-Scaled Plan 6 – Consistent with WRDA 2007 Federal Funding Limit

Spur Jetty and Jetty Reinforcement $11,481,000 $11,717,000 $12,190,000 Beach Fill – 225,000 Cubic Yards $6,797,000 $6,937,000 $7,435,000 Lands, Easements, Rights of Way and Relocations $832,000 $849,000 $866,000

Engineering and Design $1,535,000 $1,594,000 $1,704,000 Supervision and Administration (S&A) $1,078,000 $1,120,000 $1,249,000

Total Initial Construction $21,723,000 $22,216,000 $23,445,000 Prior Feasibility Phase Costs $1,168,000 $1,168,000 $1,168,000 Prior Design Phase Costs $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $2,285,000

Total Feasibility and D&I Costs $25,176,000 $25,669,000 $26,898,000

Additional Non-Federal Cost for the Selected Plan - Full Plan 6 Beachfill Section Beach Fill – Add 140,000 Cubic Yards $4,181,000 $4,266,000 $4,574,000 Additional Engineering & Design Costs $31,000 $32,000 $34,000 Additional S&A Costs $249,000 $259,000 $289,000

Total Additional Beachfill Costs $4,461,000 $4,557,000 $4,897,000

The costs above do not include future renourishment. Periodic renourishment is necessary for the project to function as predicted in the hydrodynamic modelling and coastal engineering evaluation over the 50-year economic life of the project. Under the least costly plan with a full initial beachfill section (365,000 CY), beach renourishment is expected to be required once every 12 years, when continued erosion is projected to have reduced the initial placed beachfill volume by 70 percent. Since the Federal funding limit provided by WRDA 2007 is reached during initial construction of the project there can be no Federal participation in future renourishment.


60


The costs of periodic renourishment of the beachfill are shown in Table E-3 below for consideration by the non-Federal Sponsor. These costs include design and construction costs and contingencies. Costs are presented for the base year cost (FY18) and the budget year cost (FY19) as with the project design and implementation costs above. Costs are also shown as fully-funded, escalated to the mid-point of construction for each renourishment event. The final renourishment sand volume and cost were adjusted for the additional two years of erosion from year 48 to year 50.

Adding the cost of the Federally Implementable Plan as limited by WRDA 2007, the cost of additional initial beachfill to reach the full section, and the cost of future renourishment, the total cost of mitigating shore damages over the 50-year project economic life increases significantly as shown in Table E-4 below.


Shore Damage Mitigation Project – Costs of Non-Federal Periodic Renourishment




Renourishment Event #1 – Year 12 $3,876,000 $3,968,000 $5,894,000 Renourishment Event #2 – Year 24 $3,876,000 $3,968,000 $8,298,000 Renourishment Event #3 – Year 36 $3,876,000 $3,968,000 $12,050,000 Renourishment Event #4 – Year 50 $4,440,000 $4,545,000 $21,665,000 Total 50-Year Renourishment Cost $16,068,000 $16,450,000 $47,907,000


Shore Damage Mitigation Project Costs of the Federal Plan, Additional Beachfill and Future Renourishment




Total Initial Construction as Authorized under WRDA 2007 $25,176,000 $25,669,000 $26,898,000

Additional Costs for Full-Scale Initial Beachfill Section (Add 140,000 CY) $4,461,000 $4,557,000 $4,897,000

Renourishment Costs over 50 Years $16,068,000 $16,450,000 $47,907,000 Total Project Cost with Renourishment $45,705,000 $46,676,000 $79,702,000

Actual costs for completion of PED, construction contracts and construction management will require a re-evaluation of project cost-sharing throughout the process of soliciting bids, awarding a contract and constructing the project. Future interest rates, fuel and labor prices, bidding climate, weather, and many other factors would determine actual future costs.


61


Real Estate interests required for construction and future operation and maintenance of the recommended plan include easements over existing parcels and public lands where the beachfill material will be placed, as well as over public roads and rights-of-way that access the beach and the jetty. Staging areas onshore may also be required, but would be defined as part of contractor mobilization depending on the equipment and methods used for construction.

Benefits of the project include reduced hurricane and coastal storm damage to public and private property along the Camp Ellis shore, and reduced emergency response costs and infrastructure repair costs. The value of property losses prevented by the least costly plan ranges from about $17.5 million measured at the historic rate of sea level rise up to $25.4 and $30.1 million at intermediate and high sea level changes. Estimates of savings in emergency response and repair costs range from about $84,000 to $113,500 and to $123,000 from historic to intermediate to high sea level change rates.

Environmental impacts of the project include conversion of shallow subtidal habitat in the footprint of the new spur jetty, and conversion of shallow subtidal and intertidal habitat within the footprint of the beach fill to intertidal and supratidal elevations. The potential for the beachfill area to attract nesting shorebirds will require the City to enact and enforce restrictions on beach use and access during the nesting season of the piping plover. Quarry sources for the rock and sand will also need to be examined to ensure there are no adverse impacts to other species of concern.

Risk and uncertainty with the project include the adequacy of project design, accuracy of construction cost estimates, and the estimated frequency and volume of future renourishment needs. With respect to construction cost estimates a contingency risk analysis was used to develop cost contingencies including allowance for weather delays, availability and proximity of stone and sand sources, materials delivery time, bidding climate, availability of equipment, and other factors. Risks with project design and renourishment needs are related to sea level change and storm frequency and intensity. Computer modeling attempted to address this issue and designs for more frequent and greater volume of renourishment actions were developed for intermediate and high level projects of sea level rise. Increases in the spur jetty design dimensions were not considered as corresponding increases in the dimensions of the remaining inshore length of the existing jetty would carry more significant cost.

These risks are greater with the initial beachfill section scaled-back to fit the Federal cost limit authorized by WRDA 2007. Where the Selected Plan was developed to fully address mitigation of further shore damages at Camp Ellis, the Federally Implementable Plan will only function with regard to completeness, efficiency, and effectiveness if non-Federal interests at their discretion undertake to either (1) complete the initial beachfill placement and perform the 12-year renourishment cycle required for the Selected Plan, or (2) perform the 4 to 5-year renourishment cycle under the Federally Implementable Plan. Without further non-Federal action the Federally Implementable Plan will not be complete, efficient or effective.


62


Once initial construction of the Federal project is completed the Sponsor is encouraged to monitor the performance of the beachfill and could adjust the frequency and volume of renourishment actions to address impacts of any weather events beyond those predicted. If the Sponsor elects to supplement the initial beachfill section at their cost, then the total beachfill section should not be allowed to erode to less than 70 percent of its original placement volume before renourishment is accomplished so as to maintain the ability of the beachfill section to prevent further shore retreat. If the Sponsor elects not to supplement the initial beachfill section beyond that provided by the Federally Implementable Plan then more frequent renourishment (estimated at about 233,000 cubic yards every four to five years) would be needed to prevent further shorefront property losses.

Cost apportionment for the project requires identifying the Federal and non-Federal cost sharing for each project phase. Under Section 111 cost sharing for feasibility, design and implementation of projects are shared in the same percentage as the cost sharing required for the underlying navigation project. The jetty and channel features of the Saco River Federal Navigation Project were all constructed without any non-Federal cost sharing. All feasibility and design phase costs to date for the Section 111 study have been 100 percent Federally funded. All costs of design and initial construction of the project will also be 100 percent Federally funded. Future renourishment costs would typically be cost-shared 50/50 between the Federal government and the non-Federal sponsor. Beyond renourishment, the costs for future operation, maintenance, replacement, repair and rehabilitation of the project is a non-Federal responsibility. The annual cost to the non-Federal Sponsor for required periodic inspection and repairs to the spur jetty and reinforced section of the existing north jetty are estimated at about $68,000. The optional non-Federal annual cost of monitoring and managing the beach to document further storm damage and erosion is estimated at about $19,000 annually. The cost of monitoring and administering the beach in accordance with plans for protecting endangered species would be determined in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during final project design.

The total Federal cost limit for Section 111 projects is normally $10 million. For the Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach project WRDA 2007 increased that total Federal project cost limit to $26.9 million. Any project costs above $26.9 million would be a non-Federal responsibility. The following table shows the cost apportionment for the various project phases based on the Federally Implementable Plan and the fully-funded project cost.


63



Shore Damage Mitigation Project Costs Allocation for the Federally Implementable Plan

and Required and Optional Non-Federal Costs Project Phase

(Fully Funded Price Levels - FY20) Fully Funded

Cost Federal Cost Non-Federal Cost

Feasibility Costs FY91-FY12 $1,168,000 $1,168,000 $0 Prior Design Expenditures FY02-FY17 $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $0 Final Design and Construction $23,445,000 $23,445,000 $0 Total Feasibility and D&I Costs $26,898,000 $26,898,000 $0

Optional Non-Federal Costs Total Additional Initial Beachfill Costs $4,897,000 $0 $4,897,000 Renourishment Costs over 50 Years $47,907,000 $0 $47,907,000 Total Project Cost with Renourishment $79,702,000 $26,898,000 $52,804,000

Non-Federal Operation, Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation Costs Required Future Spur Jetty Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair - Annualized $68,000 $0 $68,000

Optional Future Annual Beach Monitoring and Management Costs $19,000 $19,000

Required Beach Monitoring & Management for Endangered Species Protection $0 $0 Not Yet

Determined

The city of Saco is aware of the non-Federal requirements for future project maintenance, inspection and beach management. The City is also aware of the option for non-Federal funding to supplement the initial design beachfill section as recommended by the design evaluation, and their options to maintain the beachfill through future renourishment whether or not they choose to supplement the initial beachfill. The City supports implementation of the project. However, the City’s views depart from the recommended Federally Implementable Plan in a number of ways, principally those listed below.

(1) The City prefers that Plan 25A be implement in lieu of either the lesser-cost Plan 6 or the Federally Implementable Plan. Plan 25A includes two northerly offshore breakwaters, each about 400 feet long, in addition to a shorter 500 foot spur jetty and beachfill. The additional stone structures would reduce the volume and frequency of future renourishment required to maintain the beachfill.

(2) The City does not concur with the limitation on Federal cost authorized in WRDA 2007 as the City believes the USACE should bear the entire cost of mitigating shore damages.

(3) The City does not concur that future renourishment efforts be either a non-Federal responsibility (as under the Federally Implementable Plan), or be cost-shared 50/50 as provided under Section 215 of Public Law 106-53 (WRDA 1999), especially where both


64


Plan 6 and the FIP include more frequent and larger future renourishment as a substitute for initial construction of more extensive stone structures (Plan 25A) or a larger initial beachfill. The City believes that future renourishment should be solely a Federal responsibility.

Under the FIP limited to $26.9 million, USACE expenditures for the project, including all studies, design and construction, must not exceed that authorized amount. The City, State or other non-Federal interests may and are encouraged, but are not required, to fund completion of the initial beachfill, perform future monitoring of beach performance and beach management, and undertake future beach renourishment as necessary. While a Project Partnership Agreement between the Federal government and the City has yet to be drafted it will include the following minimum requirements for non-Federal participation:

(1) There are no LERRD requirements for the City necessary for construction other than easements over City lands. (2) The City will be responsible for future inspection, maintenance and repair of the stone spur jetty including the reinforcement of adjacent sections of the main north jetty. (3) The City will be responsible for future beach monitoring and management consistent with the requirements for protecting listed shorebird species to be determined by the City in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (4) The City will be responsible for all project costs in excess of the $26.9 million Federal cost limit specified in WRDA2007 (P.L. 110-114).

The state of Maine reviewed the draft decision document in 2013 and supports efforts to address the shore erosion problem at Camp Ellis Beach. Originally the state had indicated that it could not review the project under its Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act authorities until such time as final design documents for the project had been substantially completed, due to the project’s inclusion of structural coastal features. Recently the State and the New England District further conferred on the project and reached a consensus that the state regulatory process could be initiated once a final decision document was prepared, and could be concluded within about 90 days. The New England District is currently preparing the requests for state regulatory review and approval and will initiate that process upon USACE vertical team approval of this decision document.

In summary the USACE recommends implementation under Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 as amended of a plan to mitigate further shore damages at the Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine, consisting of a 750-foot stone spur jetty with reinforcement of adjacent sections of the main north jetty, and beachfill of about 225,000 cubic yards of sand over the 3,250 feet of beach northward from the main jetty, at a total Federal project cost not to exceed $26.9 million in accordance with Section 3085 of WRDA 2007.


65

1

August 21, 2018

William Conde, Colonel District Engineer US Army Corps of Engineers New England District 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742

Re: Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine, Section 111: Share Damage Mitigation Project

Dear Colonel Conde:

The Saco Bay Erosion Working Group, a collaborative of concerned Saco residents, City Council representation,

the Mayor’s office, and City staff have reviewed the Final Decision document for the Section 111: Shore Damage

Mitigation Project at Camp Ellis in Saco, Maine.

Since the installation of the Camp Ellis Jetty in the late 1800s, the Camp Ellis community has experienced

significant erosion. For the past 65 years, the City has cooperatively worked with the Federal Government to

mitigate further erosion and future property loss. While the City would prefer to see Alternative 25A move forward,

as it would require fewer sand re-nourishments. We understand the financial constraints of this option and the City

intends to accept the Army Corps of Engineer’s decision to move forward with Alternative 6 – an Inshore location

of a 750-foot spur jetty.

We have worked closely with the District Office to ensure our concerns are captured within the report and

executive summary; however, we would like to reiterate some of those points herein.

In January 2018, we were led to believe that as part of this report, the City would not be required to commit funding

for the periodic future re-nourishment of the beachfill; however, the report indicates that Saco will assume

responsibility for re-nourishment as well as maintenance of the federal structure. Due to the selection of

Alternative 6, beach fill could be frequent and extensive. Saco does not have the fiscal capacity to solely fund these

efforts. It would require a referendum which would fail as most Saco voters believe the problem begins and ends

with the Federal Government.

CITY OF SACO, MAINE


Twitter: @sacomaine


Exhibit Item: 1


66




2

While the City of Saco supports the recent efforts to move this project forward, many of the Federal laws

surrounding cost-sharing and non-Federal sponsor responsibility abdicate accountability for a federal structure that

was initially installed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The City of Saco would like to continue to seek alternate

funding mechanisms and work with our federal representatives to allocate additional resources to this project and

future beach re-nourishment costs. Additionally, both Congressional Appropriations Committees have recently

proposed an additional $5,000,000 for this project. This amount should be considered as part of the resources

needed above the Federally Implementable Plan or included as part of a larger amount for the project.

The City of Saco has the financial capability to satisfy the Non-Federal Sponsors obligations for the project;

however, our City is not in a financial position to cover the costs above the Federally Implementable Plan (FIP).

The long-term maintenance of the federally preferred plan is not economically feasible for a small community and

would be on par with current funding levels of the entire citywide Capital Improvement Plan annually.

As such, the City of Saco is willing to work with the ACOE to find additional savings in the report to shift more

costs above the FIP back into the project (for example; page 9 of the executive summary identifies the costs from

1991, 1992, and 1994 which were associated with a separate project and not relevant here). The City of Saco is also

willing to work with the ACOE to acquire the necessary land easements to move forward with the project and

future beach re-nourishment.

Idealistically, we’d be able to work with Congress ahead of the ACOE workplan to appropriate additional resources

to cover the beach re-nourishment but understanding time constraints, established process the ACOE has to

follow, and an effort to move forward; we are formally asking the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works

for approval to deviate from the NED plan and request additional funding to cover the project in its entirety, as

outlined in the third paragraph of page 8 of the Report.

Sincerely,

Kevin L. Sutherland, City Administrator

CC: Mayor Marston Lovell, City of Saco

Senator Angus King, United States Senate

Senator Susan Collins, United States Senate

Representative Chellie Pingree, United States House of Representatives

WORKSHOP ITEM: E

Exhibit Item: 1Date: September 10, 2018

67

1

August 31, 2018



Dear Colonel Conde:






mitigate further erosion and future property loss. We have worked closely with the District Office to ensure our

concerns are captured within the report and executive summary; however, we have additional points that we would

like to review with the ACOE as outlined below.

The City is in support of the ACOE moving forward with their preferred Option 6 as an immediate erosion

mitigation benefit. The City of Saco has the financial capability to satisfy the Non-Federal Sponsors obligations for

the project. However, if the City will be responsible for the maintenance of the engineered components of Option

6, that is not feasible on the local level. If the ACOE requires the City to maintain the engineered components of

the project, the City requests a partnership of determining that scope. In January 2018, we were led to believe that

as part of this report, the City would not be required to commit funding for the periodic future re-nourishment of

the beachfill; however, the report indicates that Saco will assume responsibility for re-nourishment as well as

maintenance of the federal structure. Due to the selection of Alternative 6, beach fill could be frequent and

extensive.

CITY OF SACO, MAINE

Administration Kevin L. Sutherland, City Administrator

Saco City Hall Telephone: (207) 282-4191 x341300 Main Street Email: [email protected] Saco, Maine 04072-1538 Facebook: /sacomaine

Twitter: @sacomaine

Date: September 10, 2018 Exhibit Item: 2

WORKSHOP ITEM: E

68

2

Based on additional analysis performed by staff, the City has uncovered an alternative solution, which optimizes the

allocation of resources and maximizes the impact of mitigation. Were the ACOE to restructure the funding

allocation of Option 25A, such that the City as the Non-Federal sponsor delivered the beach nourishment portion

of the project, Option 25A would then fit within the allocated funding of Section 3085 of the Water Resources

Development Act of 2007, specifically $26.9 million allocated to Camp Ellis. This would allow for the City’s

nourishment investment to reach a more sustainable level.

Furthermore, under any selected alternative, the City of Saco is willing to work with the ACOE to acquire the

necessary land easements to move forward with the project and future beach re-nourishment.

Sincerely,






WORKSHOP ITEM: E Date: September 10, 2018 Exhibit Item: 2

69

1

September 6, 2018



Dear Colonel Conde:






mitigate further erosion and future property loss. We have worked closely with the District Office to ensure our

concerns are captured within the report and executive summary; however, we have additional points that we would

like to review with the ACOE as outlined below.

The City is in support of the ACOE moving forward with their preferred Option 6 as an immediate erosion

mitigation benefit. The City of Saco has the financial capability to satisfy the Non-Federal Sponsors obligations for

the project.

Responding specifically to the four points outlined on page 15 in the Executive Summary:

1. There are no Land, Easements, Rights-Of-Way, Relocation, and Disposal Areas that the City will require of

the Army Corps for this project and will sign any easements necessary to get a project completed.

2. If the City will be responsible for the maintenance of the engineered components of Option 6, that is not

feasible on the local level. If the ACOE requires the City to maintain the engineered components of the

project, the City requests a partnership of determining that scope and that the performance of this

CITY OF SACO, MAINE


Twitter: @sacomaine


Exhibit Item: 3

70




2

alternative does not make the City of Saco liable should the spur fail with the agreed upon inspection and

maintenance.

3. In June of 2018, the Council approved a Beach Management Agreement that could be signed by both

parties. On September 4th, the City Council further amended ordinances that needed to be changed to

comply with the Beach Management Agreement. Saco will be in compliance with this requirement.

4. Understanding the project is estimated to cost $26.9 million along with a portion of the first sand

nourishment, we’d ask that any cost savings realized during the project implementation and resources

further allocated by Congress be allowed to put toward the remaining portion of the first sand nourishment

and the 50% share of the Federal government for all future sand nourishments.

The report indicates that Saco will assume responsibility for all future nourishment as well as maintenance of the

federal structure going forward. The selection of Alternative 6, while a step in the right direction, does not provide

the same level of value that Option 25A as beach fill could be frequent and extensive.

Based on additional analysis performed by City staff, we believe Option 25A could optimize the allocation of

resources and maximize the impact of mitigation. Were the ACOE to restructure the funding allocation of Option

25A, such that the City as the Non-Federal sponsor delivered the beach nourishment portion of the project, Option

25A would then fit within the allocated funding of Section 3085 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007,

specifically $26.9 million allocated to Camp Ellis. This would allow for the City’s nourishment investment to reach

a more sustainable level.

Furthermore, under any selected alternative, the City of Saco is willing to work with the ACOE to acquire the

necessary land easements to move forward with the project and future beach re-nourishment.

Sincerely,







Exhibit Item: 3

71

Administration

Saco City Hall

300 Main Street


Phone: (207) 282-4191

Kevin L. Sutherland

City Administrator

[email protected]




MEMORANDUM




RE: Ecomaine - Memorandum of Understanding

On July 9th, Public Works Director Patrick Fox presented to Council the impact the recycling market would have on

Saco. Since that time, the City has prepared and sent educational information to all mailing address in Saco and has

been working with Ecomaine to better understand our partnership and how we can work together to reduce

contamination. At this point in time, our contaminated recycling has leveled off and we’re averaging 10.5%

contamination per ton of recycling. What does this mean for Saco? Well, it depends on the action Council would like

to take on behalf of our community to participate in this nationwide dilemma.

In 2007, instead of becoming an owner community (there are now 20 of them), Saco negotiated a contract with

Ecomaine to become one of the first (if not the first) associate member communities (which is a community that has

a 20 year contract with Ecomaine). In that contract, Ecomaine bargained to accept all recyclables without fee in

return for it keeping all the benefits derived from the selling of all recyclables. For the past 11 years, the organization

has benefitted from this.

Now, we’re in a different market where recycling still has value but the financial benefits have nearly disappeared.

Ecomaine, in its contracts with the vast majority of the none-owner communities, has the ability to charge its

associate members and other contract communities (those with less than a 20 year contract) for contaminated

recycling. You can see the same fee structure they already have outlined in appendix A of the attached MOU. Saco’s

contract does not have any language about contaminated recycling (we signed on before they realized this could be a

future reality) and this is why the MOU is being brought to Council.

On one hand, we are not clearly obligated by contract language to pay for contaminated recycling (and we have not

been doing so), but on the other, we are a participating member in an organization that is owned by our neighboring

communities. The success of ecomaine benefits Saco, and the region, far beyond the immediate issue of recycling

contamination.

We believe it is in our best interest to participate in the cost of contaminated recycling and work with Ecomaine and

our partnering communities to educate the public on proper disposal and recycling. Ecomaine is a great partner on

public education and willing to put a lot of their own resources to these efforts in Saco. We have ideas on how to

help get the contamination levels down below the threshold in which we would need to pay a fee/fine and will look to

discuss on Monday. Pat and I look forward to the conversation.

WORKSHOP ITEM: F Date: September 10, 2018

72






1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

REGARDING CONTAMINATED LOADS OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS

THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is made this _____ day of

___________, 2018, by and between ECO MAINE, a non-profit, non-stock, public municipal

corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine and having a place

of business in Portland, Maine (“ecomaine”), and the CITY OF SACO, a municipal corporation

established and existing under the laws of the State of Maine (“City”). The purpose of this MOU

is to establish the manner in which ecomaine will handle contaminated loads of recyclable

materials delivered by the City to ecomaine’s recycling facility.

WHEREAS, ecomaine owns and operates a single-sort recycling facility located at 64

Blueberry Road in Portland, Maine (the “Recycling Facility”) and also owns and operates a

waste-to-energy facility at the same address; and

WHEREAS, the City is an Associate Member of ecomaine; and

WHEREAS, on October 16, 2006, the City and ecomaine entered into a Waste Handling

Agreement (“WHA”), which has an expiration date of June 30, 2027; and

WHEREAS, the City is required to deliver all Recyclable Materials, as that term is

defined in the WHA, collected by or on behalf of the City to the Recycling Facility, and

ecomaine is required to handle all such Recyclable Materials delivered by the City; and

WHEREAS, ecomaine is currently receiving a negative value for some Recyclable

Materials within the recycling market, meaning that it must pay to dispose of certain loads of

Recyclable Materials; and

WHEREAS, since the effective date of the WHA, the City’s loads of Recyclable

Materials have included non-recyclable materials that are excluded from the list of Recyclable

Materials (hereafter, “Contaminants”); and

WHEREAS, although the recycling market has historically allowed for a certain level of

contamination in loads of Recyclable Materials, the market has recently shifted and has become

increasingly intolerant of the existence of Contaminants in such loads; and

WHEREAS, ecomaine’s current practice, with regard to other customers, is to charge

reasonable fees for handling loads of Recyclable Materials depending on the levels of

contamination in each load (in addition to charges for covering the negative value on the

Recyclable Materials); and

WHEREAS, the City and ecomaine desire to cooperate in order to reduce the amount of

Contaminants included in loads of Recyclable Materials that are delivered by the City to the

Recycling Facility pursuant to the WHA;


Exhibit Item: 1

73

2

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefit to be derived hereunder by

the Parties hereto and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of

which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually understood and agreed by the Parties as follows:

1. As of the effective date of this MOU, ecomaine may measure certain loads of

Recyclable Materials that are delivered by the City to the Recycling Facility and will record the

level of contamination of such loads as a percentage reflecting the ratio of the volume of

Contaminants to the volume of the entire load. To the extent the level of contamination in any

load is determined by ecomaine to be too high for sorting at the Recycling Facility, the load may

be disposed of entirely, without sorting, and the City will be charged its current applicable

municipal solid waste tipping fee.

2. As of the effective date of this MOU, to the extent the level of contamination in

any load of Recyclable Materials rises to a level that would result in a fee under the

Contamination Fee Schedule, included on Appendix A, which is attached hereto and

incorporated herein, ecomaine will issue an invoice to the City. The City agrees to pay any

applicable fees based on the level of Contaminants as set forth in the Contamination Fee

Schedule.

3. The City’s WHA will continue to be a “neutral” agreement, meaning that

ecomaine will not charge the City for the negative value of Recyclable Materials that are

disposed of through the recycling market.

4. The City agrees to engage in reasonable outreach efforts in order to educate its

residents as to the types of materials that are recyclable and those materials that constitute

Contaminants. To the extent reasonably practicable, ecomaine will to assist in those education

and outreach efforts.

5. This MOU shall have an effective date of September 1, 2018, and the City will be

responsible only for those fees arising from loads delivered to the Recycling Facility on or after

that date. Only loads that contain non-recyclable materials will be charged accordingly.

6. This MOU is subject to change and amendment to reflect the working practices

and resulting agreements developed between the Parties in the performance of responsibilities

under the terms of this MOU. No amendment or modification of this MOU shall be binding

unless evidenced in writing signed by the Parties.

7. In the event that any issue arises under this MOU regarding the rights and

responsibilities of the Parties, the Parties shall meet and attempt in good faith to resolve any such

dispute before it is brought to any other forum.

8. If any provision of this MOU is held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining

provisions will remain valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

9. This MOU contains the complete and entire agreement of the Parties.


Exhibit Item: 1

74

3

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this MOU as of the day and year

first above written.

ECOMAINE

Witness By: Kevin Roche

Its: CEO/General Manager

CITY OF SACO

Witness By:

Its:


Exhibit Item: 1

75

APPENDIX A

Contamination Fee Schedule1

Level of Contaminants (by volume) Per-Ton Fee

Less than 3% None

3-5% None (warning notification may be issued)

6-10% $35

11-15% $45

16-20% $55

21-25% $65

26% or more Current Municipal Solid Waste Tipping Fee

1 Levels of contamination, as measured by ecomaine, will be rounded to the nearest whole number.


Exhibit Item: 1

76


Exhibit Item: 2

77


Exhibit Item: 2

78


Exhibit Item: 2

79


Exhibit Item: 2

80


Exhibit Item: 2

81


Exhibit Item: 2

82


Exhibit Item: 2

83


Exhibit Item: 2

84


Exhibit Item: 2

85

Date post:	27-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CITY OF SACO, MAINE Packet 9-10-18.pdf · board’s reasoning is that due to the residential uses...

Documents