basic guide to the Kennebunk River and its tributaries for Arundel, Kennebunk, and Kennebunkport

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

A(WIC GUIDE

TO THE
KENNEBUNK RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
FOR
ARUNDEL, KENNEBUNK, AND KENNEBUNKPORT

INCLUDING: RIVER RESOURCE DATA

NATURAL RESOURCE INFORMATION

NEW METHODS TO QUANTIFY:

* GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION VULNERABILITY

* WETLANDS VALUES

* WILDLIFE DIVERSITY

SUGGESTED THREE-TOWN COORDINATED ORDINANCES

Zoj@Tf",
COASTAL
HC INFORMATION CENTER
103.7
R6
1986

A BASIC GUIDE

TO THE

KENNEBUNK RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES

FOR

ARUNDEL, KENNEBUNK, AND KENNEBUNKPORT

Including: River Resource Data;

Background on Groundwater, Aquifers,
Wetlands, Floodplains, and Wildlife;

Methods to Quantify Groundwater
Vulnerability, Wetlands Values, and
Wildlife Diversity;

Suggested Three-town Coordinated
Ordinances.

Property of CSC Library

Mary Rosenfeld

for the

Friends of the Kennebunk River

1986 U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICE CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

Financial asistance for preparation of this document
was provided by a grant from MAINE'S COASTAL PROGRAM,
through funding provided by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.

AAAA
AdIfth

Irf

The Kennebunk River between Perkins Road and Days Mills.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Because of the recent concern with growth in York County,
this has been a fortunate t@ime to carry out the Kennebunk River
Study. Gro Flatebo, Jean Scudder, and Holly Dominie of the
Maine State Planning Office were of invaluable help in providing
access to all the York County Cumulative Impact Study Data as it
was being generated. Diane Hankenson went to a special effort
to produce digitized land use data from the Department of
Conservation. Andrews Tolman, and particularly Craig Neal, both
of the Maine Geological Survey, took the time to help provide
newly generated DRASTIC groundwater data, updated soil maps, and
copies of background material on York County aquifers and
geology.

Within the Department of Environmental Protection, thanks
go to Fred Michaud for reviewing problems of floodplain
definition, Rich Baker for reviewing shoreland zoning
requirements, and John Sowles and David Courtmarche for their
assistance with water quality interpretation. Thanks also go to
Joan Trial of the Department of Transportation for finding and
sending library materials on wetland assessment, and to Gary
Donovon and Mark Stadler of the Department of Inland Fisheries
and Wildlife for copies of wildlife reports related to shoreland
zoning. Peter Veneman of the Department of Plant and Soil
Sciences of the University of Massachusetts/Amher5t deserves
thanks for his time reviewing hydric soils and problems of
wetland identification.

Contract administrator Sherry Hanson of the State Planning
Office deserves particular appreciation for guiding us through
the granting process and providing efficient and gracious help
when needed.

Thanks also go to Rebecca Seel of the Maine Municpal
Association for legal review of the ordinance package, and to
Nancy Anderson of the Maine Audobon Society for review and
comments on the wetlands ordinance.

On the regional level, appreciation goes to Dan Fleishman
of the Southern Maine Regional Planning Council for the recent
reports and statistics on the demography of 9 York County towns
and the initial work on the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance.

Working with the personnel at the town halls has been
particularly enjoyable and informative. Thanks go to town
manager Rick Erb, planner Judy Bernstein, assessor George
Giddings, assistants Barbara Welch and Jean Hamlin, CEO Mike
Nugent, and to Sally McKay, Kathy Noette, Wanda Seegel, and
Karen Mercier of the office staff in Kennebunk; to town manager
Jane Duncan, town clerk Carles Gould, and staff Lorraine Brooks
and Arlene Nowell in Kennebunkport; and to clerk Lucy Bigger,

treasurer Therese Cliche, and selectman Louis Bergeron in
Aiundel for their good humor and help.

Appreciation is also extended to the three town planning
boards, to the Kennebunkport selectmen, to the Kennebunkport
Growth Committee, and to the Kennebunk Conservation Commission
for taking the time to view the visual presentations, inspect
the resource maps, and review the ordinance package in the midst
of already overcrowded schedules. Dorothy Stevens, selectwomen
of Kennebunk, deserves special appreciation for her support of
the Study from its beginnings.

Special thanks also go to Gale McCullough, who started The
Friends of the Kennebunk River in 1984, and who has supported
the grant idea from its inception. Appreciation is also
extended to Gale, Kevin Flynn, Phil Sawyer, and Fran Shaw who
spearheaded the River testing throughout the grant period.
Board members Tom Bradbury, John Bradford (legal counsel), Cate
Cronin, Kevin Flynn, Susan Kane, Lyman Page, and Fran Shaw as
well as Kennebunk citizen Al Adams and River Commission member
Charlie Bassett deserve thanks for their useful input on the
ordinance package,

Special appreciation is also extended to all the members of
the River Commission; Gordon Ayer (legal counsel), Charlie
Bassett, Dave Billings, Ben Emery, John McKay, Wayne Showalter,
Phil Sawyer, and Henry Tilton for their review and support of
the Study throughout the year.

Thanks also go to Ruth Landon for her review of colonial
history on the River, Joyce Butler from the Brick Store Museum
for her expertise and assistance on River history, Tom Bradbbury
for his overview of historical changes over time, and Dave
Bernstein of New England College for sharing photographs and
data on archeological history related to the River.

Finally, the Friends of the Kennebunk River would like to
dedicate this study to Tad Dow, whose enthusiasm, good humor,
graciousness and political acumen provided much of the early
impetus behind the grant project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents .............................................. i

Illustrations ............ o ......... 0...................... 0.... iv
Introduction ......... ................. 1
Summary ......................... o ......... o.................... 3

Growth and Change.. ............... o ............................ 5

Growth in York County and the Three Towns.. ........... _5
Development on the Three Towns' River
Systems, 1970-85 ....... o- ............ oo ........... 6
The New Residents and Their Reasons
for Living in Maine ................................. 8

The Kennebunk River System.... ............ o.................... 9

The Hydrology, Geography, Scenic Diversity, and
Wildlife Diversity of the Kennebunk River and
its Tributaries .............. o .......................

The Main Trunk of the Kennebunk River .................. 11
Hydrology ........ o ................................ 11
Geography, Scenic Diversity, and Wildlife
Diversity ............................................ 12
Tributaries in Kennebunk ............. o............. o ... 15
Gooches Creek-Lake Brook .......................... 15
Wonder Brook ...................................... 16
Wards Brook-Alewife Pond-Sucker Brook ............. 17
Tributaries in Arundel ................ - .............. 18
Goff Mill Brook .................. o ................ 18
Duck Brook. ............................ o .......... 20
Saunders Brook ................. o.................. 22
Arundel Swamp Brook ..... o ......................... 22
Tributaries in Kennebunkport ........................ _23

Mills and Shipyards-History on the Kennebunk River ............ 25

Commercial and Recreational Uses on the River. ................ 27

Use's from the Lower River to the Head of Tide .......... 27
Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping ............ o............ 28
Public Access to the Kennebunk River .... o .............. 30

Classification and Testing Results on the River ............... 31

Classifying the River - What Does It Mean? ............. 31
What Qualities Make a Class B River? ................... 31

Groundwater and Aquifers ...................................... 35

What Exactly is Groundwater? ........................... 35
What is the Relationship between
Groundwater, Subsurface Deposits,
and Aquifers? ........................................ 35
Aquifer Locations in the Three Towns ................... 36
How Groundwater Vulnerability has been
Quantified for each Town ............................. 36
The Most Likely Local Sources of
Contamination ........................................ 37

Wetlands and Their Functions .................................. 38

What Exactly are Wetlands? ............................. 38
Identifying a Wetland ............... .................. 39
Wetland Functions ...................................... 40
Quantifying Wetlands Values ............................ 43

Floodplains ................................................... 46

Recognizing Floodplains ................................ 46
The Value of Floodplains ............................... 46
How is a Floodplain Defined? ............................ 49
Wildlife Diversity ............................................ 51

Wildlife Diversity and its Implications
for Town Planning .................................... 51
Documenting Wild Areas ................................. 51
A New Method of Quantifying Wildlife Diversity ......... 52
The Extent of Wildlife Diversity
in the Three Towns ................................... 54
Wildlife Diversity and Development:
an Inverse Correlation ............................... 54
The Importance of a Shoreland Buffer
Zone for Wildlife .................................... 56
Larger-scale Planning for Wildlife
Diversity ............................................ 58
Some Additional Wildlife Considerations ................ 60
Returning Beavers to the Area ..................... 60
Protecting Temporary Ponds ........................ 60

The Suggested Three-Town Coordinated Ordinances ............... 62
Introduction ................. : ......................... 62
Reasons for the Suggested 0 rdinances ................... 62
The Shoreland Zoning Amendments ................... 62
The Wetlands Ordinance ............................ 64
The Groundwater Protection Ordinance .............. 65
An Ordinance Eliminating Overboard

Discharge Systems .............................. 65
Extension of the 5 M.P.H. Speed
Limit to All of the Kennebunk River ............ 66

Long-Range Planning Recommendations ........................... 67

The Three-Town Suggested Ordinance Package .................... 73

Shoreland Zoning Amendments ............................ 74
Wetlands Ordinance ..................................... 82
Groundwater Protection Ordinance. 85
Ordinance to Eliminate Overboard
Speed Limit Ordinance .................................. 86

Bibliography .................................................. 87

Appendix A: New and Proposed Subdivisions on
River Systems in Arundel, Kennebunk, and
Kennebunkport, 1970-85

Appendix B: Commercial, Private, and Public
Enterprises on the Lower River and the Kennebunk
River Basin

I. Commercial, Private, and Public Enterprises
Directly on the Lower River ...................... B-1
II. Commercial and Private Businesses Directly
on the Kennebunk River Basin ...................... B-6

Appendix C: Testing Results on the River

I. Maine Department of Environmental
Protection Tests, 8/5/80-9/26/83 ............... C-1
II. Friends of the Kennebunk River Tests,
6/22/85-9/19/86 ................................ C-8

Appendix D: Wetland Plants and Soils

I. Common Wetland Plants Seen Along the
Kennebunk River System and Their Status ......... D-1
II. Common Plants Which Grow Only in Upland
Conditions ...................................... D-3
III. Hydric Soils of York County
and Their Characteristics ....................... D-4

Appendix E: Wildlife Diversity

I. Wildlife Diversity Index .......................... E-1
II. Method for Relating Development
to Wildlife Diversity ........................... E-3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page

1 The Kennebunk River and It's
Tributaries ................................... 10

2 A Tidal Floodplain ............................... 47

.3 A Woodland Floodplain ............................ 48

4 The Present Shoreland Setback,
Illustrated by Housing on Gooches Creek ....... 63

5 A Plan to Preserve Wildlife Diversity
with Development .............................. 68

6 A Development Plan Which Would Eliminate
Wildlife Diversity ............................ 69

7 The New Subdivisions - Enhancement
or Lowering of Local Values? .................. 72

INTRODUCTION

This report is written-about the Kennebunk River System and
the natural resources which affect it.

The report is written so a citizen can look up any one
section and gain basic background information on that subject.
Some examples of these topics include: changes in growth in the
three towns; commercial uses on the River; the relationship
between wildlife diversity and development on the River; and
background information on wetlands and their identification.

It is also a study with an end product. A set of suggested
protective ordinances co-ordinated between the three towns is
given at the end of the study, as well as long-range planning
recommendations.

This Coastal Zone Management Grant was awarded jointly to
the three towns of Arundel, Kennebunk, and Kennebunkport, as the
Kennebunk River serves as a common boundary between them. The
towns hired a private citizens group, the Friends of the
Kennebunk River, to carry out the study. Richard Erb, Town
Manager of Kennebunk, served as Project Manager, and the three
town River Commission supervised the project.

The study was designed to accomplish four major goals:

1. Photodocumention and field work along all of the
trunk of the River and its major tributaries;

2. Resource data collection and mapping of land
development, aquifers, DRASTIC groundwater
categories, soils, wetlands, floodplains, wildlife
diversity, historic sites, and property ownership;

3. Local presentations of a suggested ordinance package
co-ordinated between the three towns;

4. A final report.

This final report is meant to be a basic, practical quide
for town officials and other interested citizens. It describes
the Kennebunk River System, the natural resources related to
river systems (wetlands, floodplains, groundwater, aquifers,
wildlife, and scenic diversity), and offers a package of
suggested ordinances to protect river resources.

One set of resource maps will be given to each town with
this report. The slide collection will be stored with biologist
Cate Cronin of Arundel; each set of slides used in individual
town presentations this year have been labled and stored

consecutively for future use.

The author is a biologist with a background in planning,
and welcomes any questions regarding the study. She can be
reached at 32 Oakland Avenue, Arlington, MA 02174 or at
617-646-1974.

SUMMARY

In 20 years, Arundel and Kennebunkport will double in size,
and Kennebunk will triple in size at their present growth rates.
The growth in population is due almost entirely to in-migration
and not to an increase in town birth rates (pp. 5-8). .

The lower Kennebunk River reflects present growth and
change.. In 1986, the following businesses and activities
occurred directly on the lower River: 7 restaurants and cafes
with 709-809 seats; 5 hotels or motor inns with 139 units; 42
shops and galleries; seven commercial marinas with 230-240
berths; 8 commercial cruise/deep sea fishing boats with a
capacity of 375 passenger5/day; and 361 larger moored boats (52%
motor boats, 38% sailboats, 10% commercial boats).
It is estimated that two thousand recreational boats visit
in the summer, bringing approximately 5000 people. Chick's
Marina alone registered 680 transient visitors in the summer of
1986 (pp. 27-28).

The entire length of the Kennebunk River and its
tributaries in the three towns was checked in the field and
photodocumented. The results show a wide variety of scenic and
wild diversity - from old beaver ponds to falling rapids - that
remain unknown to most citizens.
This photodocumentation is locally available (p. 1).

Among town residents, a strong interest in the outdoors and
wildlife is indicated by the fact that 14%, or one out of every
seven townspeople, buy a hunting, fishing, or combined liscence.
The majority of these are for local use (pp. 28-29).

Groundwater supplies an important major source of local
drinking water. A recent local study by the Maine Geological
Survey shows that almost all land in the three towns is "not
very well protected" or "highly vulnerable" to groundwater
contamination (pp. 36-37).

Wetlands play an important role on the Kennebunk River and
other local river systems for substantial flood control, spring
nutrient release to aquatic organisms, pollution control, and
wildlife diversity and abundance (pp.*40-43).

Floodplains hold and control substantial floodwaters every
year in the three towns.
For example, a winter thaw early in 1986 caused flooding
4-7 feet above the normal water level along the Yennebunk River
System, covering entire floodplains often hundreds of feet wide,
even in the upper reaches of the tributaries. The flooding wa5
marked by standing i.ce shelves that persisted throughout the
rest of the winter.

Also, new and full moon tidal waters regularly cause
flooding 9-10 feet above low tide levels as much as 5 miles
upriver on the Kennebunk River, completely covering tidal
floodplains (pp. 46-49).

The normal high water mark used to delineate shoreland
zoning setbacks should be taken from the normal high monthly and
annual flooding boundaries mentioned above.

Testing results show the Kennebunk River System is still
remarkably clean and maintains good levels of oxygenation
important for aquatic life. Coliform levels below Class B river
standards are believed to come primarily from cow manure. The
DEP will be testing these areas and then working with the Soil
Conservaton Service to make recommendations to farmers (p. 34).

The number and variety of wildlife along the Kennebunk
River System goes up geometrically the greater the distance from
the nearest residence (pp. 54-56). There are still areas of
high wildlife diversity left in each town which can be preserved
using long-range planning techniques even while growth continues
(pp. 58-60 and 67-72).

River corridors, particularly if they connect to larger
blocks of open land, are the most heavily used and valuable
environments for mammals and birds (pp. 56-58).
River wildlife corridors supply drinking water, a wide
variety of food resources, and show the most intense bird and
mammal breeding use of any environment. Rivers also serve as
furbearer traveling corridors and provide tempered winter
protection for deer.
Long-range town planning, and protective ordinances, would
allow the rural Maine character, wildness, scenic diversity, and
natural resources of this area to be protected while growth
continues.
To this end, ordinances for shoreland zoning, wetlands and
groundwater protection, and the elimination of overboard
discharge are given on pp. 73-86. A summary of the rationale
for each ordinance is given on pp. 62-66. Recommendations are
also made for controlled growth, new methods of site review, and
natural resource planning on pp. 67-72.

Local citizens can indeed take control of their own
communities to preserve all of the richness, diversity, and
beauty that is still present in these three coastal towns. With
the use of long-range planning techniques, attractive and
suitable housing and other amenities for the use of local
townspeople can also be integrated with this preservation.

GROWTH AND CHANGE

Growth in York County and the Three Towns

High regional employment, and the recent desirability of
southern coastal Maine as a retirement area, are changing
coastal York County towns from quiet,,primarily rural villages
to rapidly expanding bedroom and retirement communities. York
County grew 20% from 1970-80 compared with an average rate of
13% statewide. The 5 coastal towns from York to Kennebunkport
plus Alfred, Arundel, Lyman, and Sanford experienced an average
rate of increase of 64% during this time (Dominie and Scudder,
1986). Growth figures and future estimates for York County are
shown below (Fleishman, 1986):

YORK COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH

1970-80 1980-86
annual annual Est.
Pop. growth Pop. growth POP-
1970 rate 1980 rate 1990

116,388 (2.0%) 139,666 (3.47%) 193,445

These increases are also reflected in the past and
projected growth rates for Arundel, Kennebunk, and Kennebunkport
(Fleishman, 1986; SMRPC, 1986):

POPULATION CHANGE AND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES 1970-86
IN ARUNDEL, KENNEBUNK, AND KENNEBUNKPORT

1970-80 1980-86
annual annual est. est.
POP. growth POP. growth POP. POP.
1970 rate 1980 rate 1986 1990

ARUNDEL 1322 (6.26%) 2150 (3.50%) 2602 2986

K'BUNK 5646 (1.73%) 6621 (5.16%) 8669 10601

K'PORT 2160 (3.67%) 2952 (2.65%) 3421 3898

Given the present growth rate, Arundel will have grown 2-3x
from 19 70 to 1990, Kennebunk 1.9x, and Kennebunkport 1.8x.
However, Kennebunk's growth rate has been increasing; it was 2.9
times greater in 1980-86 than it was in 1970-80, while Arundel's
rate declined 4491, and Kennebunkport's declined 27%. For the
period 1980-86, Kennebunkport was 22nd in growth, Arundel 18th
in growth, and Kennebunk was tied for 6th place with Old Orchard
Beach among the 29 towns of York County.

In an article in the York County Coast Star (10/10/86),
SMRPC planner Dan Fleishman noted that a growth rate of more
than 2% a year will strain local government resources. As shown
in the chart above, there is a present growth rate of 3.50% in
Arundel, 5.16% in Kennebunk, and 2.65% in Kennebunkport. On top
of this growth pressure, populations in this area expand 2-3x
during the summer months, further straining the towns' resources
(Dominie and Scudder, 1986).

As a consequence of this rapid growth the three towns have
'
passed updated zoning and subdivision regulations over the past
25 years in order to regulate aspects of development.
Comprehensive plans have been written for each town which note
the importance and value of natural resources, but little actual
protection exists for any of these resources beyond what is
presently mandated by the state.

Now it is apparent that many of the natural resources that
ave been taken for granted as part of the quality of life in
Maine are being altered or lost. These natural resources
include uncontaminated groundwater; unspoiled wetlands for
waterfowl, water recharge, and flood control;'unspoiled rivers,
lakes, and coastal beaches for recreational enjoyment and
wildlife use; protected wildlife habitat; peaceful scenic
diversity; and unpolluted air. Natural resource concerns
related to the health of the Kennebunk River and other river
systems will be addressed in this report and ordinances for
their protection will be listed and explained.

Development on the Three Towns' River Systems, 1970-85

As land has disappeared along the coast, developers have
increasingly turned to acreage which lies along inland rivers
and lakes. A list of all subdivisions in the three towns which
were granted permits from 1970-85 (SMRPC, 1986) was used to
identify those developments which occurred along rivers. The
plans were then examined at the Registry of Deeds in Alfred for
the number of units and the acreage in each development. This
information is summarized on the next page (for the complete
listing see Appendix A).

NUMBER OF SUBDIVISIONS, TOTAL UNITS, TOTAL ACREAGE,
AND DENSITY ON TOWN RIVERS, 1970-85

Subdiv. on Total Total
rivers/total units on acreage Units/
subdivisions rivers on rivers acre

ARUNDEL 7/26 (27%) 34 133 1/3.9

K'BUNK 14/55 (25%) 400 330 1/1.2

K'PORT 4/23 17%) 41 184 1/4.5

TOTAL. 25/104 (24%) 475 647 1/1.7

During this time, therefore, approximately 1/4 of the
subdivisions were built on rivers.- Fifty-six percent of the
river subdivisions and 84% of the units were built in Kennebunk.
Kennebunk also had 3.5 times the density of units along rivers
as Arundel and Kennebunkport (1 unit/1.2 acres vs. an average of
1 unit/4.2 acres). Thirteen subdivisions (52%) were built on
the Kennebunk River System, 8 on the Mousum River System (32%),
and 4 on the Batson River System (16%). Since these figures
were compiled the 640 acre Alewife Farm which encircles most of
Alewife Pond and part of Wards Brook (both part of the Kennebunk
River System) has been purchased for development. .

The DEVELOPMENT MAPS show the extent of the different kinds
of development which has occurred in each town. In terms of
river systems, total development has been greatest along the
Kennebunk River and its tributaries, and on the Mousum River.

Arundel has low density development along the Kennebunk
River up to Rt. 1. A Kennebunk River tributary, Duck Brook, has
periodic development varying from high to low density along its
upper half. Goff Mill Brook has primarily low density
development occurring sporadically along much of its length.

In Kennebunk, the lower 5 miles of the Kennebunk River
combine light and heavy residential and commercial development.
The Kennebunk river tributary Wonder Brook is now developed at
each end, and while Ward's Brook, which is wild throughout most
of its length, will be developed near Alewife Pond. The Mousum
is heavily developed around its central core, and is relatively
undeveloped elsewhere. Branch Brook remains free of any major
development.

In Kennebunkport, very heavy commercial and residential
development exists around the Lower Kennebunk River to the
Kennebunk River Basin, than heavy residential development
continues up to the Arundel Golf Course. The towns's major
river system, the Batson River, is relatively undeveloped.

The New Residents and their Reasons for Living in Maine

How much of the population increase is due to the natural
birth rate within the three towns, and how much is due to
outsiders moving into the area? The answer is surprising - of a
total of 2955 additional residents from 1980-85, 2873 or 97%
represented new residents moving in from outside the towns
(resident births did occur in Kennebunk and Kennebunkport but
were outnumbered by deaths; SMRPC,1986):

NATURAL BIRTH RATE VS. IN-MIGRATION IN THE THREE TOWNS

1980-85 1980-85
natural increase in-migration

ARUNDEL 82 370

K'BUNK -29 2077

K'PORT -39 508

The Cumulative Impact Study states that "The quality of
life which Maine offers is responsible for recent unprecedented
growth. New businesses, retirees, summer residents, and
escapees', primarily from southern New England, are coming to
Maine in search of a better living and working environment".
(Scudder, 1986).

Seventy percent of these immigrants placed high priority on
enjoyment of woods and rural areas; 74% considered enjoyment of
the natural environment highly important; 55% wished to get away
from corporate and/or suburban living; and 47% looked forward to
water-related activities (Scudder, 1986).

Will the influx of new residents make the very qualities
they're seeking disappear? Or can there be a balance between
growth and the preservation of natural resources? This study
will address the possibility of bala ncing both.

THE KENNEBUNK RIVER SYSTEM

The Kennebunk River and its tributaries reach into 4 towns:
Kennebunk, Kennebunkport, Arundel and Lyman.

The main trunk of the River and its tributaries cover a
watershed area of 52.88 square miles within these towns (see
WATERSHED MAP).

Basically, that means that all rain or snow that falls over
this area and isn't evaporated, absorbed,. or redirected (i.e.,
through storm culverts, etc.) ends up eventually running into
the Kennebunk River. Thus the quality of the River depends on
the quality of all the small streams, wetlands, and tributaries
that run into it, and the quality of those smaller waterbodies
depends on the health of all the surrounding land from which
their runoff occurs.

All land is part of some watershed; in Kennebunk for
example, any land which doesn't lie within the Kennebunk River
watershed has to lie within the Mousum River or the Branch
Brook-Little River watersheds. Thus the quality of all river
systems everywhere depends on the health of the total
environment.

Other significant watersheds in the three towns are the
Batson and Little River watersheds in Kennebunkport, and the
Saco River watershed in Arundel.

The main trunk of the Kennebunk River serves as the
boundary between the coastal towns of Kennebunk and
Kennebunkport-for approximately 2 miles, and then becomes the
boundary between Kennebunk and Arundel for 10 miles until these
towns' borders end at Days Mills. The River extends into Lyman
approximately 1 mile and then divides into Carlisle Brook and
Lords Brook. Sunken Branch Brook divides off Lords Brook 1 mile
further north.

Sunken Branch Brook and Lords Brook extend northwest and
north respectively, each ending up on opposite sides of the
238 acre Kennebunk Pond. Waters from Kennebunk Pond flow out in
an unusual pattern from both the east and west sides (the East
and West Outlets) into these tributaries. The tributaries
finally end approximately 1 mile north beyond the Pond outlets.

Altogether., the total length of the main trunk of the
Kennebunk River and all its major tributaries is 78 miles. The
total length of the Kennebunk system within the 3 towns in this
study is 53 miles.

ARUNDEL

Kennebunk
River

Alewife
Pond

Sucker
Brook

Duck
Brook
Goff
Mill
Brook

Wards
Brook

KENNEBUNK /KENNEBUNKPORT

Saunders
Brook

Wonder
Brook

Arundel
Swamp
Brook

]Lake
Brook

Gooches Kennebunk
Cree River

Fig. 1. The Kennebunk River and it's tributaries in the
three towns.

The geography, hydrological character, scenic variation and
animal and plant diversity are summarized for the main trunk of
the River and for each major tributary in the next section.

The Hydrology, Geography, Scenic Diversity, and Wildlife
Diversity of the Kennebunk River and Its
Tributaries

The Main Trunk of the Kennebunk River

Hydrology

The Lower River, from the ocean mouth to the Route 9
bridge, is where the major commerce of the River takes place
(for a description of this activity see Commercial and
Recreational Uses on the River). Commercial use is concentrated
here because of the low bridge clearance at Route 9 and the
shallow channel upriver of that point.

The Lower River is a little over a mile long and averages
400' across, with a minimum width of 100' and a maximum width of
900'. A Federal Navigation Channel 5500' long is maintained by
the Army Corps of Engineers down the length of the River to
within 160' of the Route 9 bridge. This Channel is 8' deep at
the entrance and 6' deep in the inner harbor; it is 100' wide
for the first 4000' of its length and 75' wide the rest of the
distance (Tomey and Bajek, 1984).

Tidal movement through the channel is relatively strong
with the current ranging from 0.2-2.3 knots in either tidal
direction (Tomey and Bajek, 1984). The mean tidal rise is 8.6'
and the tide moves approximately 6 miles upriver to the general
vicinity of the old Indian Planting Grounds (see HISTORIC MAP).
The tides move further upstream during the higher monthly tides
but are eventually blocked by the rise in elevation that occurs
before the rapids at the Route 1 bridge.

High tides l' above normal occurred an average of 7
days/month in 1986, while those 1.5' or more above normal
occurred an average of 4 days/month in 1986. Higher than normal
tides are associated with both the new and full moons (Eldridge
Tide and Pilot Book, 1986).

These higher than normal tides have a profound effect on
areas upriver. Photographs were taken of Wonder Brook, which is
4.8 miles upstream, at low tide and again during a new moon high
tide. The tidal rise plus the back-up of the normal runoff
raised the water level an estimated 10.5 - 11 feet above the
water channel.

Flooding can also be caused by storm events or ice-jams.
Winds from the September '85 hurricane struck the coast during a
low tide.period, and had the effect of raising waters to normal
high tide levels. If this had happened during a normal high
tide period, a wall of water an additional 9 feet high would
have moved upriver, far surpassing the flooding potential of the
2+ feet seen during the annual spring tides.
- Ice-jams can form as well, particularly at Durrells Bridge.
Here the River is narrow enough for ice to form; once formed it
expands, cracks and buckles, and these uneven sheets can then be
moved about by the tides to create ice-jams.

Geography, Scenic Diversity, and Wildlife Diversity

The Lower River is attractive and full of activity but
sites of visual access are increasingly being closed off in the
commercial areas. Areas open to the public include Government
Wharf near the mouth of the River in Kennebunkport, Parsons
Beach off the East Jetty, Gooch Beach off the West Jetty, and
the Monastery land on the Kennebunk side belonging to the
Society of Franciscan Fathers. The Monastery land extends 1/2
mile along the shoreline: there is a path which runs its length
through magnificent woodland, with vistas out to the River
across extensive saltmarsh. At the south end a raised path
continues out to the "boathouse", a circular, roofed structure
with open sides and a broad view out over the saltmarsh to the
Lower River and Gooches Creek.

The Monastery is by far the richest site on the Lower River
for wildlife diversity. A trip down the River in a rowboat
emphasizes the contrast between this untouched stretch and the
riprapped, commercial Kennebunkport area. While a few mixed
domestic ducks use the Kennebunkport side, the Monastery is rich
in wildlife. Great blue herons, snowy egrets, and smaller
shorebirds use the monastery coves and saltmarsh flats to find
fish and invertebrates, and mallards and herons use partly
submerged trees as resting and perching places. Salt pans dot
the saltmar5h and active trails are maintained by raccoons and
OCC&5ional foxes. In the fall the 5altmarsh edge is thick with
blooming seaside goldenrod and saltmarsh asters which attract
migrating monarch butterflys.

The Monastery land includes wild woodland at its south end,
and is located near other wild areas: woodland and saltmarsh
continue down Gooches Creek to the west, and a relatively
undeveloped shoreline stretch of private land with bulrushes,
second growth woods, and sand dunes extends from Gooches Creek
to Gooch Beach. These areas provide a remarkable contrast to
the crowding and hectic pace maintained on most of the Lower

River.

Immediately north of the Route 9 bridge the River expands
into the 700' wide Kennebunk River Basin, where the last of the
commercial buildings occur. From here to Durrells Bridge,
houses are seen periodically along the shoreline but the
dominant effect is of the 100-200' wide River itself, winding
past mature pine woodlands and open saltmarsh floodplains.

Old pilings from one of the nineteenth century shipyards at
the Kennebunk Landing are visible protruding out of the sides of
the banks just above Durrells Bridge; from here the River winds
in great wide loops past banks thickly overgrown with wild
shrubs and occasional trees backing up on fields with a
profusion of wildflowers. Rich extensive saltmarsh floodplains
fill the loops between the banks. This is wildlife habitat; a
variety of mammals as well as kingbirds, warblers, owls, and a
marsh hawk make their homes here.

The River continues past the Riverwynde development in
Arundel and the entrance to Wonderbrook and then straightens.
The last big loop at Wonder Brook is now a freshwater
floodplain; the River now continues straight ahead between low
banks, spilling down past fallen snags and over a rocky bottom.
Large-canopied black oaks and white pines line the edges.

North of the Boston and Maine Railroad the River meanders
again, bending around the old Indian Planting Ground at the head
of tide and continuing through a thick and wild profusion of
second growth woods. Here the rapids become more noticeable;
water spills over and around larger rock outcrops, and large
gravel islands covered with arrowheads, cardinal flower, Joe-
Pye-Weed and wild mint lie interspersed with rock outcroppings
in the River channel.

Before the Route 1 bridge development encroaches again;
some of the condominiums of the new Powder Mill subdivision are
crowded against the banks of the River; rolls of fiberglass
insulation and other debris sit soaking in the water.

At the Route 1 bridge different layers of rock outcrops
have caused a set of dramatic, stepped, rushing rapids next to
the remains of a colonial mill. North of the bridge a large
cleared area on the Kennebunk side reflects the recent extension
of the business district zone to the River. Shortly north of
this area, however, the River enters a long, relatively wild
stretch surrounded by mature mixed forest and occasional wild
fields. Here snowy owls and pileated woodpeckers can be seen,
as well as the winter tracks of a cross-section of mammals.
Wards Brook divides off above Funky Swamp through a dense tangle
of second growth brush bordering a field which will be developed
(4 lots).

Three quarters of a mile further north Duck Brook branches
off into Arundel just before the.Old Railroad Grade Crossing.
The River here now becomes rich in water plants - pickeralweed,
arrowheads, yellow pond lily, and bur-reeds; reflecting the
influence of increased nutrients from the dairy farms further
upriver.

The River is now only 20-30' wide, and breaks up into
smaller meanders with pockets of aquatic plants along the sides.
Trees overhang the River; some are uprooted and have fallen
across it; sunlight reflects off the water in patches through
the leaves. This stretch between Duck Brook and the Maine
Turnpike is full of animal trails; woodcock fly up sporadically
from along the River bank.

From the Turnpike to Perkins Road, much of the Kennebunk is
bordered by farms on one or both sides. The occurrence of
frequent wild fields, woods, and steep, thickly grown banks
along the River helps provide protection for wildlife between
the more intensively farmed areas. The topography of the River
is often dramatic; bending in sharp curves through steep banks
tangled with overgrown thickets of wild clematis, jewelweed and
bedstraw, and overspread by oaks or sugar maples.

North of Perkins Road the River winds past several large cow
pastures. The River widens out here and forms much larger
meanders past alternating high, steep clay banks and wide
floodplains most of the way to Days Mills. Cows use the first
section of the River extensively and their hooves have trampled
out paths along the banks and along the River's edge and
floodplains.

As the farmland gives way to woods, wildlife immediately
becomes more evident. This area is both botanically and
scenically rich. Hemlocks are the dominant trees along these
high, shaded banks, and are interspersed with oaks, pines, and
yellow birch. Swamp dogwood, alders, and buckthorn extend out
on small, gravelly floodplains. The sweeping curves of the
River bed are interspersed with round granite cobbles from one
to six feet across, and occasional mid-stream areas of
bur-reeds. A dramatic group of rock outcrops and rapids occurs
approximately half-way to Days Mills.

The River finally straightens on the last stretch, divides
around a large hemlock island, and continues under Route 35 to
the dramatic dammed falls at Days Mills.

In summary, the Kennebunk River is a river of great scenic
beauty, with significant wild areas surrounding it. It varies
greatly in character depending on the wildness of the land
around it, the surrounding topography, the additional water

volume entering the River from each tributary, and the daily
tides. It is a remarkably well-preserved, healthy, wild River.
Protective efforts and planning can keep it that way.

Tributaries in Kennebunk

Gooches Creek-Lake Brook

Gooches Creek branches off the Lower River 1/4 mile north
of the River mouth, and winds through approximately 80 acres of
saltmarsh. This 140-210' wide tributary divides into two
subtributaries in the middle of this wetland. One heads
southwest across the marsh and then westerly across Boothby Road
and through a series of well-maintained ponds and culverts on
the Webhannet Golf Course, then across an area being developed
to Route 9. The rest of the tributary sweeps sharply north,
crosses under Route 9, and continues as a wild river for 1.8
miles.

Salt marshes are areas of high estuarine productivity and
also supply invertebrates and fish to resident and migrating
birds and to mammals. Because salt marsh areas are quite
limited along Maine's rocky coast, this large saltmarsh has a
special significance.

Its use by wildlife is quickly apparent. Shallow saltwater
filled depressions called saltpans provide a rich habitat for
minnows and invertebrates, which are in turn eaten by wading
birds, shorebirds, and mammals. The soft mud sides of an
evaporating saltpan make excellent impressions, and the rich
array of fox, raccoon, great blue heron, snowy egret, and small
shorebird tracks can be readily seen. This is particularly
evident on the northwest side of the marsh where there is a
large buffered woodland area, and along the old railroad grading
which angles across the center of the saltmarsh.

The entire southern side of the marsh is heavily developed
but development is only beginning on the east and west sides.
Basically, wild animals need privacy and cover; the animal life
on the marsh is therefore presently more concentrated around the
middle and northern sections. Keeping development back from
these wild shorelines and preserving the buffer woodland area to
the northwest (mentioned above) is essential to preserving the
present wildlife diversity.

Gooches Creek, now known as Lake Brook, heads northwest
from Route 9 and continues for another 1.8 miles through an
almost undeveloped area. From Route 9, the Brook continues
through a narrower section of saltmarsh plain dotted with

saltpans, which periodially expand out into larger ponded areas
as it heads north. The wetland edge is surrounded by bayberry,
highbush blueberry, arrowwood, goldenrods, and grasses, with red
maples behind. Beyond the ponding areas the tidal waters become
more dilute, and the saltmarsh grass Spartina Patens is now
mixed with salt tolerant freshwater grasses. Now the Brook
narrows to 2-3' and meanders across low, green, freshwater
marsh, finally entering a saturated alder swamp and continuing
into red maple and upland woods. Many smaller tributaries feed
from this headwater area into Lake Brook.

The entire Lake Brook area is undisturbed and thick with
animnal paths. Deer tracks are common at numerous crossings
over the Brook. Herons are found on the marsh and snowy owls
inhabit the woods. This wild, beautiful, and still undeveloped
area deserves the same protection as the contiguous Gooches
Creek saltmarsh.

Wonder Brook

Wonder Brook divides off the Kennebunk River 4.8 miles
upriver and heads northwest into Kennebunk for 1.8 miles. The
Brook enters into a wide, tidal, floodplain area, then winds
upstream through thick, mature forest which slopes down from
high banks. North of the B&M railroad tracks there is cleared
stretch of private land, then the Brook continues through lower
woods and wetlands to the open fields behind the Route 1
shopping area. It then continues on through high density
residential development. The head of tide is approximately 0.25
miles upstream of the Brook's entrance off the Kennebunk River.

The lower half mile of Wonder Brook has some spectacular
features: the green expanse of tidal sedge wetlands dotted with
wild iris and wild morning glory, steep uplands with mature,
dark forest with large oaks and some very old white pines (up to
4.5' in diameter), tall stands of woodland wild valerian, and
the frequent sounds of thrushes and ovenbirds in the woods. The
northern coralroot is found here and hummingbirds feed on the
jewelweed along the Brook.

Many developments are now encroaching close to this part of
Wonder Brook, and several dirt access roads have been cleared
into the woods. The land immediately north of the railroad
tracks has been entirely clearcut to the edge and has some
bulldozer and 4WD damage along the banks. At least 5 rusted oil
drums lie in the Brook channel behind the Route 1 shopping area.
In spite of these problems, almost all of lower Wonder Brook is
still very beautiful and wild, and protective measures (see
SUGGESTED THREE-TOWN ORDINANCE PACKAGE and Larger-Scale Planning
for Wildlife Diversity) could continue to keep it that way.

Wards Brook - Alewife Pond - Sucker Brook

Wards Brook splits off the Kennebunk River 8.2 miles
upriver and then heads northwest 7.7 miles to enter Alewife
Pond. Alewife Pond is one of Kennebunk's Great Ponds (the other
is Old Falls Pond on the Mousum River) and is approximately 40
acres in size. Sucker Brook exits out the west side of the Pond
and ends just beyond Cole Road 0.8 miles later.

Of all the Kennebunk tributaries, Wards Brook is by far the
richest in wildlife diversity. This is due to a dense woodland
with varied canopy layers and a great deal of cover, an
extensive, very rich wetland around the central core of the
tributary, and, most of all, to its remoteness from residential
development. In this study, there has been a direct correlation
between the inaccessability and remoteness of an area from human
habitation and the increasing extent of its wildlife diversity
(see Wildlife Diversity and Development: an Inverse
Correlation).

With the 640 acre Alewife Pond Farm now being subdivided
around Alewife Pond and the upper section of Wards Brook, this
wild status may change. Measures to substantially buffer Wards
Brook and its surrounding woodlands from the effects of
development would help preserve the wildness downriver.

As Wards Brook divides off the Kennebunk River it enters a
rich tangle of second growth for 1/4 mile, then runs through cow
pasture much of the way to the Maine Turnpike. COW5 have
heavily trampled parts of the banks and aquatic plants,
completely fill the Brook in places due to fertilization by
manure. However, once beyond the pasture the Brook is
immediately used by wildlife; concentrated deer and raccoon
tracks line parts of the banks, and the wildlife signs*continue
in profusion throughout almost all the rest Of the tributary.

From Route 35 westward Wards Brook travels through mixed
open woods and then passes through approximately 1/2 mile of
extensive, rich wetland. Beavers have been trapped out of the
area but a pond of approximately 20 acres filled with fish and
waterfowl was formed on one of the side tributaries by beavers
three years ago (R. McKay, pers. comm.). This has now mostly
drained away. There is also recent beaver evidence along other
sections of this wetland.

The Brook continues on twisting and meandering through
mixed young woods rich in a variety of trees, shrubs, and
herbaceous plants; here the bottom clay and sand bars are filled
with the impressions of a wide diversity of mammals.

Within a few feet of Alewife Pond the wildlife signs end

abruptly; much less evidence of 'eithor terrestrial or pond
wildlife exists on any side of the Pond. This is probably due
to the access to the Pond-on a number of 4WD roads, and its use
by weekend fishermen and campers. This is evidenced by
occasional campsites along the Pond's edge which are littered
with charred firewood, tin cans, beer bottles, and the remains
of tents.

The Pond itself supports substantial border wetlands
ranging from woolgrass-cattail marshes to sedge marshes to
emergent pickeralweed and arrowhead areas. It also supports a
variety of plants found in deeper water such as wild celery and
several species of water lilies. Vegetatively, it provides an
excellent variety of plants for wildfowl, yet few ducks or geese
are found here. The Pond is locally known as a good fishing
site.

Sucker Brook continues westward from Alewife Pond and runs
through very thick underbrush and a mix of different aged trees.
This wild area is dotted with small wetlands and ponds.
Wildlife diversity is lower here than would be expected from the
lush growth and cover. The Brook continues across Cole Road and
enters a wetland area.

Tributaries in Arundel

Goff Mill Brook

Of all the tributaries, Goff Mill Brook has the greatest
scenic attractiveness and the most scenic diversity. This 8
mile Brook with its many feeder tributaries also contributes by
far the greatest water volume into the Kennebunk.

Substantial spring melt can occur in Goff Mill Brook. This
is evident by the occurrence of piled up snags, undercut banks,
and scoured floodplains along the lower Brook as well as by the
double 12' culverts on Sinnott Road and the flooding over the 8'
banks at the Fran-Mort Campground.

Goff Mill Brook begins as a 120' wide riverway north of the
Arundel Golf Club, passing eastward through brushy banks and
past mudflats frequented by feeding shorebirds. The Brook
passes under River Road, and then rises approximately 4 feet in
elevation due to the existance of an old dam.

The view of Goff Mill Brook south to the Kennebunk River
from the River Road bridge is one of the most scenic in the
three towns. Remains of the old Goff Mill are still fairly
intact here; fitted rock foundations extend out from each bank
and 3 gristmill wheels can be seen among the rocks on the bottom
at low tide.

North of the bridge the Brook passes into mature woods up
to Sinnott Road. Here the topography varies dramatically, with
low, densely vegetated brusl,4 floodplains on one side
alternating with high, steep, sometimes undercut banks on the
other as the Brook twists and meanders. Large hemlocks and
maples cling to the sides of the banks or have been undercut and
have fallen across the River. The soil is rich here; all
varieties of trees can be found, including beech, white ash,
yellow birch, hemlocks, white pines, slippery elm, red maples
and red and black oaks. Mushrooms spring up from the forest
floor and a wide variety of herbaceous plants and wildflowers
occur where the overhead canopy opens up. An active, temporary,
vernal salamander pond with egg clusters can be seen in the
spring.

The Brook turns and twists back on itself and eventually
runs under Sinnott Road and past the Fran-Mort campground. It
continues through a mix of old fields with high clusters of
goldenrod and sumac, and then onward through immature and mature
woods. The Brook character changes here; the topography is
flatter and the Brook runs in riffles over a rocky bottom; small
islands of tenuously attached shrubs appear in the river next to
banks of overhanging alders and highbush cranberries ripe with
berries. This mixed, wild stretch is rich in wildlife; this
diversity diminishes somewhat as the Brook winds northward
through darker, mature woods of of hemlock, white pine, black
oak and red maple.

Approaching Log Cabin Road, the Brook widens out to several
spectacular pools separated by rapids. Here sunlight filters
through the overhanging canopies and reflects off the rushing
water as it moves downstream. In the fall, colored fallen
leaves are trapped in profusion behind moss-covered rocks along
these pool edges.

Across Log Cabin Road the Brook winds through a very rich,
diverse shrub marsh and then continues on past the Kennebunkport
Trolley Museum into a winding stretch with mature, open white
pine woods where fox and raccoon tracks can be seen. Eventually
the Brook emerges near open farmland and passes under the Boston
and Maine Railroad tracks into old fields. The Brook spreads
out into a series of manmade ponds with small dams, edged with
thick overhanging alder, viburnums, and red maples. Beyond this
point the Brook spreads out and forms a wetland edge which
eventually expands out into a series of beaver ponds. These
ponds are the most dramatic wild feature of the Brook and are
thick with wildlife. Warblers, kinglets, kingbirds, flocks of
sparrows, waterfowl, kingfishers, marsh hawks, muskrats, raccoon
and deer are all found here.

Goff Mill Brook is a tributary of much beauty and

diversity, but does not support the variety or quanity of
wildlife that would appear to be ably supported by the rich
vegetation, cover, and variety of topography that is evident.
This is probably due to its lack of remoteness; human trails,
fishermen, and the popularity of the area for hunters may keep
wildlife populations reduced. The closeness of some of.the
residences, and the Brook's proximity to Log Cabin and Biddeford
Road,may discourage wildlife as well.

This lower diversity along parts of the Brook make the rich
diversity around the beaver ponds particularly noticeable.
Geologically the area changes here, with poorer soil
interspersed between rocky outcrops, and extensive, somewhat
stunted birch and poplars. When beavers created the ponds here
they not only deepened and greatly widened the waterway, but
created floodplains where soil deposition has created a much
richer wetland environment than would have been evident without
them. This vegetation and the ponds themselves create a rich
wildlife habitat, which rapidly falls again in diversity beyond
the pond system.

This wildlife diversity will not last in its present form,
however, because the beavers are now gone; apparently trapped
out of the area 3 years ago. If the area could be protected
from trapping the ponds could be maintained (see Returning
Beavers to the Area under WILDLIFE DIVERSITY). In fact, there
is extensive enough poplar forest to maintain a good beaver
colony over even more of the area; this would greatly add to the
wildlife value of this part of the Brook.

The Brook continues through primarily wet red maple swamps
until Proctor Road; across from the road the Brook's sides have
been bulldozed and partly filled with demolition debris;
neighbors claim this is presently sealed off from the original
Brook drainage and that the last quarter mile of the Brook above
this now overflows into surrounding fields. The filling is on
the property of an auto body repair; there is good evidence that
this property is also being used for toxic waste dumping.

Duck Brook

Duck Brook it the second largest Kennebunk River tributary
in Arundel, dividing off the Kennebunk just before the B&MRR
crossing and running 3.2 miles to Davis Pond. There it splits
into two feeder tributaries each about one mile long; 3 other
main tributaries enter Duck Brook lower down. The total Duck
Brook system is 8 miles long.

Hydrologically, Duck Brook probably carries about 1/4 the
water volume of Goff Mill Brook. Duck Brook varies from 6-25'
wide most of the way to Davis Pond, and maintains this channel

width throughout about 1/3 of its tributary length. It's flood
potential is obvious by the frequent occurrence of wide,
woodland floodplains, or of steep undercut cliffs in certain
locations (i.e., immediately west of Limerick Road).

Duck Brook enters a tangled wetland as it leaves the
Kennebunk River, and then continues on to the Maine Turnpike
through floodplain forest-with little understory. Summer deer
tracks can be seen on the sand bars which line the channel as
the Brook curves through overhanging red maples and hemlocks.

Between the Maine Turnpike and Downing Road the Brook runs
through a cow farm with grass running right up to the Brook; the
edge is well trampled by the cows and the Brook thickly
vegetated from manure runoff.

North of Downing Road the Brook enters an extremely dense,
rich woods where red cardinal flowers tower over banks thick
with dense grasses and overhanging alders; after approximately
1/2 mile a 4WD road cuts down to the Brook and here extensive
shoreline clearcutting has taken place. Most of this seems
haphazard; thick piles of slash and fallen trees almost
completely block parts of the Brook; slash and large branches
lie in a tangle along the sides. Two 4WD roads cross the Brook;
one has been built with only a board over the Brook and no
culvert. One section of the Brook bank has been bulldozed and
left exposed. A tire and household dump lie on top of one of
the Brook banks.

North of this location the woods becomes wild again; this
is a rich forest of mature white pines, red maples, and hemlocks
amidst varied terrain; the channel runs between approximate 3
foot banks and carves a scenic passageway through overhanging
maples. This section, and the tributary which divides off
westward to the Dutch Elm Course support a relatively high
wildlife diversity; this continues until the Brook comes within
1000 feet of the residential housing around Limerick Road.

East of Limerick Road,Duck Brook enters Davis Pond. This
Pond is a shallow, approximate 4 acre pond that is well covered
with tall emergent marsh plants such as cattails and woolgrass.
This provides ideal waterfowl habitat with its protective hiding
places and shallow, rich feeding areas; good numbers of mallards
and wood ducks, as well as a great blue heron, have been seen
feeding there in August. The back section of the pond is
entirely grown in with a very rich, high growth of jewelweed,
canary grass, woolgrass, cattails and sedges.

The two tributaries running off Davis Pond to the north and
west are relatively low in wildlife diversity. The heavy
residential development between New Road and the north tributary
and new construction around the middle of the west tributary no

doubt contribute to this. The forest is also thinned out and
lacks substantial low protective cover. Bulldozing up to the
brook's edge and heavy slash dumping in the Brook has occurred
around the new home construction at the lower end of the south
tributary. Both these tributaries are scenically quite
attractive where human alteration hasn't taken place.

A 1.5 mile tributary of Duck Brook extends northeastward
from Lower Duck Brook and runs roughly parallel to the old
railroad grade. This is also a very scenic tributary, running
through rich woods, but its closeness to the traveled railroad
grade keeps wildlife away. The upper half of this tributary in
particular has been scarred by heavy ATV or 4WD vehicle use and
careless clearcutting. Roofing materials and other household
and construction debris has been dumped periodically along the
railroad grade.

Overall, Duck Brook is a largely invisable scenic resource
which has much of the scenic diversity, attractiveness, and
wildlife potential of the larger Goff Mill Brook. Town
harvesting controls would protect the Brook from shoreland
harvesting abuses, and creative cluster development away from
the waterway will help maintain the wilder sections of the
Brook.

Saunders Brook

Saunders Brook,divides off northward into Arundel 1/4 mile
north of Durrells Bridge. The Brook cuts through saltmarsh
floodplain to a rocky outcropping, then heads through a small
brushy valley surrounded by fields to River Road. From here it
winds in a 6 foot,'sandy-bottomed channel through open woodland
and then marsh for 3/4 mile to an approximate 3 acre
manmade pond. The pond is well-maintained and attractive, with
open meadow along the earthern berm on the south side, and a
variety of trees and diversity of topography along the rest of
its length. Wildlife diversity is relatively high west Of
River Road and relatively low in the woodland, increasing again
around the pond.

Arundel Swamp Brook

Arundel Swamp Brook splits off the Kennebunk 500 feet above
the Arundel-Kennebunkport border. It enters a quiet, wide
channel lined with white pines, weaves through an attractive
saltmarsh wetland, and passes over rapids to cross under River
Road. Here it enters a manmade pond, then travels along the
edge of an overgrown field through an alder swamp into wet
woodland for 1/2 mile of its total 1 mile distance. The wetland
consists of red maples and white pines with raised roots over_
22

the wet terrain, small black spruce, and wetland shrubs and
ferns; a few paths have been cut through the area for horseback'
riding.

All the features of this Brook are attractive; the entrance
off the Kennebunk reflects white pines, asters, and goldenrod in
its waters and provides a peaceful site to explore by canoe.
Wildlife diversity is relatively high to the woods; the woodland
wetland environment around the Brook is too saturated to provide
easy traveling for mammalian wildlife.

Tributaries in Kennebunkport

Tributaries in Kennebunkport include Fairfield Creek,
Chicks Creek, Gristmill Pond and its tributary, Bass Cove and
its tributary, the entrance to Goff Mill Brook, and 1.5 miles of
feeder tributaries into Goff Mill Brook.

Both Creeks, actually coves, lie off the Lower River and
have been largely developed. Thick vegetation and rocky banks
along the sides of both coves, and careful placement of
residences make both coves attractive, quiet places for boating.
There is some undeveloped land at each cove which adds
additional variety and wildness to each site.

The Olde Grist Mill Restaurant is a landmark marking the
entrance to Grist Mill Pond. Grist Mill Pond is actually a
tidal inlet with a tributary which divides to the south through
fields to the Consolidated School, and into rich woods to the
north. The Pond itself is fairly rich in wildlife diversity,
with great blue herons and snowy egrets feeding periodically on
small schools Of fish that come in with the tides. Wild, second
growth borders the north side which grades into a mixed, mature
forest with good undergrowth. Raccoon and deer tracks and
trails can be followed here. Tidal flats border the pond and
continue northward before the tributary divides. Only one house
has been built close to the wetland in the north section and
deer and raccoon use these tidal flats with frequency.

Bass Cove opens off the Kennebunk River at the right angle
bend at the Arundel Golf Club. The Cove has two "arms", one
heading northwest and ending on the golf course, the other
heading southeast and narrowing down into a tributary surrounded
by goldenrod-filled tidal flats. This tributary eventually
heads across North Street and winds a quarter mile through thick
woods; it then enters a wetland and ends on the east side of the
telephone line clearing. Again, this is another quite wild area
that is presently undeveloped and shows evidence of deer and
raccoon,

Three small (3-6 feet wide) tributaries flow from

Kennebunkport into Goff Mill Brook near the northwest border of
the town. This country consists of granite outcrops, upland
hills, and lowland bogs and swamps, and these tributaries feed
from the wetland areas in this varied terrain. This country is
largely untouched; while not rich in wildlife diversity it is
scenically beautiful. Where the soil cover is thinner,
extensive young stands of poplar and birch surround open areas
of granite ledge, bracken and leatherleaf, and pockets of
sphagnum moss fill numerous small, wet areas. Larger we.tland
areas are rapidly becoming mature red maple swamps. Where more
organic matter has accumulated, the forest is richer and
supports white pines and red oaks. As organic matter
accumulates, this area will continue to recover from the
previous town-wide fire and become gradually richer and more
diverse.

MILLS AND SHIPYARDS HISTORY ON THE KENNEBUNK RIVER

Local historian Tom Bradbury notes that Arundel, Kennebunk,
and Kennebunkport have gone through four periods of history: the
colonial settlement-in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries;
the shipbuilding era from 1766 to 1867; the era of the summer
tourist economy that played a particularly prominant role around
the turn of the century; and the present role of the towns as
bedroom and retirement communities.

Much of this past history is centered around the Kennebunk
River. This part of the Kennebunk River Study is concerned
primarily with the historical artifacts found in the River
itself from the colonial and shipbuilding periods.

In the colonial period (mid-1600's to mid-1700's) a variety
of gristmills and sawmills were built along the River to take
advantage of the continuous downstream waterflow or of the
change in tides (see HISTORICAL MAP). Standing mills still
exist at the entrance to Grist Mill Pond (Mast Cove) in
Kennebunkport (originally the Perkins Grist Mill from 1751 to
1939; now the Olde Grist Mill Restaurant), and at Days Mills at
the Arundel border.

Remains of mill foundations can still be seen prominantly
at several locations. At Goff Mill Brook, the rock foundations
of the original Ooff Mill can be seen 1000 feet upstream of the
Kennebunk River. The old fitted rock foundation extends out
from both sides of the Brook, and three grist wheels can be seen
among fallen rocks on the bottom at low tide. Gristmill
foundations can also be seen of the Stephen Perkins Mill at Bass
Cove, the Downing Mill on Goff Mill Brook above Sinnott Road,
and at the Bartlett Mill site south of the Route 1 bridge next
to the rapids. A mill foundation also can be seen just south of
the Kennebunk Powder Mill condominium development.

The Indian Planting Ground was a large, fertile peice of
land enclosed by a bend of the River at the Head of Tide on the
Arundel side (see HISTORICAL MAP). This site had the advantage
of having fresh irrigation water available above it and tidal
access to the ocean below it. Fish were collected at both the
coast and at local alewife and shad fish weirs in order to
fertilize the cornfields (Ruth Landon, pers. comm.).

Shipbuilding became a major local industry before the
Revolutionary War and 12 shipyards were concentrated along the
floodplains of "The Kennebunk Landing" (11 on the Kennebunk
side) in the general period from 1766 to 1830 (Murphey, Jr.,
1977). Large pilings which are probably the remains of the old
McCullough Wharf can be seen projecting out of the River banks

just north of Durrells bridge (the smaller, vertical pilings
south of the bridge are the remains of the old trolley line that
crossed from River Road to Route 35; Joyce Butler, pers. comm.).

As the demand for larger ships increased, new shipyards
replaced many of the older ones and 8 shipyards, many in new
locations, are recorded on the Kennebunk side for the period
1831-1867 (Murphey, Jr.,1977).

In order to guide these large ships down the River at more
frequent intervals than the biannual spring tides, the River
Locks were built just below the present Arundel Golf Course in
1848. The locks allowed the upper River to be flooded at higher
levels. Some ships, even though buoyed up above the normal
water level, still passed within inches of the locks on each
side. Once safely through, the boats were rigged with masts and
sails at John Maling's rigging loft at the site of the present
Arundel Yacht Club (Butler, 1983; Joyce Butler, pers. comm.).

At the beginning of the civil war "the need for larger
ships than the river could accommodate, the beginnings of steel
shipbuilding, and the introduction of wire rope delivered the
coup-de-grace' to this industry". The last large shipyard on
the River, the Clark Shipyard, was located next to the South
Congregational Church just above the Route 9 bridge in
Kennebunkport. This was considerably downriver of the more
narrow Kennebunk Landing area. Over 100 ships were built here
from 1883-1900. The remains of what appearsto be the old
shipyard slip can still be clearly seen here at low tide.

In 1918, the last ship, a small four-masted schooner named
the Kennebunk, was launched from the Emmons-Littlefield/Charles
Ward shipyards at the present Doanes Wharf location on the Lower
River. This marked the end of large vessel construction on the
Kennebunk River (Butler, 1983).

Ships that entered the River to pick up supplies unloaded
their ballast into hollow pier cribs. The ballast consisted
largely of flint, chert, and some coral, reflecting the trade
routes to Europe and the West Indies. Remains of the original
cribbing can still be found at the mouth of the River (Dave
Bernstein, U. New England, pers. comm.).

COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL- USES ON THE RIVER

Uses from the Lower River to the Head of Tide

The greatest commercial and recreational use takes place on
the Lower River. There are 7 commercial marinas with a total of
230-240 berths, two private clubs with 79-89 berths, and 4 other
private docking areas with 13-15 berths. Fifteen lobstermen, 2
fishermen, and 25 sailboats also use public moorings in the
lower River channel. Jamie Houtz of the Arundal Boatyard
estimated that at least 2000 recreational boats bringing
approximately 5000 people came into the Lower River during the
past season; Chick's Marina alone registe 'red 680 transient boats
(those taking temporary berths) during the summer of 1986.

On 9/30/86, when rough sea conditions kept most boats in
port, a total of 361 boats were counted on the Lower River
(omitting skiffs and canoes). These included:

1. 186 motor boats (52%);

2. 136 sailboats (38%);

3. 9 commercial boats (2%);

4. 12 f ishingr boats (3%) ;

5. 18 lobster boats (5%).

Ninety percent of the boats present that day were
recreational boats, and 10% commercial boats. Of the
recreational boats, 58% were motorboats and 42% sailboats.

Reid's Boatyard is closing at the end of the summer and
will be developed, but the Arundel Boatyard remains active.
Goverment Wharf near the mouth of the River provides a place for
lob5termen to pick up bait and other supplies and for fin
fishermen to unload their catch. The Kennebunkport Marina
maintains a boat ramp which is presently the only place of
public boat access.

Eight commercial cruise/deep sea fishing boats use the
River. There are two whale watching boats that take a maximum
of 170 people; 4 deep sea fishing boats carrying 122 people; one
sailing boat taking 6 people, 4 times/day; and a cruise boat
carrying a maximum of 49 people, 4 times/day. All these boats
go out every day in the spring and summer that weather permits

and,many are active full-time until October 15.

Tourist accomodations, restaurants, and shops are also
concentrated on the Lower River. There are 5 hotels or motor
inns directly bordering the Lower River with a total of 139
units, 5 restaurants with a total of 643-743 seats, and 2 cafes
with a total of 66 seats. There are 42 shops and galleries
directly adjoining the River (with more than double that number
in the immediate vicinity), as well as a yacht brokerage, a real-
estate business, and one educational enterprise, the
Kennebunkport Maritime Museum (a complete list of all the
commercial, private, and public enterprises on the Lower River
is categorized in APPENDIX B).

Summer visiters use Gooch Beach on the Kennebunk side and
the Breakwater Beach on the Kennebunkport side for swimming and
sunbathing. The Kennebunkport jetty is a popular place to fish
for flounder. The Monastery owned by the Franciscan Society of
Brothers on the Kennebunk side is open to the public and
provides a peaceful walkway along the River's edge as well as a
view to the Lower River.

Above the Route 9 bridge there are more commercial
enterprises clustered around the south end of the Kennebunk
River Basin. Businesses which immediately adjoin the Basin in
Kennebunk include 10 shops and galleries, a 28-36 seat
restaurant, and one dental service. On the Port side, one shop
and one 70-seat restaurant lie on the Basin.

During the high tides the River north of the Route 9 bridge
'is used by a variety of craft. Sunfish and sailfish
occasionally use the Kennebunk River Basin, and the River is
also used to the Head of Tide by motorboats, rowboats,
canoeists, and kayakers. The stretch of water from the Basin
north to Arundel Swamp Brook is used by water5kiers. Jet skiis
are ridden downriver to the ocean from a few sites. Swimming is
done cautiously by local residents due to both the effects of
tidal currents and to speeding motorboats (the latter problem
will be addressed in one of the ordinances at the end of this
report).

Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping

Fishing, hunting and trapping are popular local sports, as
evidenced by the numbers of resident liscences sold:

HUNTING, FISHING, AND COMBINATION LISCENCES
SOLD IN EACH TOWN

Hunting Fishing Combination Total

ARUNDEL, 6/85-5/86 253 135 116 504

K'BKPT, 1985 220 128 103 451

K'BUNK, 1985 474 412 218 1104

TOTAL: 947 675 437 2059

Approximately 14% of the 3 towns' residents therefore
purchase liscences, much of it for local hunting. According to
the Cumulative Impact Study "60% of resident hunting effort is
carried out in areas of southern and coastal Maine... close to
population centers ... accessible for day trips and hunting before
and after work" (Scudder, 1986). Local residents therefore
rely on the preservation of diverse wildlife habitat for their
hunting enjoyment. Hunting is popular among new residents as
@well, 26% considering it a high priority for the quality of life
they are seeking in Maine (Scudder, 1986).

There is still enough wild land to support good deer,
raccoon, and fox populations, although other animals, such as
beaver, have been trapped out of the Kennebunk River system in
Arundel and Kennebunk. As can be seen on the WILDLIFE MAPS,
areas of high wildlife diversity are being reduced as
development gradually encroaches on the larger blocks of wild
land (see Wildlife Diversity and Development: an Inverse
Correlation).

The main trunk of the Kennebunk River is rated as high
fisheries value, and Goff Mill Brook, Wards Brook, Duck Brook,
and Alewife Pond as medium fisheries value (Jones, 1986). Sea
run trout, alewives, and stripers all run up the Kennebunk, and
one of the tributaries is particularly known for its trout
fishing.

Fishing-tends to be concentrated around easily accessable
sites such as the River mouth jetties, Government Wharf, the
route 1 bridge, the Perkins Road Bridge, Days Mills, and Alewife
Pond. A few paths into the tributaries encourage fishing at
these sites as well.

Public Access to the Kennebunk River

Locating a public launch.site for public assess to the
Kennebunk River has been a strong concern of the towns.
Presently, the Kennebunkport Marina does have a ramp on the
Lower River which is available for public use at a nominal fee.
A grassy floodplain site just below Durrells Bridge which is
privately owned used to be-open to the public for canoes and
other small boats; recent abuse of the site caused it to be
closed by the owners.

The three-town River Commission also researched the River
for launch sites but could find no likely new locations. There
are many reasons for this. The Lower River is already
commercially crowded and has no available sites presently for a
public launch. Even if such a site existed, it would be
limiting for small boats such as canoes and rowboats because of
the heavy traffic on this stretch of the River. Along the
shores of the Kennebunk River Basin above the Route 9 bridge,
shallow mud flats extend out for a considerable distance makincr
it a poor place for boat access except at the highest tides.
Other parts of the River have relatively high, steep banks which
are vulnerable to overuse. Much of the River is also privately
owned, which further limits possible site locations. Finally,
the location of a launch site upriver is limited by the shallow
waters beyond the Head of Tide.

CLASSIFICATION AND TESTING RESULTS ON THE RIVER

Classifying the River - What Does It Mean?

The classification of the Kennebunk River has changed three
times in the last decade, from Class C to Class B2 to Class B.
This would indicate that the quality of the River has been
steadily improving. However, these Maine Department of
Environmental Protection classifications don't refer to the
actual quality of the River, but instead to an upgrading of the
attainment standards that the Department hopes to achieve. The
only way to know if the River is actually attaining Class B
quality standards is to periodically test different sections of
the River System.

The attainment standards legally mean. the Maine D.E.P.
would not allow any discharge from any polluting source under
its jurisdiction to lower the legislated standards of the River.

What Qualities Make a Class B River?

A Class B river is one that supports somewhat lower oxygen
levels and somewhat higher bacterial levels than a completely
healthy, natural river lClass AA1. Class B attainment standards
mean that much of, but not all, of the species of aquatic life
found in a completely natural river would be supported by these
standards.

The attainment standards for a Class B River are described
in terms of two tests - the percent of oxygen saturation (the
DIOI that occurs in the water compared with a completely healthy
waterway, and the number of warm-blooded animal intestinal
(fecal) bacteria that can be counted in each millileter of
water. The numbers of the latter vary according to whether a
certain specific bacteria, E. coli, is counted, or whether all
the fecal bacteria in this group (the coliforms - the round-
shaped bacteria) are counted (see further explanation below).

These are the standards for a Class B waterway:

Percent of E. coli Fecal coliform
dissolved oxygen bacteria/ bacteria/
saturation 100 ml. 100 ml.

Freshwater 75% 427 534

Saltwater 85% 54 68

The dissolved oxygen saturation (D/0) measures whether a
river (or any other water body) is overburdened with organic
nutrients such as nitrates or phosphates. As these nutrients
become excessive, rapid plant growth occurs, and these plants
take oxygen out of the water to support their growth. The lower
the saturated oxygen in the water, the greater the nutrient
load.

This is referred to as eutrophication. It is a common
problem in lakes where water flushing is infrequent and
fertilizer, detergent, etc. runoff occurs. As excess plants
grow (usually fast-growing algae blooms) they crowd out normal
aquatic plants and reduce oxygen levels for fish and other
aquatic animals. The problem is further compounded when the
algae die back each winter. The decaying mass is attacked by
decomposing bacteria that require additional oxygen to break it
down; this continues to reduce the oxygen supply.

This demand by decomposing bacteria and other organisms is
called the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). As the BOD
increases, the dissolved oxygen (D/0) decreases. The D/O
therefore indicates the effect the nutrient load is having on
the River system.

The E. coli and fecal coliform tests indicate the level of
human dije-ase organisms present. The results of a recent E.P.A.
study show that ear infections, hepatitis, and salmonellosis are
not swimmer diseases as was previously thought. Instead, "the
illness of concern for swimmer health is gastroenteritis: a
relatively mild, short-term disorder characterized by vomiting,
diarrhea, nausea, and/or stomachache" (McGovern, 1986).

The latter illness is caused by an intestinal virus, and
these viruses are too small to be counted using current
technology. There is, however, a high correlation between the
numbers of E. coli bacteria (which are relatively large and can
be counted) in the water and the number of viruses present. If
the numbers of.E. coli are low, the chance of being infected
with this intestinal virus is also low (McGovern, 1986).

Since bacterial tests to date have been measured in terms of
fecal coliform generally, and not E. coli specifically, the
D.E.P. has made an approximate correlation between the two (see
figures above).

Results of testing show the Kennebunk River System usually
meets the Class B standards and also performs well in all other
tests except nitrogen load (see further explanation below).
Here is a summary of tests related to attainment standards
(details of all the tests are given in Appendix C):

Maine Department of Environmental Protection Tests,
Route 9 to Days Mills, 8/5/80 - 9/26/83

Number of tests Number of tests
above standards below standards

Dissolved oxygen 51 3

Fecal coliform 50 15

Friends of the Kennebunk River Tests,
Route 9 to Route 1, 6/22/85 - 9/19/86

Above standards Below standards

Dissolved oxygen 51 0

Fecal coliform 5 4

-----------------------------------------------------------------

High coliform levels can occur in the summer and fall
months when warm water conditions cause fecal bacteria to
proliferate. The high coliform counts recorded here occurred
periodically from June to October, with the greatest number of
high counts in August. Cow manure is probably having the most
significant impact on these coliform levels, although
malfunctioning, old, or poorly maintained sewage systems and
overboard discharge systems may also contribute to the bacterial
level.

The water PH (the degree of acidity or alkalinity) measured
within a healthy range of 6.0 - 8.0 on all tests. A measurement
of 7.0 is neutral, 6.0 slightly acid, and 8.0 slightly alkaline.
In New England, acid rain can increase water acidity to a point
where fish and invertebrate life is stunted or killed. The
local groundwater which gradually seeps into the River System
probably provides the major buffering protection against acid
rain (see Wetland Functions, Groundwater Discharge).

Nitrogen levels were measured by the Friends of the
Kennebunk River from 6/22/85 - 9/19/86 (the results are listed
on the last page of APPENDIX C under "ammonia"). Nitrogen
levels were "quite high" but not toxic (David Courtmarche,
D.E.P., pers. comm.).

Nitrogen levels ranged from 0.20-3.40 milligrams/liter and
were almost always highest at the Route 1 Bridge. This almost
certainly reflects the extra fertilizer load from dairy farms
upriver (several large farms show intensive use by cows in the
River System as well as trampling and loss of vegetation along
the banks). The D.E.P. plans to test the nitrogen load further
during the summer months in 1987 (the time when the greatest
nitrogen is released). If levels continue to be elevated they
will advise the Soil Conservation Service to work directly with
dairy farm owners. Management options include fencing the cows
away from the River System and replanting the river edge.

The D/O levels are usually always above attainment
standards in spite of this high nitrogen load. This is probably
due to the oxygenation of the River as it travels down over
riffles and rapids before reaching the testing sites. Testing
closer to the dairy farms however would undoubtedly reveal
depressed D/O levels.

In order to cross-check their tests with a professional
laboratory, the Friends of the Kennebunk River submitted one set
of water samples to Peck-Environmental Laboratories in 9/86.
The results from the Laboratory closely matched those taken by
the FKR throughout the year.

GROUNDWATER AND AQUIFERS

What Exactly is Groundwater?

Groundwater is simply rainwater or snowmelt which has
percolated down through surface soils and unconsolidated
subsurface material until it can go no further. When it reaches
impermeable bedrock, the water collects.

Groundwater occurs wherever soils and surficial materials
occur (virtually everywhere underground in the three towns).
Under the pressure of constantly accumulating new rainwater the
groundwater slowly percolates in a direction where it can be
released, such as a river system.

What is the Relationship between Groundwater,
Subsurface Deposits, and Aquifers?

The unconsolidated materials found over bedrock are known
as surficial deposits. These materials range from fine clays to
silts to sands to gravel. Groundwater moves through the open
spaces between these particles.

Clay particles are very fine and therefore only small
spaces are found between each grain. On the other hand, gravel
is quite coarse and has much larger spaces between each stone. A
much greater volume of groundwater can therefore be held between
the coarse particles than can between the fine. Groundwater can
also travel much more freely through coarse deposits because
there is considerably less frictional (surface) drag against the
larger particles.

The term permeability describes the capacity of a surficial
deposit to transmit a fluid. Permeability is expressed in the
number of gallons that can move through a cubic foot of
surficial material in a day. Some typical rates are (Walton in
Caswell, 1978):

Clays and silts ....... 0.001 - 2 gallons/day/ft2;

Sand ................. 10 - 3000 gpd/ft2;

Gravel ............ 1,000 - 15,000 gpd/ft2.

Sand and gravel deposits, therefore, hold relatively large
amounts of groundwater, and the groundwater moves through these
deposits much more readily than it can in fine materials. These

deposits are excellent for wells and local water supplies and
are known as aquifers.

Aquifer Locations in the Three Towns

The sand and gravel aquifers in York County were formed
primarily by glacial meltwater streams (Caswell, 1979), and
consist mainly of well-sorted sands and gravels that draw 10 to
50 gallons/minute (Caswell, 1978). Aquifers are minimal in
Kennebunkport where apparently little glacial outwash occurred,
are found in approximately 10% of Arundel, and underlie almost
50% of Kennebunk (see AQUIFER MAP). Branch Brook is surrounded
by aquifers and receives recharge from them; this supplys the
main source of water for the Kennebunk, Kennebunkport, and Wells
Water District.

How Groundwater Vulnerability has been Quantified
for each Town

Because groundwater supplies exist everywhere that soils
and surficial deposits are found (virtually everywhere in the
three towns), and because it eventually flows out into river
systems, groundwater protection is a concern at every location.
Where is it safe to locate dumpsites, underground storage tanks,
or certain industries? Recognizing this problem, the Maine
Geological Survey has just completed maps for all of York County
which quanitatively indicate the vulnerability of every area to
groundwater contamination. This new system is known as the
DRASTIC INDEX; each area is assigned a numerical value depending
on 9 factors related to groundwater permeability and
conductivity (see DRASTIC MAPS overlain on topographic maps for
the 3 towns; Aller et al., 1985).

The Geological Survey divided the assigned DRASTIC numbers
into 3 categories (Craig Neal, pers. comm.):

0 - 110 Not sensitive to groundwater contamination;

111 - 150 Nor very well protected from groundwater
contamination;

151 + Highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination.

A quick look at all the town DRASTIC maps shows that almost
all the land within the 3 towns is "highly vulnerable" (over
aquifers), or is "not very well protected" from groundwater
contamination (two sets of numbers appear in each quantified
section on the map: the circled number is an identification

number only; the uncircled number is the DRASTIC number of
concern here). This local vulnerability will be addressed in
the Groundwater Ordinance presented at the end of this report.

The Most Likely Local Sources of Contamination

The Maine Geological Survey and the Department of
Environmental Protection has estimated that 10% of York County
sand and gravel aquifers are contaminated by human activity.
They estimate 50% of this contamination is due to oil and gas
leaking from underground storage tanks, 35% from salt storage
piles or coastal overpumping, and 15% from landfills, solid
waste, and industrial contamination (Scudder, 1986).

Other primary contamination sources that commonly occur
include waste leaking from septic systems, hazardous materials
spills and leaks, and runoff from the application of
fertilizers, pesticides, and road salt (Mass. Audobon Soc.,
1984). The D.E.P. also noted that overboard discharge systems
can essentially discharge raw sewage into a river unless the
system is properly owner-maintained.

The overuse of nitrogenous fertilzer and concentrated animal
wastes can cause nitrates, which are highly carcinogenic, to
build up in groundwater supplies. Pesticides can also readily
leach into groundwater under the permeable conditions prevelent
in the three towns (Mass. Audobon Soc., 1985).

The Kennebunk Landfill off Kennebunk Beach Road is presently
listed as a potential groundwater contamination site, as are the
Kennebunk lagoons on the Wells side of Branch Brook (see AQUIFER
MAP, Maine Geological Survey, 1985).

WETLANDS AND THEIR FUNCTIONS

What Exactly are Wetlands?

Prominant wetlands along the Kennebunk River.System include
open aquatic wetlands, wet meadows, saltmarshes, shrub marshes,
and woodland swamps. All these wetlands share the following
characteristics (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986):

1. Vegetation adapted to wet conditions (hydrophytes);

2. Unique soils formed by saturated conditions (hydric
soils; exceptions occur when a wetland is newly
formed);

3. Shallow water over, at, or close to the substrate
surface.

Some wetlands are easy to recognize, others share less
obvious characteristics.

Open aquatic wetl pds cover all shallow quiet waters less
than b.b' deep, the maximum depth that emergent plants can grow
(Cowardin et al., 1979). Wild celery, water lilies, arrowheads,
pickeralweed, and other emergent and floating plants are found
here. These wetlands occur along the lake edges of Alewife
Pond, along the deeper parts of Davis Pond, and among quiet
coves and backwaters of the Kennebunk River from the Head of
Tide northward.

Net mradows occur in such places as the lowlands around
Alewife Pond, in the shallow beaver floodways along Wards and
Goff Mill Brook, and in the extensive wild marsh bordering the
mid-section of Wards Brook. Here thick groups of cattails,
woolgrass, canary grass, panic grasses, and carex sedges
interspersed with sphagnum moss and wetland wildflowers grow in
saturated or flooded soils.

Saltmarshes are open tidal floodplains that support the
familier salt-tolerant cordgrasses, black grass, and rushes.
Gooches Creek is surrounded by extensive, productive saltmar5h
flats and serves a valuable purpose as a fish nursery and
feeding area for a diversity of wading birds, shorebirds, and
mammals along Maine's saltmarsh-poor rocky coast.

Shrub swamps are found among the fringes between rivers and
woodland swamps, or bordering wet meadows. Alders dominate
these swamps with their tall, spreading growth.

Arundel Swamp Brook traverses extensive woodland swamp
This woodland swamp consists of mature red maples and white
pines whose roots arch over pools of water; the trees are
interspersed by extensive sphagnum moss cover and stunted black
spruce.

Identifying a Wetland

Wetlands are best identified by a combination of three
factors: 1. Wetland (hydrophytic) vegetation;

2. Water-saturated (hydric) soils;

3. Local hydrology.

For example, both red maple and white pine are hydrophytes,
well-adapted to saturated soil conditions. However, these two
plants are facultative wetland plants - they can grow just as
readily in upland conditions. How then, can they be used to
delineate a wetland? Wetland scientists point out that one
important criteria of wetlands is that they are characterized as
much by their lack of flooding-intolerant plants as they are by
the presence of hydrophytes (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986). For
example, black oaks, which are a strictly upland species, won't
be found in a red maple-white pine swamp association.

The association of red maples and white pines then
indicates it is probably a wetland. To prove it with certainty,
however, it is also necessary to test for hydric soils or assess
the local hydrology.

Hydric soils are defined as those soils which are poorly
drained or very poorly drained (USDA and SCS, 1985a; SCS, 1986).
They can be sampled in the field and identified visually by
color; a pamphlet and a brief course on hydric Soils Will soon
be available (see below; also see Appendix D for a listing of
hydric soils and their geographic locations).

A normal upland soil is well-oxygenated and each soil grain
is typically surrounded by a precipitate of iron oxide. The
iron oxide gives an upland soil its typical brown color.

By contrast, a hydric soil has become saturated with water
over time. The saturated condition prevents oxygen from
entering the soil. These saturated, anaerobic (i.e., lacking
oxygen) soils can be recognized by changes in color.

Soil bacteria are always at work in a soil breaking down
and digesting organic debris, and they need oxygen to do this.
When a soil is anaerobic the bacteria break down the iron oxide,
liberating oxygen and converting the iron to a more soluble
form. The soluble iron oxide becomes dissolved in the
surrounding water, and over time gradually leaches out of the
wetland. When this happens the soil loses its brown coloration
and becomes grey. A hydric soil may appear entirely grey or
have grey mottling throughout it; such a soil can be recognized
by digging up a sample and visually examining it.

Hydric soils typically take 25-100 years to form.
Therefore, hydric soils appear in many, but not all, wetlands.
For example, a new wetland formed by beaver ponding will not
have had time to form a hydric soil.

In that case, local hydrological conditions can be used to
identify a wetland. Wetland hydrological conditions which can
be readily assessed include a water table high enough to reach
the roots of the local vegetation (a condition tolerated only by
hydrophytic plants), surface ponding, and seasonal flooding.

Many wetland plants - sphagnum moss, salt-marsh grasses,
skunk cabbage, cattails, alder, etc. - do only grow in wet
conditions. They are called obligates and can with certainty be
used to identify a wetland.

A list of common plants seen along the Kennebunk River
System and their wetland or upland status is given in Appendix
D. A complete catalog of all U.S. wetland plants and their
status is listed in the 1986 Wetland Plant List. Northeast-
Region, of the USF&W National Wetlands Inventory (one copy will
be given to each town with this report).

A new publication called Hydric Soils of New England by
Ralph Tiner and Peter Veneman from the the Massachusetts
Cooperative Extension Service will be available in December
1986. It can be ordered through the Massachusetts Cooperative
Extension Service, Bulletin Center, U. MassachusettslAmherst,
Amherst, MA 01003.

A one week summer course on all aspects of hydric soils a6d
their identification will also be taught by Dr. Peter Veneman
through the Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of
Massachusetts/Amherst, starting in 1987.

Wetland Functions

Wetlands provide many rich, varied environments, and
contribute significantly to the scenic beauty and variety of the
Maine countryside.

Wetlands also fulfill a number of very practical functions.
In a survey of York County wetlands, Paul Adamus (1986) found
that they serve four particularly important purposes in this
region:

Floodwater Retention. The headwaters of almost
all the tributaries feedi;q the Kennebunk River
system originate in wetlands. Wetlands also
surround some sections of the River system, and
floodplain wetlands are extensive around the
meanders between the mouth of the River and the Head
of Tide.

During storm events or during the spring
snowmelt, wetland ponds, ponding areas, and
floodplains fill with water and then gradually
release these waters into streams and rivers.
Wetland soils, particularly organic soils, have a
5ponge-like capacity and help absorb excess water as
well. The thick vegetation of wetlands and
floodplains also helps slow flood runoff and thereby
decreases flood erosion (Caduto, 1985; Adamus, 1986;
Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986).

The latter authors write: "Riverine wetlands are
especially valuable in this regard. On the Charles
River in Massachusetts, the floodplain wetlands were
deemed so effective for flood control by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers that they purchased them
rather than build expensive control structures to
protect Boston" (data for 1972; Mitsch and
Gosselink, 1.986). During a major flood the Army
Corps of Engineers found that upstream floodwaters
were stored in the wetland floodplains and released
slowly over a four day period, while most of the
floodwater in the lower urbanized section of the
River raced through in several hours (Caduto, 1985).

The Maine Department of Environmental
Protection notes that saltmarshes also have "a
tremendous ability to absorb excess water caused by
storms and heavy tides. A ten acre marsh can absorb
three million gallons of water in a one foot rise"
(1983). Saltmarshes also cushion the effects of
storm surges, further buffering upland and
residential areas from ocean flooding.

Groundwater Discharge. Groundwater levels are
relatively high in southern Maine, often at the
level of local wetlands. Groundwater therefore

commonly seeps into area wetlands. The groundwater
provides a steady, year-round supply of water which
is then released slowly from wetlands into river
systems. This generates a much more even, year
round, water flow. The groundwater supply is also
"softer" than surface waters; it picks up buffering
minerals from underground which chemically help
neutralize the effects of acid rain. These buffered
waters, then, are highly important in the
maintainance of healthy aquatic life.
Nutrient RetentiLn and Rgmoval. Water quality
is enhanced as it passes through wetlands. Excess
nitrogen and phosphorus from such sources as poorly
functioning septic systems, sewage plant effluent,
agricultural fertilizers, and animal manure can be
largely removed by wetlands. The nutrients are
converted into gas by soil microbes, absorbed by
organic litter, adsorbed (bound) to organic peat and
clay particles in the sediment, and taken up by
living plants. Heavy metals, microbes, and viruses
are also filtered out. The thick growth of plants
characteristic of wetlands also greatly slows
floodwaters and causes organic debris and soil
sediment to settle out (Caduto, 1985; Adamus, 1986;
Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986).

Wildlife Divegsity and Abundance. Wetlands
serve two very important purposes for wildlife.
They supply broken down organic matter to riverine
animals and nutrients to downstream plants in the
spring; and they provide nesting sites or feeding
areas for a wide variety of wildlife.

Wetland scientist Michael Caduto (1985) writes
"Indirectly wetland plants support much of the life
in open water. Every year the plants of the
marshes, swamps, and floodplains die and their
remains are left strewn over the soil surface.
Fungi, bacteria, and other soil microbes break down
this material. The annual spring floodwaters carry
detritus from floodplain wetlands into the main
channels of rivers, where it feeds juvenile fish and
aquatic insects. These organisms in turn become
food for the larger, predaceous fishes ... and mammals
like the otter".

The wetlands themselves also support a high
variety and concentration of wildlife. Wetlands
have "been shown... to have more species and more
individual animals/acre, particularly during the

breeding season" (Adamus, 1986). This concentration
can be supported because wetlands form a highly
productive pyramid of food production. Caduto
(1985) writes "Wetlands are among the most
productive ecosystems in the world. A fresh marsh is
as productive as a rain forest, producing around.4.4
pounds (2 kg) of biomass per square meter each year.
Diatoms and other algae, detritus, and large plants
provide the base of wetland food chains".

This plant material as well as microscopic
animals are taken up by a variety of aquatic
insects, shellfish, snails, crabs, shrimps, frogs,
turtles, snakes, wildfowl, and small mammals, which
in turn support wetland carnivores such as snapping
turtles, marsh hawks, ospreys, herons, mink, otter,
and foxes. Wetland plants also directly support
mammals such as muskrats, beaver, deer, and moose.

Almost all the factors which produce healthy
fisheries are generated by wetlands and their
groundwater supply: the salt marsh nurseries, the
spring supply of organic detritus and nutrients
which supports the aquatic food chain, the
protective vegetative cover of backwater wetlands
and shallow ponds, and waters buffered from acid
rain.

Quantifying Wetlands Values

Since 1972 a wide variety of wetland evaluation techniques
have been developed (Lonard and Clairain Jr., 1985). In Maine,
the State Planning Office has been using a method developed for
the Federal Highway Administration by Augusta resident Paul
Adamus. Adamus Associates used this method (the Adamus
Methodology) to examine the functional value of all large (10+
acres) wetlands in-York County for the York County Cumulative
Impact Project in 1986.

Under this system, each wetland is assessed by examining it
in the field and filling out a questionaire on the wetland's
physical and biological characteristics. Some typical
characteristics which are assessed include vegetation density,
percent of open water, type of water flow, the extent of annual
flooding, and human disturbance (Adamus, 1983).

More specialized information on a wetland can only be
gained from long-term measurements. If these are available,
they are also included in the assessment. Some important long
term measurements include plant productivity, average
invertebrate density, dissolved oxygen content during annual

stress periods (late winter and late summer), eutrophic
conditions (i.e. excess nutrient loads), and the warmest summer
bottom temperatures (Adamus, 1983).

This information is then combined and analyzed to give HIGH,
MEDIUM, or LOW values to.18 different wetland functions. These
functions include the following:

PHYSICAL FUNCTIONS:

Sediment and toxicant retention - effectiveness*
41 to Is of - opportunity*A
Nutrient retention - effectiveness
of I$ - opportunity
Floodflow alteration - effectiveness
is is - opportunity
Groundwater discharge
Groundwater recharge
Exported productivity
Uniqueness
Shoreline anchoring
Sensitivity to Indirect Impacts

BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS:

Aquatic life
General wildlife breeding value
Fall migratory value
Beaver site potential
Potential black duck breeding value
Potential use by white-tailed deer

AEffectiveness refers to the probability that a wetland can
maximize a particular function.

hAOpportunity refers to the chance a wetland has to fulfill a
particular function. For example, a particular wetland
might have excellent flood retention capabilities but rarely
receive significant floodwaters; it therefore would have a
HIGH effectiveness rating but a LOW opportunity rating
(Adamus, 1983).

Adamus does not recommend trying to combine the 18
different HIGH, MEDIUM, and LOW values. If a wetland rates HIGH
for some values it often automatically rates LOW for others
because the two sets of values are mutually exclusive. For

example, flood retent ion could measure HIGH along a tidal
floodplain wetland on the lower Kennebunk River but the fast
moving tidal surge would make poor nesting habitat for
waterfowl. Instead, Adamus recommends examining the importance
of each wetland in terms of the total of each of its individual
values (Adamus, 1985).

These 18 values help describe individual wetlands and the
types of functions which might be sensitive to a variety of
development impacts. These impacts could exist some distance
from the wetland. For example, paving an area upstream of a
wetland for a shopping mall would increase flooding and toxic
runoff, and any residential developments within an average of
0.4 miles of a high diversity wildlife wetland would soon
decrease that diversity (see Wildlife Diversity and Development:
an Inverse Correlation).

In cases where a wetland has a number of valuable functions
which may be.heavily impacted by some future change, longer term
tests (see above) will yield useful extra information. Adamus
emphasizes that the one-day field method alone cannot describe
some values, such as the highest annual groundwater level, or
details of the aquatic plant and animal productivity. These
functions have to be measured over their peak periods in order
to gain the additional wetland information needed for making
accurate planning decisions.

FLOODPLAINS

Recognizing Floodplains

Floodplains are the low, usually flat areas surrounding a
waterway that are periodically flooded by the spring melt, by
storm events, and/or by daily tides. Floodplains are actually
formed and shaped by the waterway itself as it carves a
contantly changing path through the landscape. Heavier
floodwaters shape and flatten the existing floodplain through
scouring action, while quieter floodwaters deposit soil and
organic materials. Floodplains are therefore constantly exposed
to a dynamic balance between erosion and deposition.

The broad saltmarsh floodplains south of the Monastery, and
the saltmarsh floodplains of the old Kennebunk Landing north of
Durrells Bridge are easy to recognize. Woodland floodplains may
be harder to identify. Woodland floodplains are also low and
flat, but tend to be more irregular than tidal floodplains.
They often show signs of scouring and washout, as well as dry
flood channels where flood waters flowed between river meanders.
The undergrowth may be sparse or lush depending on the periodic
scouring action of water and/or ice.

The best way to identify a floodplain is to first measure
its extent on the FEMA floodplain maps (see below), and then
check these measurements in the field. Floodplain field signs
include low-lying flat, or approximately flat areas next to a
waterway, signs of scouring and flood channels, hydrophytic
(water tolerant) vegetation, and floodplain or wetland hydric
soils. A check of the floodplain area during a high monthly
tide or storm event will indicate its normal annual flood
capacity as well as the extent of flooding. The absolute
boundaries for the 100 and 500 year flood zones should be
updated by state and federal agencies (see discussion below) or
private firms.

The Value of Floodplains

Floodplains are commonly many times wider than the waterway
they surround, and therefore have a tremendous capacity to hold
and gradually release storm and tidal waters. Even during the
fall 1985 hurricane, a relatively minor storm with little
rainfall, tidal water levels rose 9 feet above normal. If the
storm had occurred during high tide major flooding would have
occurred.

In such a case, storm waters would flood over all the
saltmarshes and tidal flats as well as over many higher
freshwater marshes. These flooded areas would hold the waters

6-4e

It (I
lit (

Fig. 2. A tidal floodplain. Tidal floodplains occur along
the first 5 miles of the Kennebunk River, and can be recognized
by their flat, open expanses of salt-marsh grasses (or
freshwater grasses if far enough upriver). These floodplains
are inundated during the higher monthly full and new moon tides
and during ocean storms. The normal high water mark occurs
where the grass floodplain changes to upland vegetation.

6erfween ryNeAPA-Rrs a r,

Fig. 3. Woodland floodplains occur in freshwater
conditions. Even small (3-5 feet wide) tributaries can have
floodplains extending up to several hundred feet or more beyond
the immediate river channel. Woodland floodplains are subject
to flooding during the spring thaw, after heavy or continuous
rainfall, or after heavy storms.
These conditions can produce rapidly moving floodwaters
which carve out secondary flood channels between the meanders of
a river. The heavy flood conditions can also scour inside
banks, leaving flattened plants and tossed-up tree trunks near
the edge. The floodplain can be identified by these
hydrological marks, as well as by its flat expanse and flood
tolerant (wetland) vegetation.
A woodland floodplain in this area is commonly covered with
red maple, white pine, and black spruce; with wetland shrubs
such as elderberry, buckthorn, and arrowwood; and with a
groundcover of wetland ferns and grasses. Heavy annual flooding
may @eave some floodplains with little understory.

for gradual release. Salt marsh flats in particular have spongy
organic soils which have an excellent capacity to absorb some of
the flood water. Their thick vegetative growth also helps slow
the release of flood water. A landmark study of the tremendous
economic and retentive advantages of floodplain5 on the Charles
River in Massachusetts was carried out by the Corps of Engineers
in 1972, and is described in this report under Wetland
Functions, Floodwater Retbntion.

How is a Floodplain Defined?

Because they are flooded periodically, floodplains usually
only support water-tolerant plants (hydrophytes). Floodplain
soils can also be hydric soils. This means that many
floodplains are also wetlands. However, while such floodplains
come under wetlands protection, floodplains overall are defined
in different terms. The major concern in any floodplain
definition is the extent of the total area which would be
flooded in a major storm event. Floodplains are therefore
defined in terms of their 100 year storm boundaries (the extent
of flooding occurring during the largest storm in 100 years) and
by their 500 year storm boundaries.

Floodplain maps have been produced for each town by FEMA
(the Federal Emergency Management Administration). These
delineate the boundaries of the 100 year and 500 year flood
levels for all major waterways and tributaries. "Field methods"
were used to &5seS5 the boundaries in Kennebunk and
Kennebunkport, and "approximate methods" were used for Arundel
(see set of FEMA floodplain maps given to each town with this
report). Both methods use maps and aerial data to place
approximate boundaries; however, this is checked in much more
detail and more precisely in the field for the larger towns.
More accurate information on specific site flood boundaries in
Arundel can be obtained from state and local agencies or private
engineers (see below).

Even the most precise field maps only describe the
conditions at the time the maps were made, however. All water
flow is part of a dynamic, changing process. Both external
causes and the action of water itself can create changes in the
landscape.

For example, natural river channels constantly change
position as they undercut banks on the outside of a meander and
deposit materials on the inside. As a river channel changes it
creates changes in the shape of the floodplain as well.

Secondly, global weather.patterns also change over time.
Due to the greenhouse effect, steadily rising temperatures are
causing a rapid rise in sea level. Over the next century, the

average sea level is predicted to rise 1 to 5 feet along the
Maine coast (Jane Arbuckle, pers. comm., Maine Audobon Society).
This will have a major impact on flooding and flood boundaries
in Kennebunk and Kennebunkport.

Finally, more local factors, such as the paving and
culverting of increased amounts of the Kennebunk River
watershed, will result in greater amounts of immediate water
runoff after a storm event. This will increase both the
immediate flood effects and the height of the flood plain
boundaries.

Future development changes in the watershed, then, are
likely to increase immediate flood runoff. Other factors, such
as the rise in sea level, will also considerably raise flood
levels for several miles inland (i.e., the Head of Tide occurs 6
miles upriver on the Kennebunk River). Flooding effects can be
minimized by preserving existing wetlands and floodplains and by
updating the 100 and 500 year flood boundaries for the most
recent conditions.

Both the local federal office of FEMA and the state DEP
work cooperatively to help town regulatory bodies delineate
floodplain boundaries. They can be approached directly for
help, and will also review the floodplain boundaries drawn up by
private engineering firms for subdivision plans (state
subdivision regulations require 100 and 500 year flood
boundaries whenever one lot which includes a floodplain is being
subdivided into three lots; FEMA requires the same for
subdivisions that are at least 5 acres in size or 50 lots,
whichever is smaller). The addresses for these offices are:

Flood Insurance Program Natural and Technological
Coordinator Hazards Division
State Planning Office FEMA
State House Station #130 Region 1
Augusta, ME 04333 J-W-McCormack POCH
Boston, MA 02109

Both agencies should be contacted as they cooperate together on
local floodplain assessment.

A new state model floodplain ordinance will be available
from the State DEP by the end of 1986 (Fred Michaud, pers.
comm., Maine DEP). Presentations on this ordinance will be made
by the state shortly afterward. For that reason, a floodplain
ordinance was not included as part of this report.

WILDLIFE DIVERSITY

Wildlife Diversity and Its Implications for Town Planning

The abundance of wildlife, and the rural environment that
supports it, is important to local residents. Fourteen percent
of the population of the 3 towns buy resident hunting and
fishing liscences every year, many for local use. A survey of
new residents shows that 70% place high priority on enjoyment of
woods and natural areas, 74% considered enjoyment of the natural
environment highly important, and 26% considered hunting a high
priority in pursuing the quality of life they seek in Maine
(Scudder, 1986; see COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL USES ON THE
RIVER).

In spite of this enjoyment and use of the wild environment
by residents, preserving wildlife as a significant natural
resource has not yet been sufficiently integrated into local
town planning. In this study there was a direct correlation
with the closeness of development and the loss of both the
numbers and variety of wildlife (see Wildlife Diversity and
Development: an Inverse Correlation).

Wildlife diversity can be preserved by protecting the
shoreland buffer zones, creatively clustering residential and
commercial development so blocks of wilder land are kept intact
next to valuable wildlife areas, and by using easements, zoning,
and other procedures to preserve larger peice5 Of contiguous
wildlife habitat. Each of these topics will be addressed below.

Documenting Wild Areas

The remote, wilder parts of the towns remain an unknown
resource to most citizens. The beauty and wildness of these
places isn't apparent until suddenly the land is opened up for
development, and then it is difficult to make changes. However,
these wild resources can be documented, and documented
inexpensively, before radical land use changes take place.
Advanced planning can then be carried out for the preservation
of these resources.

In this study, documentation was carried out by walking all
of the main trunk of the Kennebunk River and its tributaries.
Evidence of scenic diversity, wildlife activities, botanical
changes, and problems along the River System were recorded and
photodocumented in detail. There is now a good collection of
slides on all aspects of the River, including the remote and
beautiful wild areas where few people have visited. The slides
have served as a handy reference and educational resource for
planning boards, selectmen, conservation commissions, and other

public groups.

This process can be inexpensively carried out by a
practiced biological observer who is familier with photographic
equipment, and does not have to be done by a consulting firm.
Other river systems and wildlife areas in the towns can be
documented in the same manner, and wildlife diversity indices
added onto the enlarged transparent mylar topographic maps that
already exist from this study.

A New Method of Quantifying Wildlife Diversity

The best way to understand how animals are using an area is
to directly check this use in the field. In many ways a
riparian study is ideal for this. Not only do wild animals
concentrate around water sources (see The Importance of a
Shoreland Buffer Zone for Wildlife), but sand and clay river
bottoms and the muddy edges of wetlands provide excellent places
to observe animal tracks.

Animal trails can also be found along marshes and in the
woods; and scats, dens, and other clues (peices of fur, the
remains of a kill, chiseled poplar logs) provide further
evidence of use by specific animals. Checking tracks in the
winter after a snowfall will add evidence of animals whose
prints are less readily seen in the warm months (i.e., fox,
mink, and snowshoe hare).

Animals can also be seen directly. This has less
significance for understanding mammalian use of an area, but is
very important for documenting use by birds which don't indicate
their presence by tracks or calls (i.e., marsh hawks, great
horned owls, migrating shorebirds and warblers.)

Animal use recorded from the above evidence can be
quantified readily for every 1/8 mile traveled and then assigned
a general value of low, medium, medium-high, and high diversity
(for the specific system used see Appendix E). These categories
include the following species and concentrations:

High diversity Presence of beaver ponds;

Concentrated evidence of shorebirds, wading
birds, grouse, wood duck, snowshoe
hare, mink, muskrat, otter, skunks,
porcupine, raccoon, woodchuck, fox, deer,
and moose;

Common evidence of woodcock, kingfishers,
hawks, and passerines.

Medium-high Common evidence of shorebirds, 'wading birds,
diversity skunks, woodchuck, raccoon, fox, and deer;

Occasional woodcock, grouse, wood duck,
hawks, owls, woodchuck, mink, porcupine,
otter, and-moose.

Medium Common evidence of skunks, raccoon, and
diversity deer;

Less common evidence of shorebirds, wading
birds, woodchuck, or fox.

Low diversity urban/suburban colonizers only; common
evidence of starlings, house sparrows and
pigeons;

Occasional raccoons and skunks.

In assigning diversity values, the frequency of individual
species seen is more important than the overall number of total
species seen. Not all species in a category will be found in
one location.because many of the animals listed require
differing habitats. Here are two varied examples of high
diversity wildlife habitats along the Kennebunk River System:

Beaver Ponds Along an Arundel Tributary

A chain of ponds was dammed by beavers at this
location approximately 4 years ago. The change
in wildlife diversity from the surrounding land is
immediately apparent. Kingbirds, migrating
warblers, kinglets, and chickadees use the shrub
edge, and groups of sparrows feed under panic grass
patches in the marsh. A marsh hawk regularly
patrols over the ponds, and kingfishers frequent the
area. Evidence of muskrats is plentiful, and green
and great blue herons feed at the water's edge.

Deer and raccoon tracks are not particularly common here
because the surrounding area of stunted birch and poplar are
not their preferred habitat. The commonness of the species
who do use this as their natural habitat, however, indicates

this falls within the high diversity category.

A Kennebunk Tributary

This 20' wide tributary is thickly overgrown
with a mixed early mature forest with a good
understory. Sandy and clay bars along the Brook
bottom are thick with deer and raccoon tracks,
and these are intermixed at frequent intervals
with those of mink, otter, and fox. Both moose
tracks and scats were seen at several locations.
In the winter, snowshoe hare, fox, and grouse
tracks appear in concentrations in the snow.
Porcupines were occasional. Patches of feeding
snow buntings were seen in winter, and periodic
groups of migratory warblers and their cohorts
appeared near the marsh edges in the fall.

The heavy concentrations of at least 8 mammalian species
definitely defines this area as high diversity.

The Extent of Wildlife Diversity
in the Three Towns

The three towns have the following total milage of wildlife
diversity along the Kennebunk River System:

Low Medium Medium-high High
diversity, diversit diversit diversit
mile mile Y/ mile mile

ARUNDEL 0 16 14 2

K'BUNK 0.5 8 20 6

K'PORT 1 4 1 0

Wildlife Diversity and Development:
an Inverse Correlation

The WILDLIFE MAPS outline the different categories of
wildlife diversity along the Kennebunk River system in each
town. Lookinq at these maps, it soon becomes apparent that the
greatest wildiife diversity seems to occur at the greatest
distance from residences. To check this, measurements were made
at regular intervals from the River to the nearest residence

and then averaged (see Appendix E for procedure and
conclusions). Here are the results:

Average distance from Kennebunk
Wildlife diversity River waterway to nearest
category residence

Low diversity Less than .01 mile

Medium 0.1.3 miles

Medium-high 0.25 miles

High 0.43 miles

There is clear correlation between the extent and variety
of wildlife seen around the River system and the distance from
the nearest residence. As residences encroach into the system
from different directions, the wildlife diversity shrinks. This
can be seen on the Arundel Wildlife Map, where development has
occurred near many of the waterways, and areas of high diversity
are small in size.

Animals need to feel safe and protected from potential
predators. They may stay clear of residences because of sounds
of talking, shouting, dogs barking, cars, motorcycles, or
snowmobiles; because of unleashed dogs; because of human
activity in their habitat; or because parts of a woodland have
been harvested or pruned and therefore cleared of their
protective cover.

Of all these effects, wild animals appear to be the most
affected by human activity within their habitat. In this study,
animal track5 became scarce or non-existant around areas where
people had tramped out paths, cleared the understory between
their residence and the River, or had camped, as evidenced by
beer cans and partly-burnt logs. These activities were
associated with nearby residential development and well-used 4WD
roads.

The reverse effect also can take place near residences
where human contact is minimized. Animals tracks were seen
relatively close to partially abandoned farms with little
residential activity, and appeared close to residences which
were separated from the wild habitat by a natural barrier such
as a cliff or wide waterway, or by a manmade barrier such as the
Maine Turnpike.

To preserve the high diversity wildlife areas around the
Kennebunk System waterways, then, it is important to keep these
areas well-buffered from human activity. It is also important
to provide connecting corridors between blocks of wilder land 50
animals can travel freely between them. Many New England
mammals have very large home ranges, and these animals quickly
abandon isolated patches of wild land (see Larger-scale Planning
for Wildlife Diversity).

The Importance of a Shoreland Buffer Zone
for Wildlife

The importance of wild river corridors for wildlife is
well-supported by data from the Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife and the Department of Wildlife, U.
Maine/Orono, as well as from data collected in this study.
River corridors provide the following advantages for wildlife:

1. Drinking water;

2. Water invertebrates and fish for food;

3. A rich source of plant foods fed by nutrient run-off
from higher ground;

4. Dense cover provided by the diversity of plants that
grow along any environmental edge;

5. A greater diversity of plants at different heights,
providing agreater variety of nesting and denning
sites;

6. Open travel corridors along the waterways themselves.

A report by the Maine Cooperative Wildlife Unit (Dibello,
1982) summarizes the extensive radiotelemetry and snowtracking
data gatered on furbearers by the State of Maine. They found
that coyotes, fisher, martin, red fox, and bobcats all strongly
selected the first 100 M (330') of a river edge as part of their
home range habitat. The animals also extensively used these
river corridors as traveling routes.

A survey of deer yards in Maine found that 85% occurred in
conifer stands along rivers. The lowland topography.and dense
vegetation of these areas sheltered the deer from low
temperatures and high winds, and the waterways themselves
provided travel routes that tended to have more shallow or more
densely-packed snow cover than upland habitat (Banasiak, 1961).

Moose make extensive use of shallow pond edges and marshes

for feeding in the summer (Marston and Donovon, 1984), and the
author saw trails of fresh moose tracks near local waterways in
October.

"Common aquatic furbearers such as muskrat, beaver, otter,
mink, and raccoon are all dependent and closely associated with
the riparian zone. Muskrats are primarily vegetarians and
rarely are far from water. Beaver feed on the bark of poplar,
maples, birches and most of all hardwood, and their feeding area
is limited primarily to within 300' of water. Otter are
primarily fish eaters, but crayfish and frogs are also important
prey items. Mink are adopted for hunting on land and in water
and important aquatic foods are fish, frogs, and crayfish. Mink
stay close to the streams while hunting (less than 600') and den
sites are usually less than 300 feet from streams. Raccoon dens
are normally within 400' of streams... (Toweill and Taber;
Linscumbe et al., and Stuewer in Marston and Donovon, 1984).

Non-game birds are found in higher densities in floodplain
habitat than in upland woodland or open herbaceous habitat
(Stauffer and Best, 1980). Pileated woodpeckers "are typically
found nesting in riparian areas no greater than 330' from water
(Conner et al. and Hoyt in Small and Johnson, 1984), and in
interior Maine, bald eagles commonly nest in white pines within
330' of large water bodies (Todd in Small and Johnson, 1984).

Using this information, Small and Johnson (1984) from the
Department of Wildlife, U. Maine/Orono, recommend the following
protection for riparian (river) edges:

1. A preserved 250' zone of riparian buffer edge;

2. No harvesting in the first 80' of the riparian
zone from the normal high water mark;

3. Selective harvesting only in the remaining buffer
zone of 80-250'; (their quidelines for this
are similar to the state regulations for shoreland
harvesting);

4. The retention of hardwood snags (dying trees), as well
as some dominant white pines.

The latter recommendation is based on the importance of
dying trees for cavity-nesting birds associated with waterways
(pileated woodpeckers, wood ducks, barred owls, tree swallows),
the importance of large white pines as nesting sites for bald
eagles and other raptors, and the use of both types of trees by
ospreys.

The recommendations for harvesting controls are based on

the needs of most wildlife for thick, forested protective cover,
as well as the need for vertical diversity for nesting and
denning habitats. Softwoods along riverways provide the primary
cover for deer, and optimal deer yards occur in tall, closed
canopy stands. Fisher prefer uncut softwood stands as habitat.
Red foxes will utilize fields for prey but their tracks lead
back to dens in the forest, and snowshoe hares and red squirrels
prefer uncut softwoods and partially-cut stands (Sherburne and
Matula and Monthey in Dibello, 1982). Bobcats venture only
short distances from forest cover (May in Small and Johnson,
1984).

Small and Johnson write: "In winter, undisturbed riparian
habitats are of great importance because a wary animal can move
easily in the shallow snow on frozen waterways while remaining
close to cover afforded by riparian vegetation".

Bird species richness also increases with the increasing
width of riparian wooded habitats (Stauffer and Best, 1980).
Wild ducks will only breed and raise their young along river
banks if protected nesting sites exist nearby, and if
overhanging shrubs and trees, as well as aquatic plants, provide
easily accessable hiding places.

The shade provided by forested tree cover along a river
edge maintains cooler water temperatures required by aquatic
invertebrates and fish; the tree canopy also greatly reduces
surface evaporation and helps maintain consistant year-round
water flow (Davies and Sowles, 1984).

As noted above, animals avoided river properties where all
protective lower tree cover and shrubs had been removed. Thus
it is important to not only preserve the native woodland along
river corridors, but the variety of small tree cover and
underbrush as well. Wild animals are always on guard for
predators; they avoid areas where they are exposed to potential
dangers. Shrubs and small trees are also important food sources
for berries, nuts, and bark, and provide a diversity of nesting
sites.

Homeowners can increase the wildlife around their
properties by preserving a larger buffer zone or other large
areas of natural forest. Some birds such as the wood thrush,
ovenbird, and towhee which are associated with deep woods will
only nest in forested patches that are at least 500-650' in
diameter (Stauffer and Best, 1980).

Larger-scale Planning for Wildlife Diversity

Saving the river corridors alone isn't enough. Most New
England mammals need large home ranges (raccoons average a 2

mile circular home r .ange, deer 2-3 square miles, foxes'somewhat
under 5 miles, otters 15 or more linear miles (Godin, 1977;
Jones, 1986). These mammals need contiguous areas of unbuilt
open space to meet their food and breeding requirements. A wild
area can be preserved, but if it remains an "island"
disconnected from other wild areas, these animals will desert
it.

In-this study it was seen that an average distance of .43
miles from the nearest residence was needed to protect the
greatest diversity. These areas also were protected from easy
human access; walking trails, 4ND roads, and other kinds of
entry trails quickly lower diversity (this has happened at
Alewife Pond).

An important aspect of wildlife protection, then,.is
maintaining good-sized contiguous, undisturbed wild areas next
to the river corridors. Large wild areas can be preserved in
.several ways:

l.-Cluster housincr - units can be clustered near
main roads and other nearby residences so wilder parts
of a property remain protected. Ideally, the wild
part of the property should adjoin other unbuilt areas
or adjoin connecting wildlife corridors and river
corridors so contiguous wild lands are joined for maximum
wildlife preservation.

2. Conservation easements - individual property owners
can legally protect part or all of their property into
perpetuity through a conservation easement specifying how
they wish that preservation to take place. An easement does
not change the private status of the property; it may, in
fact, qualify the property for a tax reduction. The
easement can be placed with a public trust such as the
Kennebunkport Conservation Trust. They have a program
for annually checking the property and maintaining
its ongoing protection. Tom Bradbury is the current
president of the Trust and can be reached at 967-5673
for more information.

3. Zonincr chancres - if an area of high diversity is
surrounded by large property holdings (which is usually the
case) the owners may be agreeable to zoning their particular
area for a considerably larger lot size. Some rural
communities have chosen to rezone certain agricultural and
forest areas into 20 or 25 acre zones; a larger zone of
50-200 acres would provide even better protection.

Preserving wildlife diversity not only saves the wild
heritage within each town, it als.o saves much of the scenic and
rural qualities associated with the value of living in Maine.
The alternative is the spread of a homogeneous suburbia across
the towns' present spectacular and varied open space.

A A A A A A A A

Some Additional Wildlife Considerations

Returning Beavers to the Area

Beavers have greatly enriched the wildlife diversity in the
three towns, creating ponds in a region where natural ponds and
lakes are infrequent. Local beaver ponds rapidly become
populated with fish, turtles, and muskrats, and attract otter,
deer, moose, marsh hawks, kingfishers, and wading birds.
Recently beavers have been trapped out of all their recent sites
along the Kennebunk River System in Arundel and Kennebunk. Some
ponds are still intact, but others are rapidly draining away as
the beaver dams break down.

Trapping is controlled by the Maine Department of Inland
Fish and Wildlife, and Sandy Eldridge, at 1-800-322-1333 can be
contacted about the need for town trapping restrictions. The
IF&W is sometimes asked to remove beavers from farm sites and
other locations and is more than willing to transfer these
animals into any trapped-out sites or new sites with the
permission of the property owner. The only requirement
essential for the animals is a good stand of poplar near the
site. Again, contact Sandy Eldridge at the above number for
beaver transfers into the area,

Protecting Temporary Ponds

Vernal ponds are temporary wooded ponds that fill during
the spring runoff and dry out in the summer. These ponds
support breeding salamanders and other amphibians, and are
valuable to these animals because of the lack of larvae-eating
fish found in most standing ponds. All three towns have vernal
ponds where yellow-spotted salamaders breed; populations of
these animals are diminishing, however, due to loss of habitat.

The vernal ponds are usually formed in small (10-150'
diameter) woodland hollows and can be defined as wetlands
because of their hydric soils and hydrology. Wetland plants may
be present or no plants may grow in these hollow at all. The

ponds are readily recognized in the springtime but can be missed
during the dry season.

Another kind of temporary pond worth preserving are the
open, low muddy areas in fields that flood periodically. They
provide a special feeding habitat rich in small invertebrates
and plant seeds for shorebirds and ground feeding songbirds.
This kind of habitat tends to be overlooked but is worth
preserving as shorebird feeding habitat diminIshes.

Both these kinds of ha bitat can be protected under a
wetlands law; homeowners can also help maintain or reconstruct
such habitats.

THE SUGGESTED THREE-TOWN COORDINATED ORDINANCES

(The full ordinances are listed on pp. 74-86.)

Introduction

These ordinances are presented to protect natural resources
which are presentll unprotected or poorly protected. They are
the result of information gathered from field exploration of the
Kennebunk River, and from discussions with state personnel, data
from research reports and previous town studies, and information
from local townspeople.

The Shoreland Zoning Amendments and the Wetlands Ordinance
suggested here are updated versions of ordinances already
commissioned previously by the Town of Kennebunk (Adamus and
Kehoe, 1982; SMRPC, 1985). The Groundwater Protection Ordinance
is taken directly from recommendations in a groundwater report
also commissioned by Kennebunk (SEA Consultants, 1979).

Each ordinance is based on background material which is
given in this report. For example, the section "Wetlands and
Their Functions" describes local wetlands that are part of the
Kennebunk River System, the functions they serve in this area,
and the plants, soils, and water conditions which are used to
identify a wetland.

Background for the Shoreland Zoning Amendments is discussed
under "The Importance of a Shoreland Buffer Zone for Wildlife"
issues of groundwater vulnerability under "Groundwater and
Aquifers", and overboard discharge is reviewed below.

A short summary of the rationale for each ordinance is
presented here.

Reasons for the Suggested Ordinances

The Shoreland Zoning Amendments

These amendments are proposed to protect both the
scenicness and the wildness of our lakes and rivers by creating
a natural, vegetated buffer zone between residential and
commercial use and the shoreland's edge. This buffer or
shoreland zone will preserve wildlife corridors, provide scenic
protection for boating and viewing, and preserve fishing
resources. This ordinance suggests a 75 foot buffer zone for
denser areas (the Limited Development District), and a 330 foot
buffer zone for lower density areas (the Resource Protection
District).

Fig. 4. Housing on Gooches Creek off Beach Road in
Kennebunk. These houses are placed at the present 75 foot
setback. This setback provides little scenic protection for the
riverway and eliminates the shoreland buffer zone for wildlife.

The 330 foot zone of the Resource Protection District is a
minimal critical buffer based on data and recommendations from
the Department of Wildlife, University of Maine/Orono, and the
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. They
recommend a 330 foot natural setback for the protection of
wildlife (see details under "The Importance of a Shoreland
Buffer Zone for Wildlife" under WILDLIFE DIVERSITY); this
rdinance therefore suggests the same building setback with an
80 foot cut into the buffer zone allowed for construction and
pOlacement of a lawn and landscaping around a building.

The present 75 foot state minimal setback places housing
virtually right on the waterways and eliminates any wild,
critical edge (see Fig. 4). The 250 foot zone to the boundary
of a yard would provide this minimal critical wildlife corridor.
At present, the Saco Coalition is asking for a similar building
setback for the Goosefair Brook Resource Protection Zone in
Saco; they will then promote its extension to the rest of the
town. The York Conservation Commission is also presently
preparing an ordinance similar to ours to cover the Resource
Protection Zone in the town of York.

The Wetlands Ordinance

The Kennebunk River and its tributaries, as well as other
river systems, are supplied by 2 important storage resources -
wetlands, and groundwater. Thus the health of all rivers and
lakes depends on the health and preservation of these water
resources.

A wetlands study carried out by Adamus Assoriates in 1986
showed that York County wetlands serve four important functions:

1. Flood control;

2. Holding and gradually releasing groundwater, creating a
year-round even flow into lakes and rivers;

3. Releasing a spring nutrient supply to support the aquatic
food chain, and holding pollutants and excess summer
nutrients;

4. Supplying necessary wildlife habitat for shellfish,
invertebrates, fish, waterfowl, migratory birds, and
game animals.

The wetlands ordinance is based largely on work done for
the town of Kennebunk in 1982 by Adamus Associates. It protects
all wetlands in the three towns.and provides for a graded buffer
zone around them, depending on the size of the wetland. By

comparison, the new state wetlands ordinance protects only a
small minority of local wetlands.

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently
urging all York County towns to take measures to preserve
wetlands.

The Groundwater Protection Ordinance

Much of the water from rain or snow percolates through the
-earth to,the water table (groundwater supply), then gradually
seeps out into river systems. The health of local rivers and
lakes therefore also depends on the health of local groundwater.
The water from Branch Brook is used directly as a district water
supply, and groundwater generally supplies numerous home wells
throughout all 3 towns.

The vast majority of soils in the three towns are easily
permeable, meaning they are "not very well protected" or are
"highly vulnerable" to groundwater contamination from human
sources (see "How Groundwater Vulnerability has been Quantified
for each Town" under GROUNDWATER AND AQUIFERS). SEA Consultants
did a study for the town of Kennebunk in 1983 recommending
additional land protection over aquifers; their three
recommendations are incorporated into the suggested ordinance
presented here.

An Ordinance Eliminating Overboard Discharge Systems

Even properly maintained overboard discharge systems
release some nitrogen and carbon products into waterways; they
also release the chlorine used to disinfect intestinal bacteria.
The nitrogen and carbon products add to the water's nutrient
load and lower dissolved oxygen levels, while the chlorine
continues to affect other living organisms.

Chlorine is a toxin that can kill all forms of aquatic life
in sufficient doses. Overboard discharge systems have been
banned in several towns because of the damage chlorine causes to
clam flats.

Therefore, the greater the overboard discharge in an area,
the greater the nutrient and toxic chlorine load.

If an overboard discharge system is poorly maintained, then
raw, untreated sewage is also released into the waterways.
While the systems are supposed to be regularly monitored by the
Maine D.E.P., in reality this doesn't happen. New systems were
checked by the D.E.P. in the three towns this summer; this was
the only time their personnel have appeared in the area in the

last 9 years. The D.E.P. noted that usually their summer
interns are needed for other work.

In order for an overboard discharge system to work properly
the homeowner is responsible for periodically removing the
sewage sludge and renewing the chlorinated tablets. Even well-
meaning homeowners admit that they don't maintain their systems
regularly, particularly when the summer season gets busy.

As development pressures continue along the River, there
will continue to be applications for more overboard discharge
permits as units are built on land inappropriate for septic
systems. This will lead to the increased liklihood of
uncontrolled sewage discharge, as well as the steady increase in
nutrients and toxic chlorine. Overboard discharge permits have
been banned completely by the towns of Phippsburg, Brunswick,
and West Bath. The Phippsburq ordinance is included in its
entirety in the ordinance package.

Extension of the 5 M.P.H. Speed Limit to All
of the Kennebunk River

A 5 m.p.h. speed limit presently exists on the Lower River
only. Residents have complained about speeding waterskiers, who
use the River up to the entrance to Arundel Swamp Brook. Parts
of this stretch are narrow and pose a hazard to small boats and
swimmers. Residents are also concerned about the noise and
disturbance of speeding motorboats further upriver, and the
washout their wakes are creating along the River banks, This
problem could be readily controlled by extending the 5 m.p.h.
speed limit to all of the Kennebunk River.

LONG-RANGE PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS

Some concepts for large-scale, long term planning are
recommended below:

1. Incorporate cluster housing into subdivision
planning as a means of preserving open space;

2. Integrate wildlife planning into total planning:

a. Use cluster housing to place living units
close to roads and other access points, so
large contiguous areas of land can be left
completely wild, particularly in the higher
diversity areas;

b. Preserve protected wildlife corridors between
adjacent wild areas so animals can move freely
between these sites;

c. Have a qualified local field biologist draw
up a plan of contiguous wildlife areas and
wildlife corridors for each town, so these areas
can be planned for and preserved as part of
a flexible long-range plan;

d. Encourage a program of conservation easements
for significant wildlife areas;

e. Consider local rezoning for significant wildlife
areas.

3. Select a local field biologist who could be available
to the towns on a per them basis; or as a part-time
natural resource officer. This person could field-
check the natural resource requirements of present and
future ordinances and aid in site plan review for
planning boards and other town officials.

Specifically, a biologist could:

a. Locate the normal high water mark along water
bodies for shoreland zoning setback requirements;

b. Field check a developer's delineation of a
wetland by identifying wetland boundaries by
vegetation and hydric soils;

RIVER

A B C
ROAD

Fig. 5. This in an example of a working plan which will combine
preservation of a high diversity wildlife area with development. Prop
private residence with a conservation easement; B and C: cluster housing
developments. Planned cluster housing near local roads allows large
contiguous areas of wild land to be preserved. This kind of cluster housing
also minimizes developer's expenses, as well as.local taxes for ongoing town
services such as school bus travel, police protection, and sewer hookups
Property owner A is preserving the land behind his residence in a completely
wild condition, into perpetuity, through a conservation easement.

RIVER

A B C
ROAD

Fig. 6. A plan which will eliminate a high diversity wildlife area. The
same properties and number of units are shown as in Figure 5. Here the
developments are spread out, placing housing throughout the high diversity
wildlife area. Human activities around the new housing will keep most
wildlife away. This type of development further breaks up the remaining wild
land into islands that can't be accessed by most wildlife, and creates
additional expenses for town services.
The access road to the river on property A opens the area to potential
human activity which will also keep wildlife away.

c. Measure the extent of spring runoff, spring tides,
and annual storms on the extent of annual flooding
extremes for clearer floodplain assessment;

d. Review site development plans in the field for
potential problems;

e. Check that natural habitat had been properly
restored following subdivision development;

f. Report and pursue environmental damage such as
toxic waste dumping with the appropriate
authorities.

Too often these activities are left to town employees
or volunteer boards who are already overburdened with
many other concerns.

4. Appoint an Oversight Committee in each town to review
subdivision plans and make recommendations to the
planning boards. Review questions could include:

a. Does this housing design and site design fit the
character of the town?
b. Is this plan well-int'egrated into the landscape,
or is it perpetuating a suburban expanse of grass
and asphalt?

c. Are there town subdivision regulations whic h are
perpetuating design problems, and if so, how can
they be modified?

d. Do features of the subdivision minimize future
town expenses for such features as school bus
travel, sewage hookups, and police protection?

e. Are historical artifacts, outstanding landscape
features, wildlife corridors and conservation
space, and previous public access to the site
being preserved?

f. Is the developer bonded in case the project is
abandoned and roads, sewer systems, landscaping,
etc. are left unfinished?

5. Establish up-to-date, well-documented, legally
valid growth ordinances, so that growth can be gradual
and controlled in each town;

6. Integrate natural resource planning into regional
growth planning such as the York County 2000 process;

7. Encourage a new state system of property assessment
which would eliminate the concept of "highest and best
use". According to this provision, property
assessments are now based on the use that will bring
the highest profitability if the land is sold. Thus
a homeowner who manages a woodlot or uses his land
for agricultural purposes will find his property
assessed instead for its development potential.
This forces many property owners to partition and
sell pieces of their land in order to cover their
property tax liability. Because of this liability,
many wild and scenic areas are being divided and
lost.

Fig. 7. Over half the units of the Powder Mill Development
in Kennebunk are placed close to the Kennebunk River, with the
majority of the remaining land in unproductive stretches of
grass and asphalt.

By contrast, housing can be designed to match the Maine
character and landscape, be clustered near local access roads,
and be planned so that most of the natural and wild features of
the landscape are preserved.

I
I -
I
i
I
i
I
I
THE THREE-TOWN SUGGESTED ORDINANCE PACKAGE
I
I
I I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
73
1

SHORELAND ZONING AMENDMENTS

(Modified from the Shoreland Zoning Amendments for the
Kennebunk Planning Board, SMRPC, 1985.)

I. Repeal section 3.10

II. Repeal section 3.11 and replace with the following:

3.10 Shoreland zones.

A. Resource Protection District:

1. Those lands lying within 330 feet of the normal high
water mark of inland or coastal waters not included
in the Limited Development District (Section 3.10 B).

2. Those lands identified as wetlands under the 1985
Maine Freshwater Wetlands Law, Chapter 485.

B. Limited Development District.

1. Those lands lying within 250 feet of the normal high
water mark of:

a. The non-tidal portions of the following
waterbodies:

1. The Mousum River from Main St. to a point 1000
feet to the south on the east side; and from
Main St. 1000 feet to the north on the east
side; and from Main St. 300 feet to the north
on the west side.

2. Kennebunk River, within 200 feet north and
south of Portland Rd (Route 1); and from the
Route 9 bridge 750 feet to the north.

b. The tidal portions of the following waterbodies:
1. Atlantic Ocean, east of the peninsula of rocks
separating Parsons Beach from Crescent Surf
Beach.

III. Add the following definitions to section 4.1:

A. A Water Body shall include the following:

1. Tidal Area - any land or water area upon which tidal
action occurs.

2. Pond - any inland impoundment, natural or manmade,
which collects or stores surface water.

B. Water Courses shall include the following:

1. Stream and River - a free flowing drainage outlet,
with its associated flood plain, with a defined
channel, and containing flowing water for more than
three months of the year.

2. Intermittant Streams - a free flowing drainage outlet,
with its associated flood plain, with a defined
channel, containing flowing water less than three
months of the year.

B. Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands - all areas transitional
between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water
table is usually at or near the surface, or the land
is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this
classification wetlands must have one or more of the
following three attributes: (1) at least periodically,
the land supports predominantly wetland vegetation;
2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil;
and/or 3) wetland hydrological conditions occur (a water
table high enough to saturate the root systems of the
native vegetation at least part of the year).
Wetland vegetation shall be defined as those
species termed "hydrophytic" in the 1986 Netland
Plant List. Northeast Recrion, of the National
Wetlands Inventory of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Hydric soils are poorly drained or very poorly
drained soils and are defined by Hydric Soils of the
State of Maine, 1985, United States Department of
Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service, and by Hydric
Soils of Southern-Maine, Soil Conservation Service,
1986.
Coastal Wetlands further include all tidal and
subtidal lands, including all areas below any
identifiable debris line left by tidal action, and all
areas that contain vegetation tolerant of salt water and
occur primarily in a salt water habitat, and any swamp,
marsh, bog, beach, flat or other contiguous 'lowland
which is subject to tidal action or normal tidal storm
flowage at any time except during periods of maximum
storm activity. Coastal wetlands may include portions
of coastal sand dunes.

C. Frontage Shore - the horizontal distance, measured in a

straight line, between the intersections of the lot
lines with the shoreline at the normal high water mark.

D. Normal High Water Mark of Coastal Waters - along tidal
bodies and water courses, the elevation where the
vegetation changes from predominantly salt-tolerant
hydrophytic plants to predominantly non-salt tolerant
terrestrial plants; and/or the line on shores and banks
showing where saltwater wetland soils (very poorly
drained or poorly drained soils as defined by Hydric
Soils of the State of Maine, 1985, United States
Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service,
and by Hydric Soils of Southern Maine, Soil Conservation
Service, 1986) meet upland soils; and/or where
the water table exists within the vegetative root zone;
whichever is higher. Salt-tolerant vegetation includes,
but is not limited to, salt marsh grass, blackgrass,
seaside lavender, seaside goldenrod, silverweed, salt
marsh bulrush, seaside plaintain, sea orach, salt marsh
aster, and salt marsh sedges. In places where
vegetation is not present, the high water mark shall be
the identifiable debris line left by the highest monthly
non-storm tidal action. On a sand dune, the high water
mark shall be the average seaward limit of salt-tolerant
vegetation, or the high water mark on the seaward edge
of a seawall or other manmade structure. Where inland
rivers and tributaries are still tidal but support
primarily fresh water plants the normal high water mark
of inland waters shall be used. Where inland waters lie
adjacent to the normal high water mark of tidal waters
the normal high water mark of inland waters shall be
used.

E. Normal High Water Mark of Inland Waters - the line
where the freshwater vegetation changes from
predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial,
and/or the line on shores and banks of non-tidal waters
showing where wetland soils (very poorly drained and
poorly drained soils as defined by Hydric Soils of the
State of Maine 1985, United States Department of
Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service, and by
Hydric Soils of Southern Maine, Soil Conservation
Service, 1986) meet upland soils; and/or where the water
table exists within the vegetative root zone, whichever
is higher. Aquatic vegetation includes, but is
not limited to, water lilies, pondweeds, wild celery,
arrowheads, pickeralweed, bur-reeds, sphagnum moss, Carex
species and other sedges, rushes, reed grasses, plume
grass, cotton grass, cattails, leatherleaf, alder, swamp
dogwood, buttonbush, sweet gale, stunted black
spruce, willows, white pine, and red maple. Terrestrial
vegetation includes, but is not limited to, upland

grassesA, lady slipper, wintergreen, pa rtridgeberry,
sarsaparilla, Canada mayflower, sweet fern, low-bush
blueberry, and black oaks. In places where the normal
high water mark can not'be immediately determined (due to
ledges, erosion, etc.) it can be estimated from the
nearest locations where wetland vegetation occurs.

IV. Repeal sections 5.10 and 5.11 and,replace with:

5.10. Shoreland Zoning Districts.

A. The purposes as well as the general standards of
these districts are to further safe and healthy
conditions; prevent water pollution; conserve
shore cover; prevent erosion and sedimentation;
protect spawning grounds; protect fish and other
aquatic life from increased temperatures, pollution,
and habitat disturbance; provide a protective corridor
for birds, mammals, and other wildlife through which
they can move freely and where nesting and breeding
habitat is preserved; control building sites,
building structures, and land uses which could
adversely affect the peacefulness, naturalness, and
scenic beauty of water bodies; protect visual points of
access as viewed from public facilities; conserve points
of public access to waters; and prevent problems
associated with floodplain development and use.

B. Resource Protection District.

1. The following activities and land uses are
permitted within the resource protection district
without the necessity for a permit from the town:

a. Non-intensive recreational Uses not requiring
structures, such as hunting, fishing, and
hiking;
b. Motorized vehicular traffic on existing paved
roads;
c. Fire prevention activities;
d. Soil and water conservation practices;
e. Surveying and resource analysis;
f. Emergency operations;
g. Essential services accessory to permitted uses.

2. The following require a permit from the Code
Enforcement Officer prior to commencement of any
activity, after fulfilling the general standards
listed in section 5.10.A.:

a. Timber harvesting under the following standards:

1. No more than 40% of the trees over 4 inches
in diameter 3 feet up from the tree's base
(3 feet dbh) shall be removed in any 10 year
period in the zone 80-250 feet inland from
the normal high water mark of inland or
coastal waters (with no harvesting 0-80 feet
inland from the normal high water mark except
for the openings permitted in Section
.IV.5.10.B.S. of this ordinance or to remove
an individual tree which threatens human
health or safety);
2. Any tree stand shall be selectively cut
with no opening in the tree canopy greater
than 7500 square feet;
3. Canopy openings shall be placed at least 100'
apart;
4. No harvesting will take place on slopes
greater than 250 ;
5. No area of exposed soil due to skid trails,
or other removal methods, will be made within
80 feet of the normal high water mark of
inland or coastal waters;
6. No piles of slash will be greater than 4 feet
in height, or closer than 80 feet to the
normal high water mark of inland or coastal
waters;
7. Harvesting shall take place in seasons when
minimal erosion will take place;
8. Adequate provision shall be made to prevent
soil erosion and sedimentation of surface
waters.

b. Structures accessory to permitted uses;
c. Temporary piers, docks, wharves, causeways, and
uses projecting into water bodies;
d. Filling or other earth-moving activity of less
than 10 cubic yards.

3. The following uses require approval from the Zoning
Board of Appeals as an exception under Section 7.7.
prior to commencement of any activity, after
fulfilling the general standards listed in Section
5.10.A.:

a. Clearing of vegetation for approved
construction within 250 feet of the high water
mark of inland or coastal waters;
b. Road construction;
c. Permanaent piers, docks, wharves, casueways, and

other uses projecting into waterways;
d. Small non-residential facilities for
educational, scientific, or nature intrepetation
purposes;
e. Filling, or earth moving, greater than 10 cubic
yards.

4. All uses above, whether a permit is required or
not, shall be.subject to the performance standards
in Section 6, where applicable.

5. Except for those structures requiring direct access
to the water, all buildings and structures shall be
set back the following distances from the
normal high water mark of inland or coastal waters:
330 feet horizontal distance from a water course 5
feet wide or greater (in matters of dispute the
width is measured by the average distance between
the high water marks on each side of the water
course; the average being taken by measuring the
width every 50 feet and averaging the total for
each 500 feet of frontage shore); 150 feet
horizontal distance from a water course less than
an average of 5 feet across and from intermittant
streams; 330 feet horizontal distance from natural
water bodies an average of 50 feet or more in
diameter; and 150 feet horizontal distance from
natural water bodies less than an average of 50
feet in diameter.

6. Manmade ponds are allowed up to a minimum
horizontal distance of 50 feet from a structure,
and up to 250 feet horizontal distance of
the normal high water mark of inland or coastal
waters.

7. No paved or unpaved roads or paved or unpaved
parking lots shall be permitted within 330 feet
horizontal distance of the normal high water mark
of inland or coastal waters.

B. No building shall be erected on a site having an
angle of slope greater than 251; or on soils
subject to slumping, mass movement, or severe
erosion as described in the Soil Survey of York
County, Maine, 1982, United States Department of
Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service.

9. In order to preserve the scenic value of water
bodies and water courses, to provide cool and
shaded waters for fish habitat, and to preserve a
natural shoreline wildlife corridor, the existing

natural vegetation shall be maintained according to
standards recommended by the Dept. of Wildlife,
University/Maine, Orono: no harvesting of trees
or understory shall be permitted 80 feet horizontal
distance inland from the normal high water mark of
inland or coastal waters, while selective
harvesting of trees shall be permitted at 80-250
feet horizontal distance inland-of these points
according to the standards listed in Section
IV.5.10.B.2.a. of this ordinance. Clearing of
trees to within 250 feet horizontal distance of the
normal high water mark of inland or coastal waters
is permitted for approved construction, and
additional natural vegetation may be added in this
area for landscaping. Cleared openings not greater
than 25 feet in width may be created in a strip
extending the length of the resource zone inland
from the normal high water mark. At least 150 feet
of frontage shore of natural shoreline vegetation
as described in this section shall separate each 25
foot width clearing.

10. Agricultural clearing of land shall be allowed up
to a minimum of 250 feet horizontal distance from
the normal high water mark of inland or coastal
waters.

11. Sanitary systems may be installed up to a minimum
of 250 feet horizontal distance from the normal
high water mark of inland or coastal waters.

C. Limited Development District.

1. Permitted uses, and uses permitted as exceptions
within the the Limited Development District shall be
the same as those which are applicable to the
underlying zoning district in which they are placed,
subject to the additional performance standards
contained in Section 6, where applicable.

2. Within the Limited Development District no building
or structure, except those requiring direct access to
the water as an operational necessity, shall be
constructed or enlarged within 75 feet horizontal
distance of the normal high water mark of inland or
coastal'waters.

3. A vegetative edge of natural shrubs, or trees and
shrubs, shall be preserved 25 feet horizontal
distance inland from the normal high water mark of
inland or coastal waters. Cleared openings not
greater than 25 feet in width may be created inland

from this mark. At least 150 feet of frontage shore
of natural vegetation as defined above shall separate
each 25 foot width clearing.

4. No paved or unpaved roads or paved or unpaved parking
lots shall be permitted within 75 feet horizontal
distance of the normal high water mark of inland or
coastal waters.

5. Manmade ponds are allowed up to a mimimum of 50 feet
horizontal distance of a structure and up to a minimum
of 25 feet horizontal distance from the normal high
water mark of inland or coastal waters.

6. Sanitary systems are allowed no closer than a minimum
of 100 feet horizontal distance from the normal high
water mark of inland or coastal waters.

7. All uses within the Limited Development District shall
be subject to Section 5.10.B.8.

D. General Standards.

1. Prior to the issuance of a permit by the Code
Enforcement Officer or the granting of an exception
by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the applicant shall
demonstrate that the proposed use will meet all the
conditions of section 5.10 A.

V. Amend section 7.6.C.2. by adding paragraph c:

c. A variance in the Shoreland Zones is authorized only for
lot area, lot coverage by structures, and setbacks. A
variance shall not be granted to permit a use or
structure otherwise prohibited. In addition to the
above standards, the Board of Appeals shall make written
findings regarding the Shoreland Zones that the evidence
presented demonstrates that the proposed use and
structures would meet the provisions of section 5.10 A.
A copy of all variances granted by the Board of Appeals
in the Shoreland Zones shall be submitted to the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection.

WETLANDS ORDINANCE

(Condensed and modified from the.Final Proposed Floodplain
and Conservation Area Ordinance, Town of Kennebunk, Adamus and
Kehoe, 1982.-)

1. The purposes and general standards of this ordinance are to:

A. Further safe and healthful conditions;

B. Prevent and control pollution of surface and ground
water by excessive sedimentation, inorganic nutrients,
toxins, and other substances;

C. Sustain fisheries of commercial and sport value by
maintaining a proper balance of the transfer of nutrients
from inland to coastal wetlands, and from coastal wetlands
to offshore waters;

D. Protect spawning grounds;

E. Protect the habitats Of fish, furbearers, and other
water-dependent animals;

F. Retain the water-absorbtive capacity of wetlands to
recharge groundwater supplies and release water slowly
to streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes;

G. Reduce community and individual financial liability
imposed by uncontrolled flooding;

H. Control land uses detrimental to the above purposes;

I. Protect the scenic and recreational values associated with
coastal and inland beaches and wetlands.

II. Definitions of wetlands:

A. Coastal wetlands and freshwater (inland) wetlands and the
definition of their limits (the normal high water mark)
are defined in [section 4.1 of the proposed Shoreland
Zoning Amendments3.

B. Where a wetland gradually merges into upland, the normal
high water mark shall be defined as that line where at
least 50% of the plant stems are wetland species, or
the line between hydric and non-hydric soils, or the
line where plant roots are no longer saturated with

water, whichever is higher. Wetland vegetation shall be
defined as those species termed "hydrophytic" in the 1986
Wetland Plant List. Northeast Recrion, of the National
Wetlands Inventory of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.'

III. Prohibited Uses.

A. No person shall dredge; drain; lagoon;.excavate; grade;
till; fill; or place structures, trash, garbage, slash,
earth, rock, borrow, gravel, sand, clay, peat, or other
materials or effluents upon; or allow highway runoff or
drainage ditch effluents upon; or divert water flows into
or out of; a wetland. Also, no person shall dike; dam;
divert; operate off-road vehicles on; spray with
defoliants or add to or take away from, or otherwise
alter or cause to be altered, the character of any
wetland, or lands, or construct a permanant building
within the following distances: 330 feet horizontal
distance from wetlands 10 or more acres in size, 150 feet
horizontal distance from wetlands 1 - 9+ acres in size,
and 75 feet from wetlands less than 1 acre in size.
Exceptions include buildings permitted under Sections IV.
and V.; and also lands around wetlands covered by the
Limited Development Zone of the town Shoreland Zoning
Amendments where the setback is 75 feet from a wetland.

B. Exceptions to III.A. of this ordinance are allowed for a
man-made waterbody built next to an already constructed
building where a setback of 50 feet is permitted. Such a
waterbody shall not displace an already existing wetland.

IV. Permitted Uses.

A. The activities and land uses which are allowed without
a permit are listed in [Section 5.10.B.1. of the
Shoreland Zoning Ordinance].

B. Activities and land uses requiring a permit from the
Code Enforcement Officer are listed in [Section 5.10.B.2.
of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance3. A permit shall be
granted by the C.E.O. if these uses meet all the general
standards listed in Section I of this Ordinace.

C. Activities and land uses requiring a permit from the
Zoning Board of Appeals are listed in [Section 5.10.B.3.
of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance], provided they meet
the general standards listed in Section I of this
Ordinance.

D. All uses included above, whether a permit is required or
not, shall be subject to the performance standards in
Section 6, where applicable.'

V. Amend Section 7.6.C.2. by adding the following paragraph:

A. A variance in a wetland and its surrounding protective
lands is authorized only for lot area, lot coverage by
structures, and setbacks. A variance shall not be
granted to permit a use or structure otherwise
prohibited. In addition to the above standards, the
Zoning Board of Appeals shall make written findings
regarding the Shoreland Zones that the evidence presented
demonstrates that the proposed use and structures would
meet the provisions of Section I of this Ordinance. A
copy of all variances granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals in the Shoreland Zones shall be submitted to the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION ORDINANCE

(This ordinance is taken directly from recommendations
to the town of Kennebunk by SEA Consultants in "Groundwater
Recharge Area Analysis and Planning", 1979.)

a. A minimum separation of 48 vertical inches be
made between the bottom of a leach bed and the
seasonal high groundwater table of an aquifer
(DRASTIC categories Of 151 or higher).

b. That solid waste facilities be prohibited over
aquifer areas.

c. That industries utilizing wet chemical techniques
yielding potentially toxic liquid wastes should be
prohibited from aquifer areas.

AThe Friends of the Kennebunk River recommends that these
regulations be extended to all "potentially vulnerable" areas as
well, i.e., DRASTIC categories of 111-150.

ORDINANCE TO ELIMINATE OVERBOARD DISCHARGE

(Taken directly from the Zoning Ordinances of the Town
of Phippsburg.)

Overboard discharges from sewage disposal systems,
wherein sewage or any part thereof, chlorinated or
otherwise, is discharged directly into surface waters,
is prohibited, excepting that systems installed prior to
the passage of this amendment may continue as long as they
are in compliance with all state water pollution laws and
regulations. This prohibition also shall not apply to
existing lots with existing buildings all of which were
constructed prior to (date of ordinance), and which can
not be made to conform to state and local plumbing codes
by any other means than the overboard discharge of treated
sewage. Nor shall this section apply to owners of lots
who have obtained valid overboard discharge liscences
prior to (date of ordinance).

SPEED LIMIT ORDINANCE

The 5 m.p.h. maximum speed limit presently in effect
on the Lower Kennebunk River shall be extended to cover all
of the Kennebunk River.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamus, Paul R. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional
Assessment: Vol. II. The FHWA Assessment Method. Federal
Highway Administration Technical Report FHWA-IP-82-24, U.S.
Dept. Transportation, Washington, D.C., 20590.

Adamus, Paul R. 1985. Uses and Proposed Revisions for the
Adamus Assessment Methodology. 1985 Proc. Nat. Wetlands
Symp.: 73-77.

Adamus, Paul R. 1986. Wetlands and Their Functions: On-site
Assessments in a Region of Maine Potentially Experiencing
Cumulative Impacts. Maine State Planning Office, State
House Station #34, Augusta, ME 04333.

Adamus, Paul R. and Betsy Kehoe. 1982. Final Proposed
Floodplain and Conservation Area Ordinance, Town of
Kennebunk. Center for Natural Areas, Box 98, South
Gardinar, ME 04359.

Adamus, Paul R. and L. T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for
Reviewing Wetland Functional Assessment: Vol. I. Critical
Review and Evaluation Concepts. Federal Highway
Administration Technical Report FHWA-IP-82-23, U.S. Dept.
Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Aller, Linda; Bennett, Truman; Lehr, Jay D.; and Rebecca B.
Petty. 1985. DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating
Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic
Settings. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Ada, OK 74820.

Banasiak, C. F. Deer in Maine. Game Div. Bull. #6, Maine Dept.
Inland Fish and Game, Augusta, 159 pp.

Bradbury, Charles. 1837. History of Kennebunk Port, 1602 to
1837. Durrell Publishers, Kennebunkport, ME.

Butler, Joyce. 1983. Historic Sites - Kennebunk River Bridge
to Cape Porpoise Harbor. Unpublished report, Brick Store
Museum, Kennebunk, ME.

Caduto, Michael J. 1985. Pond and Brook: A Guide to Nature
Study in Freshwater Environments. Prentice-hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 276 pp.

Caswell, Bradford W. 1978. Ground Water Handbook for the State
of Maine. Maine Geological Survey, Dept. Conservation,
State House Station #22, Augusta, ME 04333.

Caswell, Bradford W. 1979. Sand and Gravel Aquifers Map Number
5, York and Cumberland Counties, Maine. Maine Geological
Survey, Dept. Conservation, State House Station #22,
Augusta, ME 04333.

Cowardin, Lewis M.; Carter, Virginia; Golet, Francis C.; and
Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of
Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.

Davies, Susan and John Sowles. 1984. The Value of Headwater
Streams and the Effects of Forest Cutting Practices on
Stream Ecology. Maine Dept. Environmental Protection,
Div. Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies, State
House Station #17, Augusta, ME 04333.

Dibello, Fred J. 1982. Furbearer Use of Waterways in Maine.
Maine Cooperative Research Unit, 240 Nutting Hall, Orono,
ME 04469.

Dominie, Holly and Jean Scudder. 1986. Outline of Cumulative
Impact Project Report, Draft Report. State Planning Office,
State House Station 38, Augusta, ME 04333.

Fleishman, Daniel.. 1986. York County Population Growth Estimates
1980-90. Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission,
Box Q, Sanford, ME 04073.

Godin, Alfred J. 1977. Wild Mammals of New England. Johns
Hopkins U. Press, Baltimore, 304 pp.

Jones, Jody. 1986. Important Wildlife Areas in Southern
Maine: Draft Report. Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries
and Wildlife for the State Planning Office, Augusta, ME
04333.

Lonard, Robert I. and Ellis J. Clairain, Jr. 1985.
Identification of Methodologies for the Assessment of
Wetland Functions and Values. 1985 Proc. Nat. Wetlds
Symp.: 66-72.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 1983. Protecting
Your Coastal Wetlands: A Citizens Guide to the Coastal
Wetlands Act. Maine Dept. Environmental Protection,
State House Station 17, Augusta, ME 04333.

Marston, Douglas L. and Gary G. Donovan. 1984. Riparian Zones
as Wildlife Habitat. Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries
and Wildlife, 284 State St., State House Station 41,
Augusta, ME 04333.

Massachusetts Audubon Society. 1984. Groundwater
Contamination: from the Watershed into the Well.
Groundwater Information Flyer #2. M.A.S., Lincoln,
MA 01773.

Massachusetts Audubon Society. 1985. Pesticides and
Groundwater Contamination. Groundwater Information Flyer #7.
M.A.S., Lincoln, MA 01773.

McGovern, Terry. 1986. State of Maine 1986 Water Quality
Assessment. A Report to Congress Prepared Pursuent to
Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act as Amended. Maine Dept. Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Water Quality Control, Augusta, Me 04333.

Mitsch, William J. and James G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands.
Von Nostrand Reinhold Co., N.Y., 530 pp.

Murphey, Jr., Thomas W. 1977. The Landing - A Remembrance
of Her People and Shipyards. Thomas Murphey, Publisher,
Kennebunk, ME.

Reed, Porter B. 1986. 1986 Wetland Plant List, Northeast
Region. National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Monroe Bdg., Suite 101, 9720 Executive Center
Drive, St. Petersburg, FL 33702.

Scudder, Jean. 1986. Draft York County Cumulative Inmpact
Study Report. State Planning Office, State House Station
#34, Augusta, ME 04333.

SEA Consultants. 1979. Engineering Report: Groundwater
Recharge Area Analysis and Planning, Town of Kennebunk,
Maine. SEA Consultants, 165 Charles St., Rochester, N.H.

Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Hydric Soils of Southern
Maine. S. C.S., Great Falls Plaza, Auburn, ME 04210.

Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission. 1985. Shoreland
Zoning Amendments for the Kennebunk Planning Board.
SMRPC, Box Q, Sanford, ME 04073.

Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission. 1986.
Development in a Nine-Town Area of York County and
Municipal Capabilities to Manage It; Draft Report. SMRPC,
Box Q, Sanford, ME. 04073.

Small, Mary F. and W. N. Johnson, Jr. 1984. Wildlife
Management in Riparian Habitats. Dept. Wildlife, U.
Maine/Orono, 04469.

Stadler, Mark. 1981. The Importance of, and Management
Objectives for, P-SL1,*P-SL2, and P-GP, and P-WL Districts
as Avian Habitat. Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife, Region G, P.O. Box 416, Station Street,
Ashland, Maine 04732.

Stauffer, Dean F. and Louis B. Best. 1980. Habitat Selection
by Birds of Riparian Communities: Evaluating Effects of
Habitat Alterations. J. Wildl. Manage. 44(l):1-15.

Steinblums, Ivars J., Froehlich, Henry A., and Joseph K. Lyons.
1984. Designing Basic Buffer Strips for Stream Protection.
Paper 1710, Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State U.,
Corvallis, Oregon.

Tomey, David, and James Bajek. 1984. Environmental Assessment/
Finding of No Significant Impact for the Maintainance
Dredging of the Kennebunk River.Federal Navigation
Channel in Kennebunk and Kennebunkport, Maine. Army Corps
of Engineers, Navigation Branch, New England Division, 424
Trapelo Rd., Waltham, MA 02254.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Soil Conservation
Service. 1985a. Hydric soils of the State of Maine, 1985.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Soil Conservation
Service. 1985b. Soil Survey of York County, Maine.

White, Robert Eldridge and Marion Jewett White. 1986. Eldridge
Tide and Pilot Book, 1986. Robert Eldridge White,
Publisher, 64 Commercial Wharf, Boston, MA 02110.

I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A
I
NEW AND PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONS ON RIVER SYSTEMS
IN ARUNDEL, KENNEBUNK, AND KENNEBUNKPORT,
1 1970-85
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 -

NEW AND PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONS ON RIVER SYSTEMS
IN ARUNDEL, KENNEBUNK, AND KENNEBUNKPORT,
1970-85

ARUNDEL
7 out of 26 total subdivisions on river systems

Kennebunk River Watershed:

Main Trunk of River:

AR - 5 Holmberg and Lager, 3 lots 11.7A 1975
River Road,
Two lots directly
on River.

AR - 6 Bittersweet Farms, 5 lots 52 A 1975
Jack Libby Realty,
Rt. 35 - Bittersweet
Lane and Hickory Lane,
Three lots on River.

AR - 14 Riverwynde, sect. 2, 9 lots 5.5 A 1980
River Rd.,
Meadow Lane,
Three lots on River.

AR - 15 Riverbank, 3 lots 16.4 A 1981
River Rd.,
All lots on River and
bordered by Saunders Brook,
84 A preserved as wetland.

AR 21 Meadow Lane Acres, 3 lots 8.2 A 1984
Meadow Lane off
Walker Lane,
Houses on 3.5 A.

Goff Mill Brook:

AR - 12 Gertrude Morin, 3 lots 17.8 A 1978
Rt. 1A

Duck Brook:

AR - 10 Alpine Acres, 7-lots 17.3 1978

A-1

Old Limerick Rd.
and Alpine Rd.

----------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL: 34 lots 133 A

----------------------------------------------------------------

KENNEBUNKPORT
4 of 23 subdivisions on river systems

Batson River:

-KP - 1 Bergeron Subdivision 19 lots 79 A 1979

KP - 11 Gerardi and Manthis, 15 lots 18 A 1972
Mill Rd..,
Four lots on River
wetlands.

KP - 19 Robt. LaRochelle, 4 lots 44 A 1983
Lester Wildes Rd.,
Three lots border
River or River trib.

KP - 21 "Division of Land", 4 lots 43.2 A 1984
Lester Wildes Rd.,
One lot on River,

----------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL: 41 lots 184 A

-------------------------------------------

A-2

KENNEBUNK
14 out of 55 subdivisions on river systems

Kennebunk River watershed:

Main trunk of Kennebunk River:

KB - 13 River Lo'cks, 93 lots 84 A 1985
Off Old Port Rd.,
6 units on River.

KB - 15 Summerfields 111, 36 condos 24 A 1985
Rt. 35.,
all units on River
or Wonder Brook.

KB - 22 Port View, 21 condos 11.1 A 1974
Port Rd.,
16 units (4
buildings) on River.

KB - 44 Shirley Hale, 3 lots 5 A 1983
Old Port Rd.,
1 house on River.

KB - 47 Powder Mill, 44 condos 19.4 A 1984
Off Portland Rd.,
28 units (7 buildings)
on River.

Wonder Brook:

KB - 15 Summerfields 11, 20 condos 6.9 A 1985
Route 35.,
8 units (2 buildings)
on Wonder Brook. Also
see Summerfields III, above.

Mousum River watershed:

Main Trunk of Mousum River:

A-3

KB - 6 Riverbend Woods, 44 units 80 A 1983
16 units (2
buildings) on River.

KB - 17 River-dale, 27 units 22- A 1970
Ocean View Rd.,
off Sea Rd.

KB - 20 Mousum Acres, 26 units 15.5 A 1973
Spiller Drive
off Cat Mousum. Rd.,
8 units on River.

KB - 23 J. Sherbourne, 3 lots 3 A 1974
Spiller Drive
off Cat Mousum Rd.,
all houses on River.

KB - 40 Sea Fields, 36 units 18.4 A 1982
off Sea Rd.,
all units separated
from Mousum by wetlands
buffer zone.

KB - 45 Mousum Ridge, 26 units 19.5 A 1983
Brown St.
7 acres preserved
btw. dev. and River.

KB - 49 High Bluff, 16 units 4.5 A 1984
Fletcher St.,
all units on River.

Day Brook:

KB - 32 Priscilla Cook 5 units 16.1 A 1979

----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 400 units 330 A

----------------------------------------------------------------

GRAND TOTAL, 3 TOWNS: 475 units 647 A

I
----------------------------------------------------------------

A-4

APPENDIX B

COMMERCIAL, PRIVATE, AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
ON THE LOWER RIVER AND THE
KENNEBUNK RIVER BASIN

I. Commercial, Private, and Public Enterprises
Directly on the Lower River

II. Commercial and Private Businesses Directly
on the Kennebunk River Basin

I.Commercial, Private, and Public Enterprises
Directly on the Lower River

Commercial Marinas

Marina Berths Total Transients

Arundel Shipyard 23 30

Arundel Wharf
Restaurant 10-15 0

Chick's Marina 40 680

Kennebunkport 42 NA
Marina

Nonantum Hotel
and Motor Inn 40 0

Reid's Boatyard 35-40 0

The Yachtsman
Marina 40 NA

TOTAL: 230-240 710+
commercial transients
berths

----------------------------------------------------------------

Private Marinas and Docks

Marinas/Docks Berths

Arundel Yacht Club 34 for larqe boats,
15-20 for small.

Doane's Wharf 6

Kennebunk River Club 30-35

Kennebunkport
Maritime Museum 1-3

The Landing

B-1

Restaurant 1

Schooners Inn and
Restaurant 5

TOTAL: 92-104 private berths

----------------------------------------------------------------

Public Moorings

Sailboats 25

Lobster boats 15

Fishing boats 2

TOTAL: 42

----------------------------------------------------------------
Cruise and Fishing Boat5 Maximum
Vessel Type of Business Carried

The Deepwater Deep sea fishing 30

The Sonnie W. 16 .1 32

Cap'n Al It 1. 40

The Yendor is It 20

The Nautilu5 Whale watching 100

The Indian 70

The Elizabeth II Cruise boat 49

The Discovery Sailincr 6

TOTAL: 347
passenqers

----------

B-2

Hotels, Inns, and Motor Inns

Business Units

The Breakwater 22

The Landing Hotel 8

Nonantum Hotel
& Motor Inn 62 (expanding 54
units)
Schooner's Inn
and Restaurant 17

The Yachtsman
Motor Inn 30

TOTAL: 139 units

----------------------------------------------------------------

Restaurants and Take-outS

Restaurant Seats

Arundel Wharf
Restaurant 200

Breakwater Restaurant 105

Ciao! Cafe 50

The Landing
Restaurant 190

Nonantum Restaurant 100-200

Plain & Fancy
Bagel Cafe 16

Schooners Inn
& Restaurant 48

TOTAL: 709-809 seats

B-3

The Clam Shack take-out

----------------------------------------------------------------

Shops and Galleries

1. Port Sports, kennebunkport Marina
2. Kennebunkport Maritime Museum Shop
3. The Schooners:
a. Provisions
b. Antiques Windfall
c. Beauty Salon
d. Flower Lady
e. The Dannah Collection
f. Fiori
g. Schooners Limited
h. Heritage House Antiques
i. Rands of Rand Green
4. Boutique Marguerite
5. Port Antiques
6. The Pasco's American Handcrafts
7. Wharf Lane:
a. Priscilla Hartley Gallery
b. Van Sindern Woodworking
c. Goose Rocks Pottery
8. Nancy St. Lawrence Gallery
9. Seawinds Gallery
10. Gazelle
11. The Pig and Saddle Ltd.
12. S Brook;
a. The Zoo Apparel
b. Cove's End
c. Soap Opera
d. Alano Ltd.
e. Port-Loft Gallery
f. Pink Cornucopia
g. Whats-in-a-Store?
h. Village Barber Shop
i. Julia's Gift Shoppe
J. Kennebunk Book Port
k. Copper Candle
1. Annie's Apple
m. Mainely Rugs
n. Port Canvas Co.
o. Metal and Wicker
p. The Good Earth
q. The Omega Jewelry Shop
r. Xmas Presents
13. Goodies
14. Wooden Wildlife
15. R. and R. Leather

B-4

TOTAL: 42 shops and galleries

------ -- ----- --- ----------

Other Businesses and Educational Enterprises

1. Chick's Marina Boat Supplies
2. Arundel Boatyard Boat Supplies
3. Yacht Brokerage, Yachtsman Motor Inn
4. Shanley Real Estate
5. Shackford and Gooch (seafood)
6. Kennebunkport Maritime Museum

----------------------------------------------------------------

B-5

II.Commercial and Private Businesses Directly
on the Kennebunk River Basin

Shops, Studios, and Galleries

1. Port Sports
2. The Boatyard:
a. House of Brass
b. The Hearth
c. Port Video
d. Canoe Stitch
3. The Snappy Turtle
4. The Glass Collection
5. Cooper-Funk Gallery
6. Ron Goyette Studio
7. Meserve's Market
8. Cutaway

----------------------------------------------------------------

Restaurants

Port View Restaurant 70

The Chef's Whim 28-36

TOTAL: 98-106 seats

-----------------------------------------------

Offices

Dr. Peter V. Brask, dentist

--- ----- -- ------ -------

B-6

APPENDIX C

TESTING RESULTS ON THE RIVER

I. Maine Department of Environmental Protection Tests,
8/5/80-9/26/83

II. Friends of the Kennebunk River Tests,
6/22/85-9/19/86

@ ORM "@ 8@1 I @_' @ I

D.E.P. - 8/05/80 - 10/01/81

RoAte 9 Bridge

Date F:O/()8/05 80/10/0?
Time; depth of bottom 1100 006 1 1030 0001
Water temp., C 19.2 13.0
Water temp.p F 66.6 55. 4
Turbidity 0.6
Conductivity 48200
D/O/ml 9.3 11.4
Percent saturated D/O 100.0 107.5
5 day BODv mg/l 2.0 K 2.0 K
Ph 7.80 7.60
salinity 22.0
Total colifotm/100 ml
Fecal colifors/100 ml 14.13100 10 K
104 6

Date 81/02/1-2 81103/05 St/05/14 81106/17 E-L/07 /08 81/08/06 81/tO/01
Time; depth of bottom 1005 0001 1000 0001 ()930 Q001 111.5 0001 1026 or)(11 1000 (JO01 10:-0 vool
Water temp., C 0.0 2.5 8.5 12.0 22.0 20.0 10.5
Water temp., E 32.() 6. 5 47.3 5 3. 6 71.6 68. 0 50.9
Turbidity 2s. c) 0 . 18 0.7 4.6 3.9 1.1
Conductivity 1*820 20500 15
D/O/mI 13. E: 13.0 11.2 12.1 7.2 40000
Percent saturated D/O 94. 0 96.0 94.0 112". 0 78.3
5 day BOD, mg/1 6. 0 2.0 V' 2. Q K. 2.0 K 2.0 K
F h 6. 0*0 7. 90 7.60 7.80 7.30 7.80 7.70
Salinity 11.0 25.0
Total coliform/100 ml 8 8 0 14 2 '21' 2 4000 4E'(' 70
Fecal coliform/100 ml 12 1. 0 410 30

ow wM wn NMI ILM

D.E.P. - 1/20/82 - 2/22/83

Route 9 Bridge

Date 82/01 1?r'. 92!02124 e-2/0313i e-2/04/14 E-2/05fie e.2/06/03 82/08/11
Time; depth of bottom 1145 001.111 1330 0001 1100 0001 09t5 000t 1200 0001 1330 0001 1030 0001
Water temp., C 0.0 2.0 I-R. 0 .15.0 17.0
Water temp., F 32.0 35.6 @7,4 59.0 62.6
Turbidity 2.2 4.5 3 21.0 9.2
Conductivity 15
D/O/ml ?5000 41000 660 .263 360 L200
Percent saturated D/O 16.4 9.2
ih - tL2.3 906,z
Salinity 7.20 8.22 .6.02 7 ..20 to
24.0 @@O X
Total coliform/100 ml 41 0 @ , I co 00
550 `2 IK 840 1
Fecal coliform/100 al
142 2 K 20 60 J E020

Date
Time; depth of bottom 82i09/14 82/10io--Z a 2 71170-9 83101/24 8-3/02/22
Water temp., C 1430 0001 1330 0041 1230 Ooot Itoo 0001 0001 t520 0001
Water temp., r 19.0 14.0 .8.5 to.0 2. 0 - 4.0
Turbidity 66.2 57.2 - 47.3 50.0: 39.2
1.8 1.2 2.6 3.2 4.0
Conductivity 35340 33540 22500 14000 15660
11/0/ml 8.2
Percent saturated D/O 87.3
Ph 6. 80 7.40 7.60
Salinity 6;80
22. 0 17.0 13.0 20.0 7.0 10.0
Jotal coliform/100 mi too 300 2000
Fecal coliform/100 ml 40 200 200 4 142 10 K

D.E.P. - 6/14 - 9/26/83

Route 9 Bridge

Date Sta. Tide Substra W TempOF D.O. A Temp'OF Total Coli Eecal Coli

830614 C6-6 L md 500 760 1100+'

830620 C6-6 F md 680 76* 1100+ 1100+
830628 C6-6 L md 580 760 240D+ 2400+
830711 C6-6 L md 64* 72* 9.1

830719 C6-6 H md 660 760 460 460
830802 C6-6 E md 65* 840 1100 210
830809 C6-6 F md 650 820 240 93
830823 C6-6 F md 62* 800 1100+ 1100

830830 C6-6 L md

830913 C6-6 E md 640 680 1100+ 1100

830919 C6-6 F md

830926 C6-6 F md 64* 640 1100+ 1100+

5TATION
k@:3c>
WATER BODYjd:@i@&"do- -TWNSHIP

DATE 0. C). FScALS r/M E C', Do.- DEPTH STAcve RUNOFP
S4TWATIM e"
too r4 SAMPLE

ID/
/0 .3
0 CPO&
97% a,20-o 11-2
1
Ign 98 lye n2an

0
05 6
bf- 15?-" ?7' :3 -7e) /o,4,r!q- 0-0 "0
9 q6 q /0 At" _A*Ot PLO*
9 1-31 /9'-3 71 470 .21 1,.q &@Iod

ca - 7-G

5TATION b(II, q
WATE R BODY-ei!@Ilaa"V-ze
LA-
C). 0.
DATE coos S-474 Pon rlmE P. 0. DEPTH STAt-PE RuNOFP CommaNT3
too MR SAMPLE

A
940

/0-3A-
q/h /0 ..?A 9. 910

la? -c2o Sh7l.-Iou 19
fqAt

D. .24. 31 '8,3
5TATION Q A))Mc, rLOA0
WATER BODY-k&@,-@Lae -ro WN SH I p

0.0. FC-CALS
DATE CODSC SATUfAZIM r' rim E p 0. DEPTH STAZ-,F- RuNoFF Comm&Nlr5
too V44 rnj1,e SAMPIfi-
& & 0.7- 7, /O./o, /-3, '9 - A:,t -j ,I
t 64
-40
J/0 /0 /;z

-6

?Cf 19
7. L203 2 --5 0
Rc>- 9 7--3

17 7-1@

5TATION a44s rn I L"
SO
WATER BODYhjj44djAuvjj-e .-k;@m

C). 0. FE-ckLS Oc DEPTH
DATE cc>C)E SATUCATIM em rlmE P. 0. STAGIE RuNoFp commaNT.5
too "49 rA SAMPLE

czo la s- /o -

-7 D /0
o 9. -74.,jr

walev- ifet
Pea qe) tq-- 2-,6 6- CU"
q-s" J tr- r, q, -5- -ac, s- 53-6 to t., 11LO-
9 I.Sl 19731 LQ6 -_5- l4psq ejAlt@,104-

"M aim

FRIENDS OF THE KENNEBLW RIAR

"rTORING TEST DATA ---6L/21/-aS-- 941 1 Z86

DATE TM LOCATKM DOOR iii ARWA N02 N03 CHLOR TtOILI F. COLO WOO TIDE CLOUD C SALT LAST STH COKIENTS:
6 9:45 RT.9 IDGE 20MC 7.70 a 0.36 ojOlo 0.00 Lav K*fT 19pp" 14HRS TIDE HAS JUST STARTED TO COI-
fi/@j-/&5-7 9:30 IRT.1 BRIDGE Z@@ -9.70 7.10 0.40 0.00 0.00
6/22/85 9:40 DURREL BRO 67OF - 7.70 7.30 0.50 0.00 0.00 LOW DEAD TOE
WP9-9- 1040 RT.9 wf- 7.10 7.50 ow@_ .00 clao 0.00 LOW I 2OPPM TIX GONG OUT
7f7/85 RT.1 75-r 620 7.00 0.10 0.00 0.00.__- MISTAKE ON DO
DUFML 7.10 730 0.40 O.Co ojoo ojoo Low TIDE GOWD OUT
5CO-K-BRO 0.00 0.00
8124?85 16:15 RT.9 Sm 6 8.40 8.00 OJOi0 0.00 0.00 LOW N P.CLDv 48HIRS 6M TIDE TT le MO MRS
i-/24/85 16:15 RT.1 SM 71 of 9.30 7._!iF 0.50 0.00 0.00 LOW NONE P. CLDY 48HRS INIGH T IDE AT 18 AM HRS
0.00 ov w
8/24/85 _I 6:15 DUW&L BROI 71q- 9.10 7.60 ow -0jod- P.cLDY 48HRS 'HIGH T ME AT 18.00 HRS
9/29/85 17.00 ba@K_&@ 170C 6.00 6.80 0.80 0.00 0.00 ILOV LOW CLEAR 40HRS 1HURRICANE ON FRIDAY NK*ff
9/29/ig 19:00 RT. I WA 1 8.40 6.10 1 J010 0.00 0.00 ILOW CLEAR
9/29/85 18:30 RT. 9 ORO 170C 7.80 7.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 LOW LOW TF
1011279-5 15:31 IDURREL 8 M- Ifec- ___9_30_'_'_6.9_0'_ 0.75 DJOID 0.00 120 LOW HIGH CLEAR 36HRS TIDE GONG OUT
10/12/95 RT. TPE_ 6.60
1531 1 sm 1 9.70 .80 0.00 0.00 141 LOW NOW
IWF2-/Iig*' 15:31 RT. 9 -I2ZE- 9.90 7.90 0.00 OM 0.00 150 LOW. NK*l
I"1/24/85 13.00 DURREL BRO 4*C 12.70 6.70 0.3D 0JOi0 0.00 LOW PJcLDy DEAD TIDE- LOW I HOUR BEFORE
i 7N-79-5 I T-w RT. I mo 2.59C 13.10 6.30 0.40 NONE
11/24/83 15:0101 RT. BRO wt 9.90 7.4CE 0.60 KOV n
3/8/96 10:25 RT. I MG OOC 1 20 6DOI 020 HIGH NOW CLEAR OVER 48HRS AIR WR-P 16OF RMER EED OVER
10.30 DLWSdL BROI DOC 13-50 6.30 020 HIGH ICE BROKEN LIP SM MANY BERGS
Vo/86 10:45 WT. 9 GRG 1 12.90 7.70 0.00 HICH
3/8/86 13:45 RT. I BM Doc 13.30 6.30 020 HIOHI CLEAR AIR TEMP 24*F
3/8/86 15:35 DURML BRO 01c 12.90 6.40 020 LOW
3/8/86 15:35 RT.;j Rg Of*C 13.00 7.10 020 LOW
4/5/86 4:15 RT. I BROI VIE- 12.30 6.50 OlAo LOW I CLEAR OVER 48HRS HIGH TIDE AT 9:13
4/5/96 926 DURRn SRO M 11.00 6.80 Ol.w HIGH -_ AIR TEMP 528F
4/5/86 9:30 FIT. 9 em W_ 11.40 7.70 HIGH AtIMIA 700 CLQw
4/26/86 10:45 RT. I am 120C 9.90 6.90 0.40 NONE RAN NOW LK*ff DROML ist Wv-
4/26/86 11130 DURREL BM I I SOC 9.90 620 0.80 1/2FULL RAN N LAS7 24 NRS
4/26/86 11:00 RT. 9 BROI 8W. 10.00 7.90 0.00 HON
572-77& 19:35 RT. I BRG 15ft 8.70 LAST 24 HR TEMP M so's
5/27/86 19:45 DURREL BRIG IrC 8.80 0.60 1 7w-Uff TIDE FULL AT 9F"
5/27 19:50 RT. 9 BRO -151'e- - 9.70 7.20 HIGH
3/31186 6-30 RT. I BRO 170C 8.70 16.70 ow TEMP ABOUT 70q
5/31/86 6:45 Dtr4zcL BIRG 169C a _50 17.40 FULL LT RAN NOW TIDE JUST 0096 OUT
5/31/86 7:10 RT. 9 M 120C 9.30 7.80 FULL HOT WEATHER & RAIN THes Vm-
ViIM27 6:45 RT. I MG 189C 9.50 6.80 oleo HIGH CL 48HRS AIR TEW 67OF
6/21 /86 7.05 DLFSdL SRO Irc 8.30 7.00 0.90 FULL WAR FULL, MUDDY H20
672-179--- '-7-:1-5- -RT9-B-RG.__ _f5_4iF 9.00 7.90 IFULL HEAVY RAIN THIS WEEK
6/29/86 113 DO RT. I SRO 25*C 8.30 720 0.60 CL Aft TEtV 78PF
13 AD * DURWL_ U"M*- -2-3"E- 7.80 720 020 LOW
DEAD LOW AT DURRELS
612-9/86 13:40 RT. 9 BRO I 90C 7.00 7.80 LOW
7
r GC- RT. I om CL AIR TEMP N SOS
7T 7,80 6.90 0.50
7f7/86 17:45 DURRfL BRO 0.50 .1 /2FULL_ LOW TIDE AT 19JO0
I WT. 9 GRG 226C 7.70 INEAR L0V
8/16/86 10 25 RT. I BRO 20*C 8.40 7M 0.80 388.00 iNow CLOUDY IHR AIR TEMP 74OF KCK LAOS ON C.
8/16/86 10 .40 -,Dt*-ML EIRG 21 1 7. 7.60 188.00 HIGH TOE AT 8 -45
8/16f86 10:55 IRT 9 BR3 Islac 1 820 820 WAR FULL GOWU OUT
19 786 53.00 1 HIGH
Lole 1

Opcd

0 KT. I DR 115 101109 3-40 260.00
7-Jil -@!C.L_ j
!DURFZFL BRO I rC 9.80 1 7.70 1 -- -------- 160.00 ILAB TESTS BY KCK
42.00 RAN
__!@IiK IL

APPENDIX D

WETLAND PLANTS AND SOILS

I. Common Wetland Plants Seen
Along the Kennebunk River System and their Status

II. Common Plants Which Grow Only in Upland Conditions

III. Hydric Soils of York County and Their Characteristics

I. Common Wetland Plants Seen Along the Kennebunk
River and Their Status

All these plants are listed in the 1986 Wetland Plant List
of the National Wetlands Inventory. Because some of these
plants also grow in upland conditions, their percent wetland
status from the Wetland Plant List is given in the right-hand
column. The abbreviations stand for the following:

Obl - obligate; always found in wetlands under natural
conditions.

Facw - facultative wetland; found in wetlands at a 66-99%
frequency.

Fac - faculative; found in wetlands with a 33-66%
frequency.

Facu - facultative upland; found in wetlands with a 1-33%
frequency.

Saltmarsh plants:

Pitch pine Pinus rigida facu.
Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora obl
Saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina patens obl
Blackgrass Juncus girardii facw+
Chairmaker's rush Scirpus americana facw
Seaside goldenrod Solidago sempervirens facw
Saltmarsh aster Aster tenuifolius nc
Seaside plantain Plantago maritima facw
Sea lavender Limonium carolinianum obl
Glasswort spp. Salicornia spp. obl
Sea orach Atriplex patula facw
Silverweed Potentilla anserina obl
Seaside gerardia Gerardia maritima ----

Freshwater plants:

White pine Pinus strobus facu
Red maple Acer rubrum fac
Black Spruce Picea mariana facw-
Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis facu
Slippery elm Ulmus rubra fac
Northern red oak Quercus rubra facu
White ash Fraxinus americana facu

Speckled alder Alnus rugosa faLcw+
Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum facw-

D-1

European buckthorn Rhamnus frangela na
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis facw-
Arrowwood Viburnum recognitum facw-
Witherod Viburnum cassinoides facw
Highbush cranberry Viburnum trilobum facw
Willows Salix spp. fac+-obl

Common cattail Typha latifolia obl
Narrow-leaved cattail Typha angustifolia obl
Skunk Cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus obl
False Hellebore Veratrum viride facw+
Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis facw+
Jewelweed Impatiens capensis facw
Marsh St. Johnswort Hypericum, virginicum ----
Bur marigolds Bidens spp. facw-obl
Bur-reeds Sparganium spp. obl
Slender blue flag Iris prismatica obl
Spirea Spiraea latifolia na
Wild clematis Clematis virginiana fac
Spotted Joe-Pye-Weed Eupatoriadelphus maculatum facw
Tall meadow rue Thalictrum pubescens facw+
Arrow-lvd Tearthumb, Polygonum sagittatum obl
Wild Mint Mentha arvensis facw
Closed Gentian Gentiana andrewsii facw
Swamp candles Lysimachia terrestris obl

Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis facw
Marsh fern Thelypteris thelypteroides facw+
Ostrich fern Matteuccia Struthiopteris facw
Lady fern Athyrium Filix-femina fac
Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea facw
Royal fern Osmunda regalis obl
Bracken Pteridium aquilinum facu

Carex sedges Carex spp. fac-obl
Rushes Juncus spp. fac-obl
Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus obl
Canary grass Phalaris canariensis facu
Common reed Phragmites australis facw
Sphagnum moss Sphagnum spp. obl

Pickeralweed Pontederia cordata obl
Arrowheads Sagittaria spp. obl
Wild celery Ruppia maritima obl
Water shield Brasenia schreberi obl
Bullhead lily Nuphar variegatum obl

D-2

Ii. Common Plants Which Grow Only in Upland Conditions

Bl ack oak Quercus velutina
Crabapples Pyrus spp.

Sweet fern Comptonia peregrina
Low-bush blueberry Vaccinium vacillans

Whorled wood aster Aster acuminatus
Round-leaved pyrola Pyrola elliptica
Shinleaf Pyrola rotundifolia
Wintergreen Caultheria procumbens
Pipsissiwa Chimaphila umbellata
Sarsparilla Aralia hispida

Bull thistle Circium vulgare
Common milkweed Asclepias syriaca
Spreading dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium
Purple vetch Vicea americana
Ox-eye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Burdock Arctium tomentosum
Queen Anne's lace Daucus carota
Dodder Cuscata granovii

D-3

III. Hydric Soils of York County and Their Characteristics

A hydric soil is defined as "a so'll that in its undrained
condition is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor
the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation" (USF&WS
National Wetland Classification System, Cowardin, et al., 1979).

There are two general groups of hydric soils: very poorly
drained soils, and poorly drained soils. These include:

Very Poorly Drained Soils

These soils fall into two categories: organic and mineral
soils.

Very poorly drained organic soils have organic materials
which extend from the surface to a depth of 16+ inches, and are
saturated with water for 6 or more months. They occur in
depressions, bogs, marshes, and swamps that have a slope of 2
percent or less (SCS, 1986). In York County these include:

Soil Name Soil Map Symbol Description and Location

CHOCORUA Ch Peat deposits 16-51" deep
in swamps and bogs formed
in plains and uplands over
sand and gravel deposits.

SEBAGO Sg Thick peat deposits (51"+)
in swamps formed in plains
and uplands.

SULFIHEMISTS SU Thick saltmarsh saltwater
grass deposits (5111+).
VASSELBORO Va, Vp Thick peat deposits (51"+)
formed in kettleholes and
depressions over glacial
outwash plains and kame
terraces.

HASKISH Wa Thick peat deposits (63"+)
in 5phagnum moss bogs.

Very poorly drained mineral soils are very wet soils that
have a water table near or at the Soil surface sometime during

D-4

the growing season. All these soils are found from very deep
levels to bedrock. They occur in lowlands, flats, and
depressions., and usually have slopes of 2 percent or less. In
York County this includes one soil type:

BIDDEFORD Bm Mucky peat deposits 8-15"
thick from wet meadows
and swamps, and the clayey
marine sediments they are
formed in.

Poorly Drained Soils

Poorly drained soils are wet soils with a watertable near
the surface some time during the growing season. These
conditions are caused by low hydraulic conductivity and/or
seepage. All are found from deep levels to bedrock. They occur
in depressions and at the base of slopes and have slopes of 8
percent of less. They include:

Soil Name Soil Map Symbol Description and Location

BRAYTON Brb, Bsb Deep fine sandy loam
(60"+), with a perched
water table near surface.

RAYNHAM Ra Deep silt loam (60"+),
with water table at or
near surface most of
growing season.

RUMNEY Ru Deep loam and sandy loam
(60"+), with water table
at or near surface for
most of growing season

SCANTIC Sc Deep silt loam and silty
clay (60"+), with water
table at or near surface
most of growing season.

URBAN LAND UsA Deep silt loam and silty
SCANTIC COMPLEX clays (60"+), of mixed
urban soils and poorly
drained Scantic soils
(USDA & SCS, 1985b, and
SCS 1986).

D-5

I I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX E
I
WILDLIFE DIVERSITY
I

I. Wildlife Diversity Index
I II. Method for Relating Development to Wildlife
Diversity
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

.I. Wildlife Diversity Index

Wildlife diversity was measured by walking along the
riverways of the Kennebunk River system and recording the
variety and frequency of animal signs (tracks, scats, trails,
etc.) per unit distance.

This index can be used for upland as well as riverine
situations. It could also be applied to other regions of Maine;
as the index is based on the frequency of signs seen rather than
the exact species of animals represented. Even on small
sections of the Kennebunk River System, species can differ
greatly depending on the changing nature of the surrounding
habitat.

I. HIGH DIVERSITY. Remote or little visited wild areas,
averaging 0.43 miles from the nearest
residence (or closer if access blocked
by a natural or physical structure
such as a cliff or highway).

A minimum of any consecutive arrangement of any of
the following:

a. Any recent beaver activity# if ponds are still
intact;
b. ConcentrationsA of shorebirds, wading birds,
grouse, wood duck, snowshoe hare, mink, muskrat,
otter, porcupine, raccoon, woodchuck, beaver,
fox, deer, and moose;
c. CommonAA sightings of woodcock, kingfishers,
hawks, and passerines;

-----------------------------------------------------------------

#Beaver ponds create high diversity areas for the length of
their ponding and marsh effects.

AConcentrations'- signs of an average of 4 individuals of a
species within 100 yards.

AACommon - signs of an average of 2 individuals of a species
within 200 yards.

E-1

'II. MEDIUM-HIGH DIVERSITY. Lightly visited areas near
riverways averaging 0.25 miles
from the nearest residence.
Includes farms, areas of light
timbering, light hiking and
and snowmobile use.

A minimum of any consecutive arrangement of any of
the following:

a. Common sightings of shorebirds, wading birds,
woodchuck, raccoon, fox, and deer;
b. Occasional@@ woodcock, grouse, wood duck,
hawks, owls, woodchuck, mink, porcupine, otter,
moose.

III. MEDIUM DIVERSITY. Areas near riverways that average
0.13 miles from the nearest
residence. Often subject to machine or
construction noises; sometimes to
moderate to heavy harvesting or
clear-cutting, moderate undercover
pruning, and hiking trails.

A minimum of any consecutive arrangement of any of
the following:

a. Less common@ sightings of raccoon and deer;
b. Occasional sightings of shorebirds, wading
birds, woodchucks, or fox.

IV. LOW DIVERSITY. Suburban-urban wildlife habitat with the
nearest residence within 100' of a riverway.

A minimum of any consecutive arrangement of any of
the following:

a. Common sightings of pigeons, starlings, and house
sparrows;
b. Occasional raccoons and skunks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Less common - signs of an average of 2 individuals of a
species within 400 yards.

@@ Occasional - signs of an average of 2 individuals of a
species within 1/2 mile.

E-2

II. Method for Relating Development to Wildlife
Diversity

Mylar (transparent) enldrgement5 of topographic maps were
enlarged to double their normal scale (1"=1000') for each of the
three towns, and then the categorie5 of wildlife diversity were
mapped on the mylars for all sections Of the Kennebunk River
system.

Tracing paper was overlaid on the mylar5 and one inch
intervals were measured off for all of the length of the
Kennebunk River System. Measurements to the nearest residence
were then taken from each interval. These measurements were
then listed under the wildlife category shown on the map where
the interval occurred, totaled up, and averaged. These are the
average distances from the nearest residences for each category:

Low diversity .............. less than 100 feet (NA = 13);

Medium diversity .......... 0.13 miles (N = 79);

Medium-high diversity ..... 0.25 miles (N = 137);

High diversity ............ 0.43 miles (N = 37).

NA refers to the number of intervals measured.

Medium diversity areas could occur for two reasons. They
could be areas of moderate to rich habitat that were too close
to human habitation to attract the full range of wildlife, or
they could be areas of poorer quality habitat that wouldn't tend
to attract much wildlife regardless of their distance from a
residence. Several of these latter areas were excluded in the
medium diversity measurements. These areas included the ponded
wooded wetland around Arundel Swamp Brook, an area of scrub
woods near Wards Brook, and the granite and bog country in the
northwest corner of Kennebunkport. Their exclusion makes the
average distance to the nearest residence much more accurate for
the medium diversity category.

E-3

GAYLC-11):@'o. P333 Pq':!TF D l@: U S

105-9438