Wells Harbor plan

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

Prepared by the Wells Harbor Plan Committee
TC Adopted September 17, 1991
225
M45
W45

Chgpter TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Introduction

I History of Wells Harbor

II Goals 5

III Goals and Working Plan 6

IV Harbor Facilities 10

V Commercial Fishing 15

VI Recreational Boating. 19
VII Economy 23

VH1 Land Use Surrounding the Harbor 25

Ix Natural Areas 28

X Shellfish. 31

XI Beach Erosion 36

XII Dredging 38

Appendix. 43

A Lower Wells Division of the Rachel Carson Wildlife Refuge

B Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve

C Fish of the Wells Reserve

D Birds of the Rachel Carson Refuge and the Wells Reserve

E State Threatened and Endangered Plant List for the Wells Reserve

F Report of the Wells Harbor Plan Committee Facilitation Meetings

G Town of WeBs Harbor Ordinance

References

rinancial assistance for preparation of this document was provided by a grant from Maineos Coastal Program through funding
provided by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, office of ocean and coastal Resource
Management, under the coastal zone Management Act of 1972, as amended -- award # KA90AA-D-CZ522..

TABLE OF MAPS

Chapter/ Eguore P

3.1 Schematic Plan for the Harbor Park. 11

3.2 Wells Harbor Pacilities. 13

3.3 Wells Harbor Natural Features/ Original Army Corps Dredge. 14

6.1 Wells Harbor Existing Mooring Conditions, 1990.. 21

6.2a Wells Harbor Mooring Plan/ Original Army Corps Dredge. 22

6.2b Wells Harbor Mooring Plan/ Fore-and-Aft Layout. 22
6.2c Wells Harbor Mooring Plan/ Single Point Layout. .22

8.1 Wells Harbor Area Parcel Map with Proposed Land Use Plan. 26

8.2 Wells. Harbor Area Structural Density. 2.7

12.1 Major Components of Original Army Corps Activity. . 40

INTRODUCTION

The Town.of Wells me6is the Atlantic Ocean in a beautiful and complex' system of
barrier beaches and e stuarie's. The Wellsand Drakes Island Beac'hes, the Webhannei River
estuary, and Wells Harbor its@elf constitute a unique body of coastal resources., Every Su m`_
mer, tens of thousands of visitors'flock to Wells to enjoy and explore these natural areas.
However, this seasonal influ Ix, in conjunction with a growing year-rotind population, also
puts pressure on the natural resources that have drawn visitors to Wells in the first place.
Natural forces also contribute to stress on the Wells coast, as harbor in-fill and beach ero-
sion have degraded the quality of these resources. In the face of the manifest need for a
comprehensive management plan for the Wells Harbor area, the Wells Harbor Plan
Committee has produced the Wells Harbor Management Plan that follows. This document
represents the efforts of citizens, town officials, and representatives of federal, state and
private organizations to preserve and enhance the natural coastal areas of Wells for the ben-
efit of all.

The management focus of the plan is the harbor proper -- the area roughly defined
by the seaward tip' of the jetties, Drakes Island, Lower Landing, and the Mile Road.
However, given the interconnected relationship of the harbor proper and the estuary,this
@trea must be considered within the context of the larger system of which it is a part, which
includes all tidal waters associated with the Webliannet River. The town recognized the im-
portance of this systemic approach to resource management when it defined the area of
Wells Harbor in the Town of Wells Code, Chapter 86, � 86-1 as "The Webliannet River and
all of its tributaries both now and hereafter appearing where the tide ebbs and flows."
Accordingly, this plan includes an inventory and analysis of the natural system that encom-
passes the geographic area affected by tidal water, and seeks to place policies designed to
manage the harbor proper within that larger context.

Of specific concern is the issue of dredging, which is the focus of ongoing efforts
to responsibly manage both the harbor proper and the entire estuarine system. As a state-
ment by the Harbor Management Committee reads in part, "[the committee is] of the opin-
ion that the existence of the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, including the
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, and a navigable Wells Harbor are compatible
under the conditions set forth in this plan." Countervailing sentiments have been expressed
by some state regulatory agencies and private environmental organizations, who feel that
the ecological value of the estuarine system as defined by state and federal law outweighs
the town's legitimate interest in providing a safe and navigable harbor for its recreational
and commercial fleet.

-At the onset of the planning process the Harbor Management Committee developed
a series of goals which outline the town's coastal priorities and provide the baseline for the
Goals and Working Plan implementation section of the plan. These goals have been de-
signed to accommodate the broadest possible participation in the management of Wells
Harbor. The implementation policies, building on that wide input, support maintenance
work on the harbor proper to facilitate public access and water-dependent uses, encourage
the protection of the environment and wildlife of the harbor area, and promote continued
and integrated research and planning for the coastal area. The cornerstone of theses poli-
cies is the creation of a Harboi Advisory Committee, to be composed of all members of the
Harbor Management Committee, with the charter to "discuss, recommend, coordinate and
plan actions necessary to enhance and protect the material resources of the harbor's geo-
graphical area. " This committee will continue the work begun by this plan, and will be re-
sponsible for implementing and monitoring the policies developed herein.

The members of the Harbor Plan Committee would like to express their appreciation for the
time and expertise of the several federal, state and private agencies and organizations who
have participated in or commented on the creation of this document. While much work re-
mains to be done, it is the committee's hope that the considerable effort that has gone into
this plan will form the groundwork for future policies which provide for a safe and naviga-
ble harbor, for the protection of the harbor's unique natural resources, and for the enhance-
ment of Wells Harbor as a community assest of ecological, cultural and economic signifi-
cance.

I HISTORY OF WELLS HARBOR

Cultural Histoq

When coastal Maine was settled by the English in the 1630s, new communities up and
down the seaboard were established on navigable waterways which provided routes for commerce,
communication and travel. Wells was founded around its harbor and salt marsh and rivers in
164 1, and they have been an important resource for the community since that time.

By the mid- 1 600s, shortly after the township's official incorporation, the area was bustling
with activity. The salt marsh was harvested for its hay, the streams for fish and eels, and the flats
on the Webhannet river and its branches for "the very best of Clams more than sufficient for the
Inhabitants and the several adjoining towns who take as many as they wish for gratis." The har-
bor and rivers were being used by coastal traders loading and unloading supplies. Materials for
export in 1679 included boards, shingles and hoops. The shipbuilding industry began in earnest
during the late 1600s and in 1728 the Littlefield shipyard was established at.Six Acres. According
to a brief history of Wells by E.E. Bourne,

before the Revolutionary War, a few of the people engaged
in navigation. Several small vessels were built; some of these
were engaged in the West India trade; others in coasting only.
After the great conflict was closed, the enterprise in this di-
rection was more general; larger vessels were built and more
of the people embarked in it.

The lumber mills on the banks of the several streams and rivers in Wells turned out oak for
shipbuilding and pine for export. In 1790 a vessel of 800 tons was built on the banks of the
Webhannet which was probably employed to haul several cargoes of white pine and pitch pine to
the West Indies each year. That the town depended significantly on its maritime industry is evident
from Bourne's observation that "few or none" of the townspeople of Wells enlisted to serve their
new country in the War of 1812, a war in which American mercantile and political interests were at
odds over the continued American dependence on British trade.

In the summer of 1825 a pier " 120 rods in length" -- 1,980 feet, or just over a third ofa
mile -- was constructed in order to reach the larger vessels that could not enter the harbor because
of the "very bad sand bar which hath occasioned much expense to the ship owners." Then as
now, the bar obstructed the harbor mouth and must have caused considerable disruption to the
town's commerce, for Congress appropriated $5,000 for the purpose of building the pier. The old
pilings that supported the pier can still be seen along the shore behind the north jetty.
Shipbuilding continued through the 1800s with boat yards located at both the Upper and
Lower Landings turning out vessels for local and West Indies trade. The construction of the
coasting schooner A lice S. Wentworth along the Mile Road in 1905 represented the end of the
shipbuilding era in Wells.

The fishing fleet has maintained a presence in the harbor through the present, and although
the fleet and the catch have diminished from their historical highs, they have in recent years been

*The sources quoted in this section include a letter written by Jeremiah Hubbard in late 1824 or early 1825, and a
brief history of Wells written by E.E. Boume, c. 1870. These and other histories of Wells can be found in the
Maine Historical Society archives.

on the increase. From the early to mid 1900s an average of six to eight small craft, geared primari-
ly for lobstering, made the harbor their home port. Shellfish have also been a natural resource of
historic importance to Wells, but following the trend of the entire south-coastal region, the clam
beds were severely depleted in the years immediately following the second world war, as men re-
turning home went to work on the flats. While the numbers began to rise again in the 1950s and
early 1960s, this rebound was obviated by increased pollution levels which have kept almost all of
the beds closed since 1969.

Following the second world war, as income and leisure time both increased, cars got
cheaper, and the middle-class tradition of the family vacation began to make its presence felt in
places like Wells, the harbor assumed the predominantly recreational character that now defines it.
Since the 1970s that attraction of Maine fife has led to more permanent residents. The population
of Wells has grown from 4,448 in 1970 to 7,778 in 1990, an increase of 75%. The population is
projected by the Regional Planning Commission to increase to 9,000 by the year 2000, meaning
that in the last thirty years of the century the population of Wells will have more than doubled.
These increased numbers of residents have in turn put increased pressure on the facilities that drew
them to Wells in the first place. Competition for the finite space within the harbor plus the deterio-
rating state of the facility itself has forced many commercial fishermen to find other ports or other
occupations.

WELLS HARBOR TIMELINE
War of American Indepen-
dence, 1776-1783
English settler begin Alive still bringing coal,
to colonize the New England taking out lumber, fisher-
coast,1630s. War of 1812, Wells men using the harbor,
Shipbuilding begins people decline to serve
Wells founded, on Webhannet River, Maintence dredging
1641. late 1600s Shipbuilding era ends continues through 1974
with construction of
1600 1700 1800 1900 1991
Wells incorporated into
Massachussetts, 1653 Littlefield's shipyard Pier constructed to Harbor Improvements
estabilished at Six reach vessels kept begin,1961.
French & Indian acres, 1728 out of the harbor by Improvement dredging
Wars begin, 1676. the sand bar, 1825 and jettiy construction
finalized, 1966.
Trading vessels re- Shipbilding and coastal Town applies to Fed-
gularly using tidal and West Indies trade eral government for
river, 1679 begins in earnest, 1783 habor improvement,
late 1950s.

Physical History

As the construction of the pier in 1825 attests, Wells has been tied to maritime commerce
throughout its history, and that history has been intertwined with a resourceful approach to a prob-
lematic natural facility. By the mid-nineteen hundreds, the shoaling in the harbor from sand in-fill
2

Was becoming increasingly dangerous, and the harbor was (and is) periodically inaccessible.
Accordingly, in the late 1950s the town applied to the federal government for harbor improve-
ments. The plan had four components: the construction of two jetties with a. 400 foot opening to
seaward, one 940 feet long extending east from Wells Beach, the other 640 feet long extending
south from Drake's Island; the dredging out of a 100 foot wide, 10 foot deep entrance channel
from the ocean to the first bend in the harbor; the dredging out of a 100 foot wide, 6 foot deep
inner channel behind the north end of Wells Beach; and the dredging out of a 7.4 acre, 6 foot deep
anchorage. The anchorage was designed to accommodate roughly 20&vessels with fore and aft
moorings.

The jetties were the centerpiece of the plan, and they were designed to reduce shoaling by
intercepting littoral drift north from Wells Beach and South from Drake's Island, to fix the position
and maintain the depth of the channel by controlling the inlet currents, and to shelter vessels in
transit and at anchor from ocean waves and swells. These performance criteria were based on as-
sumptions that littoral drift was small, what drift there was was predominantly northward, and that
the 400 foot wide artificial aperture would approximate the self-scouring natural harbor mouth. In
1961 and 1962 the jetties were constructed, the channels and anchorage were dredged, and the
spoils were used behind the jetties for fill.

The impact of the jetties on the area was immediate and deleterious. By the end of the sum-
mer of 1962, the northern tip of Wells Beach was rapidly eroding and the sand was moving into
the inner harbor and causing shoaling conditions similar to the current harbor situation. In 1964
the anchorage was dredged and 1965the anchorage and the channels were redredged. By 1965 it
was clear that the original design of the jetties was flawed because the harbor and entrance channel
were filling with sand immediately following each successive dredge. Maintenance dredging con-
tinued until 1966, when the jetties were extended with a dogleg to the north to their present config-
uration. The anchorage was last dredged in 1974; the mouth has been dredged once since 1974 --
in July of 1990.

In 1977 the Coastal Engineering Study, Wells Harbor, Maine was published, and came to
the following conclusions. First, the inlet and entrance channel do not maintain a self-scouring
depth because the channel is too wide for the tidal curTents generated between the estuarine system
and the ocean. Second, because the anchorage lies in the path of the tidal currents, it is a natural
deposition area for suspended particles (sand). Third, counter to the assumptions of the initial de-
sign, the prevailing direction of onshore seas is within ten degrees of the direction of the length of
the channel; therefore, seas run the length of the channel virtually unimpeded. Finally, the study
found that the gross movement of sand along the beaches was much more significant than predict-
ed.

Two of the study's primary recommendations were to reduce the width of the mouth of the
entrance channel by constructing stone spars, and by installing a permanent eductor pump in the
anchorage to pump sand that would otherwise accumulate in the anchorage onto Drakes Island
Beach. WeLls harbor residents were cautious about the untested idea of pumping sand up on the
beach, so the plan was reworked to propose dumping the sand at the historical disposal site near
the Town Landing. This met with the objection of state and federal agencies and in 1980 the plan
was dropped.

During the 1980s, the beach erosion along Drakes Island and Wells Beaches, which had
been occurring for years, becarne more severe. The residents along these beaches subsequently
united in support for harbor dredging and the placement of dredged sand on the eroding beaches.
The navigability of the harbor continued to worsen during, the 1980s, due to shoaling, but intense-
pres@uie for boat nioorim-)s diroughout, southem Maine resulted in 131`@Yer numbers of boats using

the harbor. In 1990,-, the Army Corps applied to the Maine DEP for a permit to dredge 200,000
cubic yards (which would largely recreate the original federal project) and to place the spoils, on
Drakes Island and Wells Beaches. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maine Geological
Survey, and environmental groups opposed the application on the grounds that the dredge would
adversely impact the adjacent marsh and sand bar and the habitats these land forms support. The
B EP denied the Corps' application in October, 1990.

Since then the town has pursued n umerous solutions to the continuing and worsening con-
dition of the harbor. Current efforts include discussions aimed at developing a compromise policy
between the interests of the recreational and commercial boating community, the residents of the
Wells and Drakes Island Beach communities, the environmental community and state and federal
regulatory agencies.

11 GOALS

The Harbor Plan Committee developed the following goals for the harbor area at the onset of the
planning process. The Committee agreed that the plan and the Town of Wells should seek to:

* Maintain and restore as safe a harbor as possible for commercial and recreational boating use;

* Protect and enhance the harbor's valuable natural resources (such as plant and animal species,
wildlife habitat, and water resources) while also benefiting, or at least not harming, the long-term
economic interests of the town, and the enjoyment of residents and visitors;

* Encourage consistency among the projects, policies and programs of state, federal and other
organ izations involved in activities in the harbor area;

* Support economic interests (such as tourism, fishing and auxiliary services) in part by encour-
aging business opportunities which protect or at least do not reduce the environmental value of the
town or region;

Eliminate, or minimize, threats to both environmental and economic interests of the harbor and
town, including pollution, over-use and inappropriate uses of valuable and fragile resources;

Encourage and support research and monitoring by local, state and federal organizations, pro-
mote information sharing and collaboration, and eliminate current barriers among scientists and be-
tween them and other professionals;

* Restore and maintain beaches, park areas, and other recreational amenities in the harbor area.

* Maintain Wells as a tourist attraction, and take steps to maintain recreational boating, commer-
cial fishing and other economic opportunities in the area;

* Protect the environment and the wildlife of the harbor area, as these are enjoyed by Wells resi-
dents and visitors;

Protect the wildlife refuge and seek to mitigate impacts on the refuge caused by future develop-
ment and activities;

Protect the many diverse interests represented in the town;

Treat harbor planning as a continuous process -- the town should monitor the planand imple-
mentation process each year to determine their effectiveness and continued appropriateness.

III GOALS AND WORKING PLAN

This section includes the goals listed above and recommended actions the Town of Wells will pur-
sue to attain each goal.

I Maintain and restore as safe a harbor as possible for commercial and
recreational boating use.

A. Monitor and survey quarterly condition of federal navigation channel for depth and
for operational navigation safety issues.
1. Urge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintenance dredge mouth of
jetties annually to eliminate shoaling problem.

2. Continue to work towards a full or modified maintenance dredge of the
inner harbor and anchorage basin to:

a. properly moor vessels;
b. effectively utilize the marine facilities; and
c. maintain a functioning harbor for use by marine vessels.

B . Review annually existing marine facilities for:

1. Maintenance and repair;
2. New equipment acquisition;
3- Security to facilities and boaters
4. Facility adequacy to serve recreational and commercial boating needs;

a. review fees charged for facilities and services
b. design additional boat ramp for future use
c. evaluate marina operator for service effectiveness to boaters
d. install or make arrangements for pump-out facilities for boat septage

C. Review annually mooring placement based on water availability and safety to
vessels. Determine mooring availabilities prior to accepting yearly mooring
applications.

Protect and enhance the harbor's valuable natural resources (such as plant and animal
species, wildlife habitat, and water resources) while also benefiting, or at least not
harming, the long-term economic interests of the town, and the enjoyment of
residents and visitors.

A. Establish in 1992 a Harbor Monitoring Committee with membership open to each
agency participating in the harbor management plan to meet quarterly or when
necessary to discuss, recommend, coordinate and plan actions necessary to enhance
and protect the material resources of the harbor's geographic area. Prepare an
annual report detailing the workTlan for the next year and %vork accomplished will
be sent to each participating agency.

III. Encourage consistency araong the projects, policies and programs of state, f ederal and
other organizations involved in activities in fize harbor area.

-A. 7be town. and Harbor Monitoring Committee- will implement this goal as described
in IL A, above,

IV. Suppon economic Interests (such as tourism, fishing and aux iliary services) in part by
encouraging business opportunities which protect or at least do not reduce the
envIronmental value of the rown or region.

A, On-going -- 'Me Town's Economic Development Committee, Board of Selectmen,
Chamber of Commerce and Harbor Advisory Committee will encourage the eco-
nomic viability of the harbor area including beaches, recreational boating and com-
mercial fishing. An environmental park promotional tourist park theme will be dis-
cussed and.pla=ed between the environmental groups and Town officials in 1991
and 1992 which may involve the harbor and its facilities.

V Eliminate or minimize threats to both environmental and economic interests of the
harbor and Town, Including pollution, ov er-use and inappropriate uses of valuable
fragile resources.

A. The Town and the Harbor Monitoring Committee will, on an on-going basis,
review threats to both environmental and economic interests in the, harbor area and
make recommendations to resolve the problem.

B The Town and the Harbor Monitoring Committee will coordinate the installation of
a marine septage pump-out station to be located at the Lower Landing Town docks
and will amend the Harbor Ordinance to prohibit the overboard discharge of waste-
water into Wells Harbor.

VI. Encourage and support coordinated -research and monitoring by local, state and
federal organizations, promote information shaeing and collaboration, and work to
eliminate current barriers arnon8 scientists and between them and other
professionals;

A. The Town and the Harbor Monitoring Committee will inventory and keep the public
appraised of all local, state and federal research projects and work in the harbor
area. The final results of each research proje/,t will be rhade available by the
committee to the general public at the Wells Public Library..

Yll, Restore and maintain beaches, park areas, and other recreational amenities in the
harbor area.

A. Beach restoration and maintenance

I The U.S. Anny Corps of En gineers will undertake a study of the
beaches thai.surround the harbor in the fall of 1991. The. beaches of Wells
Beach and Drakes Island will be examined to determine reasons for the
erosion and possible solutions.

2. Annually thaTown maintains the beaches through. a seasonal program

providing restrooms, trash removal and raking services. The Wells Reserve
Authority and the Town participate in the annual fall coastal clean-up
program sponsored by the federal and state governments.

3. Further examination and construction of temporary boardwalk systems will
continue, to increase public access to the beach over the cobble at the
Town's rights-of-way. Particular attention will be given to providing greater
handicap accessibility to the beach.

4. The Town will continue to limit fires on the beach and examine best
management techniques for dog control on the beach.

5. The Town will annually survey the beach for wildlife nesting areas to
properly protect and/or relocate to lower traffic areas.

6. The Town will work with beach owners to involve them with beach
problems and programs 'and with state and federal agencies to ensure
compliance of laws.

B. Park Areas

I By 1992, the Town will constru ct a passive Harbor Park on the filled land
off Lower Landing Road. The park will include playground equipment,
trails to the harbor beach, a gazebo, 200-car par-king facility and picnic
facilities.

2. The Town will discuss with the Wells Reserve Authority and the Rachel
Carson Refuge the possibility of tying trail systems together to provide a
coastal walking network.

3. The Town and the Harbor Monitoring Committee will discuss and examine
standardized management and maintenance techniques for coastal parks.

4. The Town and the Harbor Monitoring Committee will discuss and examine
options that may present themselves pursuant to the Army Corps'
Environmental Restoration Branch program. 6

C . Recreational Amenities

I . The Town will explore with the Harbor Monitoring Committee areas non-
motorized vessels may use and the possibility of constructing facilities to
encourage further water exploration of the harbor area.

2. The Town will explore other recreational uses of the harbor area with the
Harbor Monitoring Committee.

VIII. Maintain Wells Harbor as a tourist attraction and take steps to maintain and upgrade
the harborfor recreational boating and commercial fishing.

A. The Town, the Reserve Authority and the Rachel Carson Refuge will work together
to implement a coastal environmental park theme to increase tourism in the spring

and fall seasons as well as the traditional summer tourist season.

B . The Town and Harbor Monitoring Committee will work on techniques-and methods
to assist commercial fishermen to remain in Wells and jointly study ways to restore
shellfishing in the harbor area.

C. The Town andHarbor Monitoring Committee will continue to'encourage recreation,
al boating by maintaining and upgrading existing facilities, and will continue to pur
sue funding. for an addition to the public boat launching ramp..

IX. Protect the environment and the wildlife of the harbor area, a s these are enjoyed by
Wells residents and visitors.

A.. The Harbor Monitoring Committee and the Town will work together to provide a
mechanism to meet this goal.

X . Protect the wildlife refuge and seek to mitigate impacts on the refuge caused by
future development and activities.
A. The Town and the Harbor Monitoring Committee wiliwork together to provide a
mechanism to meet this goal.

X1. Treat harbor planning as a continuous process - - the. Town should monitor the plan and
implementation process each year to determine their effectiveness and continued
appropriateness.

A. The Harbor Monitoring Committee and the Town will work together to provide a
mechanism to meet this goal.
B . Amendments to the harbor plan will be authored by the Harbor Monitoring
Committee and approved by the Wells Selectmen.

C. The Harbor Monitoring Committee and Town will periodically review the Harbor
Ordinance and recommend revision as necessary.

IV HARBOR FACILITIES

Wells harbor offers a nu mber of public and private facilities to the tourists and commercial
and recreational boats that use and enjoy the harbor. Most of these facilities are situated on land re-
claimed from the water with. spoils from the dredging project that reshaped the harbor in 196 1.
Wells harbor offers a public boat ramp, gas, diesel, ice, water, food, and dumpsters. Some engine
repairs and maintenance are available. There are no transient moorings, but short-term dockage at
the town floats is available. The location of these facilities is shown in Figure 3.2.

Public Facilities

The town has a total of 5,000 square feet of permanent piers and floating dockage, the sites
for which were created by the dredging project in 1961. These- facilities are located at the end of
Lower Landing Road and across the harbor off Atlantic Avenue. Facilities are shared by commer-
cial and recreational users.. Fuel is available -at the Lower Landing pier, the larger of. the two dock
areas, as is dockage for dinghies. Several floating docks off die pier are accessed by a ramped
waLkway, and there is a slip equipped with a mechanical hoist for offloading. The pier is also set
up with scales and tote boards as Wells hosts sportfishing tournaments during the summer. Across
the harbor, the Atlantic Avenue pier is also connected to floating docks, but there are no marine ser-
vices available.

The harbormaster manages the 144 'mooring spaces currently in the harbor, of which 107
are allocated to recreational boats and 37 to commercial boats. The waiting list for moorings stands
at290. Because the sand bar in the harbor has greatly reduced the available mooring space, new
spaces can be created only by placing them farther up the Webhannet River. The harbormaster
gives commercial boats prec@dence in filling mooring vacancies.

The town of Wells maintains a.public boat launching ramp, which is located beside the
Lower Landing wharf. 'Tbe ramp can accommodate one launch at a time, and the town has ex-
pressed interest in widening it to accommodate at least two launches at a time. 'Me State Bureauof
Parks and Recreation has funding available for such expansions, and the town has been told this
project would likely qualify for state funding if the harbor were to be dredged. Fees for the ramp
are $5.00 per launch for boats up to eighteen feet long, plus $ .50 per foot over eighteen feet for
larger boats.

The Welis harbormaster's off-ice is a 600 square foot structure located on the pier at Lower
Landing which commands an ideal view of the entire harbor. The harbormasters boat, the Pride
of Wells, is a radio-equipped 31 foot modified Navy sub tender with a 185 horsepower Perkins
turbo diesel engine.

Public parUng spaces were constructed around the jetties in 196 1, bringing the total to
three parking lots in die vicinity of die harbor with a total of 625 spaces. These lots facilitate ac-
cess to both the harbor and to the Wells and Drake's Island beaches. Total parking on die landing
side of the harbor is 205 spaces- This includes 25 spaces for boat trailers just up the road frorn the
boat launching ramp.

There are three public rCSITOonis located at the parking lois around the harbor, and die har-
bor area is served by public water aiid sewer.

The harbor is surroulided by lbe Izachel Carsoll Wildlife 111 exicilsiVO, af,-3 Of Sall

marsh habitat owned by the Federal Government. The Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve
Visitors Center, an ecological research and information center, is located about a mile north of the
harbor, and provides visitors with guided walking tours and information about the history and
ecology of the salt marshes.

Passive Park

A three acre passive public harbor park is presently under construction, located on Lower
Landing Road behind the marina. The Wells Harbor Park Committee has been planning this park
for several years, and the current plans for its completion are pursuant to the 1989'.IT6*n Meeting
vote to create the park. The park presently consists primarily of a large oval stone dust track sur-
rounding a grassy area. When completed the park will include picnic tables, park benches, nature
trails, a playground on the west side, walkways, a gazebo in the center, a handicap accessible
wooden walkway to the beach with harbor overlook, fighting, and an assortment of trees 'and
shrubs. The original (currently existing) grass will be preserved as this appears to be the species
most suited for the area's soils.

When completed, visitors will be able to use the park to picnic, walk, orr''elax'in an open,
scenic environment by the water. The town may also use the park for public gatherings. The park,
as presently envisioned, will constitute the best park facilities at any York County harbor, and will
probably be equally attractive to visitors by boat and by land. The estimated $30,000 needed to
complete the park is being raised through local individual and business contributions: No municipal
dollars are expected to be needed for this project. The Harbor Park Committee anticipates the park
will be completed within two to three years.

FIGURE 3. 1. Schematic Plan for the Harbor Park Prepared by the Harbor Park
Committee, 6/91.

Private Facilities

The town leases property on dredge filled property to Lord's Harborside Restaurant and the
Wells Marina and Marine Services. Wells Marina is located immediately adjacent to the Lower
Landing pier parking area. The marina provides supplies, repairs, fuel and a marine rail to facili-
tate haulout for repair and seasonal storage.

In contrast to the harbor itself, Wells harbor facilities are generally in very good condition,
and they are used by a great number of people, tourists and residents alike. The addition of the
harbor park will ensure that the harbor will continue to be a flourishing community resource.

Related Issues

The Harbor Plan Committee discussed several ideas for enhancing public enjoyment and
appreciation of the harbor area. One of the things discussed was the concept of constructing a cat-
walk bridge across the harbor from the landing area to the Wells Beach parking lot. Among the at-
tractive features of this idea: it would provide ready access to the harbor facilities from the Wells
Beach parking lot and vice versa, and it would be an interesting tourist attraction. Among its less
attractive features: it would be very costly to construct, funding sources are unknown, and it could
interfere with navigation.

Another idea that was discussed was the creation of an island in the middle of the harbor
(southern portion) to provide high quality bird habitat (birds are particularly fond of islands) This
was discussed within the context of dredging -- the island could be constructed of dredged materi-
al. The island, it was suggested, would enhance wildlife viewing opportunities and tie in well with
the passive harbor park discussed above.

The Harbor

The dredging in 1961 created both new opportunities and future problems for the harbor.
As noted above, dredging spoils were used to create significant new facilities around the natural L
harbor basin, and the "new" harbor was able to accommodate a greater number of moorings for
commercial and recreational vessels. The harbor was used effectively for a number of years, but by
the mid 1970s, sand in-fill began to cause areas within the channel and the inner harbor to shoal
significantly. The failure of the Army Corps to maintenance dredge every seven years, as originally
planned, has meant that many sections of the harbor have been virtually unusable in recent years.
Shoaling has seriously impacted the entrance to the jetties to the point where swells are reported to
break in even moderate seas, making passage in and out of the harbor dangerous. Within the har-
bor itself, shoaling has decreased the area available for moorings, and is making maneuverability
increasingly difficult.

2 .......L
Rachd Carson LILL
Rcfugc 1L

ALL
chel Carson
20 Rtfuge

250

0
0

0
0
0 17
0 CREST
B L L S B E A C H 0 0 CIR.
WELLS HARBOR FACILI MIS 0 0
- LEGEND 1* 0
T- D-1,4 D R A K S
F.J. 1,.. W.,.. Cup Hoisi. Ht@ M-ce, Office, Tlq&-, D-pc..

Luhi.;. Si. f prp-cl-p.4.@ 10 2 -p..
2- Wdl, 1,1.1@ 1,1,@. FUI"y
F2
Public lk@c- NOT
Tbc KW. d dw bw pup is 1"-500".
H.b. Pt 'm
,ko U axl@
0 08..aAccc-
Wdls Me" C@incAKRPC 1991
0 W.(l.He-m.,L.
L-,f;Html&FVt-t

FIGURE 3.2
@,Rjhd @C-oa
.fugc

AlL
il,-,@-.,,

Alt,

1Y
--P
g, @, :-,
m J%j - @-4. ..
91
P iK

d-
@WN
Uwlk
NOW

-mg
AX

@aha

CREST
WELLS HARBOR NATURAL FEATURES CIR,
LEGEND
Exposed at LDw Water

Shoal Draft at Lv, Waw

Moorings ORIGINAL CORPS DREDGE
Chanaef kNuiring Periodic Maintenance 1, 6'Anchorage Area
Dredging 2 10'Sculiq basir)
3 6' bulcr Channc) NOTE:
Beach Ametiork Clannel and I=t
fontlation
Beach Erosion graph$ (to
harbor In
wn 0( wo

FIGURE 3.3

V COMMERCIAL FISHING

Local historians indicate that commercial fishing vessels have operated out of Wells Harbor
since the 1800s, though the present support facilities at the harbor have only been in place since the
1960s. Lobstering is the major commercial fishing endeavor; while some of the lobster boats
bring in a substantial tuna catch during certain times of the year (and scallops and other species on
occasion), these boats are used primarily as lobster boats. This section will therefore focus on the
lobster industry and provide background information on and a discussion of the importance of the
Wells lobster fleet to the local economy. Sheflfish have also been important historically as a com-
mercial resource; this topic is discussed separately in chapter VIII.

Overview

Lobstering is one of Maine's oldest and most consistently productive industries. In 1889
the total catch was 24.5 million pounds; in 1989 the catch was 23.4 million pounds. But while the
catch has remained stable, keeping pace has required a far greater expense of time and money.
There are now twenty times as many traps and four times as many lobstermen fishing today as in
1889. With this amount of pressure being exerted on the resource, fears of overfishing in the late
1960s seemed to be justified as more boats and traps were yielding fewer lobsters each yex. This
trend continued until 1978, when the catch, for reasons still unknown, began to increase. Several
theories have been advanced to explain the stabilization of the lobster stocks, from a slight warm-
ing of the ocean water that scientists believe may contribute to the survival of a greater number of
young post-larval lobsters, to a decrease in the numbers of groundfish that prey on juvenile lob-
sters,

York County Lobster Lbindings: 1980 - 1990

Year Catch Value M
1980 1,313,455 2,482,535
1981 1,240,756 2,516,977
1982 1,143,648 2,549,391
1983 1,216,018 2,805,224
1984 1,329,029 3,337,772
1985 1,472,407 3,490,348
1986 1,429,033 3,483,518
1987 1,354,139 3,898,762
1988 1,516,083 4,349,321
1989 1,543,912 4,227,060
1990 2,098,391 -4,992,680

For whatever reason, figures compiled by the National Marine Fisheries Service for York
County illustrate that while there were periodic downturns, the trend for 1980-1990 is a 60% in-
crease in the catch. This translates to a doubling of the 1980 dockside value of $2,482,535, to
$4,992,680 in 1990. However, the average price paid per pound to York County lobstermen de-
clined by almost 25% over the same period, from $2.94 to $2.37. Similarly, the record statewide
landing for 1990 of 28.1 million pounds did not translate into a.bumper year for lobstermen as
prices in all markets were severely depressed.

5.0 Pounds
---- Total $
4.5 ToW Adjusted I
> Pound
4.0 Z
3.5 $3.50 i;l
CD
3.0 $3.00 -o
2.5 $2.50
2.0 $2.004

05.

0.0.
1980 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 1990

Y E A R

In order to avoid another bleak season, the Maine lobster industry has begun to substantial-
ly expand its marketing efforts. If the trend of the past decade is an indicator of a sustainable in-
crease in the lobster harvest, lobstermen need to develop new markets to maintain enough demand
to keep prices up.

Wells Harbor Fleet and Facilities

Wells harbor has supported a small but viable lobster fleet since the [early 1900s]. In the
1950s the fleet was a stable six to eight boats. Although no precise data is available, it may be as-
sumed that the size of the fleet increased in 1961, when harbor dredging and accompanying con-
struction dramatically upgraded the facilities available to commercial fishermen. In 1973, the earli-
est year for which hard data is available, there were 24 commercial boats in Wells harbor, most of
which were presumably geared for lobstering. The following table illustrates the fluctuations in the
commercial fleet.

Commercial Lobster Boats Berthed in Wells Harbor

Year Number of Vessels
1950S 6-8
.1965 24
1973 24
1978 11
1985 28
1990 22

The drop from 24 commercial boats in 1973 to 11 in 1978 was caused primarily by the
shoaling in -the harbor during that period. In the 1970s it was not as difficult to obtain a mooring in
other area harbors as it is today, and the worsening accessibility of Wells Harbor prompted some
fishermen to relocate to nearby harbors such as Perkins Cove in Ogunquit. As mooring space be-
came much more restricted in the 1980s, additional lobstermen began to locate in Wells Harbor as
local mooring policy gave first priority to commercial boaters, moorings were inexpensive for
commercial boaters, and the high quality of the docking facilities made the harbor an attractive loca-
l
Im. I.In-

tion despite the navigational difficulties caused by continued shoaling.

The harbor facilities are excellent. The town has a total of 5,000 square feet of permanent
piers and floating dockage, the sites for which were created by the dredging project in 1961.
These facilities are located at the end of Lower Landing Road and across the harbor off Atlantic
Avenue. Facilities are shared by commercial and recreational users. Fuel is available at the Lower
Landing pier, the larger of the two dock areas, as is dockage for dinghies. Several floating docks
off the pier are accessed by a ramped walkwayand there is a slip equipped with'a mechanical hoist
for offloading. Across the harbor, the Atlantic Avenue pier is also connected tofloating docks, but
there are no marine support services available beyond parking.

Wells Harbor Landings and Economic Impact

According to the Wells Harbor Master, full-time lobsterboats fish a rough average of 600
traps, and 'part-time boats a rough average of 150 traps. Of the 22 boats currently lobstering out of
Wells, 8 are full-time and 14 are part-time, which works to a total of approximately 6,900 traps
being fished out of Wells harbor. Based on that *information, we have provided two estimates of
the Wells lobster fleets' landings in pounds and dollars for 1990. The information from local fish-
ermen is the most reliable data, but it is helpful to provide an alternative estimate for purposes of
comparison.

In 1990 the Wells Harbor Advisory Committee compiled an estimate for lobster landings
through a survey of all the lobstermen in the harbOL 'Me committee calculated the total landings at
Wells Harbor to be approximately 100,000 pounds in 1989.

Wells Lobster Landings (1): 1990

Total Wholesale Dockside Economic
Total
Pounds $/Lb. Value Multiplie Value
100,000 2.38 $238,000 2 $476,000

Source: Wells Town Manager

As part of an ongoing research.and tracking program, the Department of Marine Resources
analyzes data collected from a rotating random sampling of seafood wholesalers around the state.
From this data it is possible to extrapolate an approximate statewide 'catch per trap' figure, which
provides, in conjunction with number of traps fished out of Wells, a rough estimate of the landings
for the Wells lobster fleet. An examination of wholesale prices then establishes the value of the
catch. The following table calculates the catch and value for the Wells lobster fleet based on
statewide catch figures.

Wells Lobster Landings (2): 1990*

of Lobster Lbs./Trap/ Total Wholesale Dockside Economic Total
Boats of Traps Year** Pounds $/Lb. Value Multiplier Value

22 6,900 10.0 69,000 2.38 $164,220 2 $328,442

**SoLrce: Department of Marine Resources

Iliese figures are based on several assumptions. 11c ratio of full-time to part-time boats is estimated by the
Wells harbormaster to be 30/70, widi a concomitant traps-fislied ratio of 600/150.

Pounds per trap per year is figured on a statewide basis by dividing the total statewide catch by the number of
traps fished statewide. '17he total statewide number of traps is itself an estimate prepared by DMR. It should be Op
noted that the Lbs./Trap/Year figure which is the cornerstone of the second estimate is a statewide average and thus
subject to many variables, and is presented only as a gross approximation for the purpose of comparison. Ile
wholesale price per pound is based on the York County average for 1990. The economic multiplier is an attempt to
quantify the community-wide effect of the income spent by lobstermen and wholesalers on goods and services related
to their livelihoods. Becau.se the multiplier can not calculate the retail income derived from lobster sales (specific
data is unavailable), the actual overall impact.on, the local economy is much greater than $476,000, given the numer-
ous restaurants and seafood outlets in the Wells area. See Chapter VI, ECO&OMY, for a discussion of the impact of or
retail lobster sales.

The 1990 Wells landing of 100,000 pounds represented roughly 5% of the York County
total catch of 2,098,391 pounds. However, in 1990 Wells was home to 8% of the county's 288
lobsterboats. This discrepancy may be explained by the conditions of Wells harbor, which prevent
lobstermen from tending their traps as frequently as their colleagues up and down the coast.

VI RECREATIONAL BOATING

Because of its location in the seasonally popular coastal area of southern Maine, its proxim- .
ity to recreational beach areas and to sportfishing grounds, Wells harbor is, geographically, ideally
suited for he recreational boater. This is reflected in the increasing numbers of recreational boaters
in the harbor: in 1979 there were 76 recreational boats on moorings and another 60 or so on,the
town waiting list; by 1990 there were 107 recreational boats in the harbor and another 290 on Ahe
waiting list. This 219% increase in recreational boating traffic has been a boon for local support
services and the downtown economy.

In 1979 there were 76 recreational boats on moorings in Wells harbor, and another 60 on
the waiting list. When we take two-thirds of 60 (to account for applicants who are on multiple.
waiting lists at other harbors) and add the sum to 76, we see that total demand for recreational
boats in 1979 was 116 boats. To determine current demand, the 107 recreational boats on moor-
ings is added to two-thirds of the 290 boat-long waiting list for a total demand of 298 boats.
Therefore, the total Wells harbor recreational demand increased from 116 boats in 1979 to 298 in
1990, a 14% annual increase.

Recreational Demand, 1979 '-1990
Moorings for Total Annual
Year Recreational Boats Waiting List Adjusted W. L. Demand Percent Increase
1979 76 60 40 116
1990 107 290 191 298 14%

Source: Wells Harbor Committee
Waiting list is adjusted by 2/3 to account for owners listing their vessels for a mooring in more than one harbor

Local and Regional Studies

The Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission recently completed the Southern
Maine Regional Berthing Study (1991). This study projects supply'and demand for boating facili-
ties through the year 2000 for the entire York County coast. The study concludes that, county-
wide, demand for boating facilities is likely to increase by about 7% annually over the next decade.

The only local projections developed recently in York County werefor the Saco River.
The Saco River Public Access Study (1988) projected annual increases in boating demand ranging
from 2.3% to 14%. The mid-range estimate was 8%.

A study done for the Portland region (Childs Engineering Corporation, 1989) projects,
9
boating demand to increase in that region by 5% annually.

Taken together, existing local and regional studies suggest that the annual increase in de-
mand in southern Maine will be about 7%. This translates into a 70% increase by the year 2000
for a total demand of 507 boats.

Mooring Plans
f@

The existing (1990) mooring layout in Wells Harbor is illustrated in Figure 7.1. Because

of the constraints imposed by harbor in-fill, the Harbor Master cannot work off a mooring plan,
but must rather site moorings according to available water. This results in something of a catch-22:
In order to safely accommodate a reasonable number of vessels in the harbor (relative to recreation-
al and commercial demand), he needs to use as much available deep water as possible -- but be-
cause deep water is at a premium, this requires him to moor vessels in the inner channel and in the
approach to,the town dock. This compounds:the safety hazards of navigating through shoal
water.

The following mooring supply projections are presented in reference to scenarios dis-'
cussed in Chapter XII (see also Figures 7.1 & 7.2).
Wells Harbor Mooring Supply

Layout Number of Vessels

Current:
Single Point in Available Deep Water (1990) 98

Projected:
Fore-and Aft/ Original Corps Dredge 123
Fore-and-Aft/ Including Other Deep Water 172
Single Point/ Original Corps Dredge 68
Single Point/ Including Other Deep Water 82

A complete discussion of official town mooring policy is located in Appendix G; Town of
Wells Harbor Ordinance.

Water Sports

Wells Harbor has a beach area well suited for launching windsurfers, canoes, and small
sail boats, and these craft use the area regularly. It also has a boat ramp that is used for launching
jet skis as well as boats. The harbor and estuary provide excellent opportunities for the passive
recreational sports such as windsurfing, sailing and canoeing. let skis and water s1ders also fre-
quent the harbor during the warm summer months'.

To protect the integrity of the harbor as a recreational and commercial resource, some
compromises will need to be made. Not all water-based sports are appropriate in the harbor.
Water skiing and jet skiing, for example, require speed and space in amounts disproportionate to
other harbor uses. Additionally, the water is so shallow in so many places that these high speed
uses pose a serious safety risk. With an ocean full of open water just outside the mouth of the har-
bor, it is more appropriate to reserve the calmer harbor waters for canoe, day sailer, dingy traffic,
and windsurfing. Windsurfing is a relatively low intensity use that can nevertheless cause prob-
lems in the mooring area -- the Harbor Plan Committee has suggested that windsurfing be limited
to the area south of the mooring area.

Wells Harbor Existing Conditions, 1990

Mooring PlanJO ri&W Anny Corps Dredge
DRIVE Existing Mooring Plan/Based on Locations
4W of Suitable Depth
-S0-Ce: Aerial Photographs Flown In August, 19901SURPC

FIGURE 6.1

lllkk lllhk I Ilk

FIGURE 6.2a FIGURE 6.2b

Wells Harbor Mooring P
R
23 Forz-and Aft M=ings
,-,9 MooringsOutside Dredge
Wells Har or Mooring Plan/Original Corps Dredge 172 TOW Mooring&/Tort-and-
123 Foreand-Aft MooringWrigistal Corps Dredge

FIGURE 6.2c

SINGLE-POINT MOORING SPECIFICATIONS FORE-AND-AFT MOORING SPECIFICATIONS
S@Itlirtg Basin SerilinE Basin
101 MLW + 8'Ayg. Tide x 2 (2:1 Scope) = 36'of 3/4 Nylon Line IV MLW + 8'Avg. Tide x 2 (2:1 Scope) = 36 of 3/4 Nylon Line
+ 25'(Avg. Length of Bow in Wells Harbor) - 62'Mooring Radius, Fon, and Aft = 72'+ 25'(Avg. Length of Boat in Wells Harbor)
Acceptable Overlap 25% Mooring Grid of 93', Individual Moor - Appraut. 10T Long 'Slips' (Distance ller-= Bouorn Chains).
Ing Diameter of 124'. Width of'Slipw is 30r, Based on Fxpcrienco of Perkins Cove Harbor
Master. 1w

Anchora
6'MLW +WAvg.Tidex2 (2:1 Scope) - 28'of3/4 Nylon Line
Ancbonge Fon; and Aft - 56 + 25'(Avg. Length of Boat in Wells Harbor) w
8'MLW + S'Avg. Tide x 2 (2:iSc*pe) 28'of 314 Nylon Une Approx@ g(T Long *Slips" (Distance Between Bottom Chains).
+ Z5'(Avg, Length of Boat in Wells Harbor) - YY Mming'Radius. Width of'Slip' is 301, Based on Experience of Perkins Cove Harbor
AccepUble Overlap 25% - Mwring Grid of 75% Individual Moor- Master. w
ing Dia@etcr of 100'.

G-ral Features
28. 'Heiq Chain is laid perpendicular to the uis of the fore-and-aft mooring
1, whorm: at intervals based on depth. clicsired scope, and length of vessels.
Chain is mchored at each end by a heavy weight- Heavy nylon mooring
lines are made off to the cbal@ &I Intervals based on the same factors, and Wells Harbor Mooring Pion/Singlg-P
are then sort up to mming floats and pe-anis. 68 Single,-Point Moorings Within Ong

VII ECONOMY

Overview

The economy of the town of Wells is fundamentally based on the value of seasonal visitors.
The population increases three-fold during the summer months and that season, defined as the
months of July, August and September, accountsIor 50% of the town'stotal taxable sales. A
more specific indicator of the town's dependence on tourism is the value of restaurants and hotels,
motels and campgrounds. Restaurant and lodging sales constitute no less than 36% of any quar-
ter's total taxable sales; for the third quarter alone they constitute 62% of the total.

Total Taxable Sales & Restaurant/Lodging Sales, Wells: 1990

Restaurant & Rest. & Lodging
Ouarte Total Taxable Sales Lodging Sales as % of Total
January-March $ 6,171,500 $ 2,201,800 36%
April-June 15,318,400 6,643,600 43
July-September 33,022,300 20,459,000 62
October-December 11,682,100 4,737M0 41
TOTAL $66,194,300 $34,042,300 51%
$40,000,000 Total Taxable Sales

Restaurant &
30,000,000 Lodging Sales

20,000,000

10,000,000

0.
Jan.-March April-June July-Sept. Oct - Dec.
QUARM

The 1991 guide to Wells published by the Wells Chamber of Commerce lists 70 businesses
that provide accommodations for visitors; of these, 34 are listed as being open only for the summer
season. in addition, there are 15 campgrounds/RV parks listed in the guide. According to -esti-
mates by the Regional Planning Commission in 1989, Wells has approximately 555 year-round
rooms, 1,157 seasonal rooms, and 1,977 campground spaces.

The people who generate this business are drawn to Wells for a variety of reasons. Many
come specifically for the beaches. The Town Manager has.used parking lot revenues to estimate
seasonal foot-traffic to the beaches from the parking lots to be 27,600, based on a conservative es-
timate of two occupants per vehicle. As this works out to only 460 people per day (assuming a 60
day peak season) this obviously does not account for foot-traffic from other parking areas and sea-
sonal residences.

The harbor area around the terminus of Lower Landing Road is also a popular destination.
The harborside restaurant, harbor pier, boat launching ramp, sailboard launch area and the soon-to-
be completed passive harbor park are all harbor attractions. Wells hosts two summer festivals, the
Wells Harbor Park Day, and the Annual Sand Sculpture Contest.

Wells Harbor Economics

The Wells harbor area contributes directly and indirectly to the town's finances. The eco-
nomic benefits of the harbor can be looked, at in, terms of a) the marine and tourist-oriented facilities
created from filled areas; b) the increased numbers of recreational and commercial vessels in the
harbor; and c) the increased value of the commercial fishing f1eeL Jbe following revenues are de-
rived directly from harbor facilities.

Marine & Tourist Facility Revenues: 1990
Restrooms $ 319
Boat launch 2,250
Restaurant rent 7,348
Parkiniz lots 148,045
TOTAL 157,962

Commercial & Recreational Boating Revenues: 1990
Boat excise tax $ 9,556
Boat registration fees 1,368
(includes R. V. s)
Moorinf!s 22,918
TOTAL 33,842

Commercial Fish Revenues: 1989
22 Lobster boats $ 199,307
15 Tuna Boats 46,620
3 Charter boats 3,333
TOTAL 249,260
TOTAL DIRECT VALUE $ 441,064

In addition, the town receives the following indirect revenue from the lotal lobster industry
by the economic multiplier effect. The Wells guide lim 15 restaurants that advertise lobster sales
specifically, and of the remaining 21, lobster is no doubt available at most of them. Because [95%]
of the Wells catch is sold and consumed in Wells, the multiplier can at least attempt to represent the
effect on the local economy of both wholesale and retail lobster sales. The total multiplier, includ-
ing the restaurant economy, is estimated to be 4. Therefore, 4($199,307) - 199,307 [dockside
value] = $597,921.

Secondary Sales Revenue.- Lobster: 1989'
Secondary Multiplier (4) $ 597,921

TOTAL HARBOR M
REVENUE* $1,038,985

*Data for each category is Iast-year available. Total figure is therefore an approximation representing a com-
bination of data-years.

VIII LAND -USE SURROUNDING THE HARBOR

The vast majority of the land immediately surrounding the harbor is marshland (see Figure
8. 1). Most of this marshland is in the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge and is owned and
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Service. There are pockets of marshland here and there
that remain.in private ownership. The marshland owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
zoned by the town as 'resource protection' and development is not allowed. Those portions of the
marsh that are in private ownership are in the same zone as the adjacent upland (see below).

The upland adjacent to the inland side of the marsh is fairly heavily developed with residen-
tial structures and an occasional commercial establishment. 'Ibis land is zoned either "residential
A" or "business B" with 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes and no minimum shore coverage restric-
tions. The pattern of development along this western side of the marsh is sporadic: there are sever-
al subdivisions With housing densities greater than current zoning allows, there are a number of
shoreland segments developed at about the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size, and there are a
few sections presently undeveloped.

The barrier islands to the east of the harbor are some of the most densely developed land
segments in Maine. The minimum lot size for the Wells Beach barrier is 5000 square feet; the en-
tire barrier is developed at this density or greater with average lot coverage (including
driveways,etc.) amounting to approximately 80%. The development is almost all residential; a
small portion near Mile Road is dominated by commercial establishments. The Drakes Island bar-
rier is exclusively residential with average lot sizes slightly larger, reflecting the current minimum
lot size of 7,500 square feet.

The upland north of the harbor area, most of which is encompassed by the Wells Reserve,
is zoned "rural" and the minimum lot size is 100,000 square feet. This land is largely undeveloped
and contains high numbers of deer and other wildlife.

The shoreland immediately adjacent to the normal high water line or the upland edge of the
marsh is addressed by the towns Shoreland Zoning.

The upland in the immediate vicinity of the town landing is in the Harbor Village District.
Uses currently permitted or conditionally permitted in this district include Bed and Breakfasts, ho-
tels/motels, passive recreation, retail business, restaurants, and accessory uses including piers and
docks. The existing uses in the district include a restaurant, a marina, the town dock & facilities,
parking lots, and a passive park.

The Harbor Plan Committee supports the proposed Comprehensive Plan's recommendation to keep
the level of use roughly as it is now in this district.

Ila, Illa, A

A b R)
M) R

VCR

WELLS HARBOR AREA PARCEL MAP/
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN

RP Resource Protection
RC Resou,w Conservation
BR B::ch Residential
ac B h Corn creial
MDR Medium =nsity Residential
cc community Commercial
R Rural NOTE: The lo@ati
H H or and is intended to
W,11, D,.f, C.Vh-i" PI.. 1991

FIGURE 8.1

0
(v

WELLS HARBOR AREA STRUCTURAL DENSITY, 1990

stmccures

4-4., w'lls A.@', Qr-

FIGURE 8.2

IX NATURAL AREAS

Wells Harbor is surrounded on several sides by large expanses of salt marsh that serves as
habitat for an abundance of wildlife. Most of this marshland is now part of the Rachel Carson
National Wildlife Refuge, one of 450 wildlife refuges nation-wide owned by the federal govern-
ment and administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Rachel Carson Refuge was es-
tablished in 1966 and now includes 10 divisions along the southern Maine coast stretching from
Kittery to Cape Elizabeth. The division that includes the Wells Harbor area is referred to as the
Lower Wells Division (see figure 10. 1).

This marshland and adjacent upland is considered an important environmental resource by
residents of Wells and government agencies alike. In the early 1980s, the Town of Wells, the State
of Maine, Laudholm Trust, and the Federal Government (represented by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration or NOAA) together established the Wells National Estuarine Research
Reserve, an educational and research organization dedicated to studying the area's natural resources
and enhancing public awareness and understanding of the estuarine environment. The Wells
Reserve is one of only 19 such reserves in the country, a fact that reflects the national significance
NOAA attributes to this area. The Wells Reserve is now governed by the Reserve Management
Authority, a board established by the Maine Legislature and Governor 'McKeman and comprised of
representatives from the Town of Wells, the Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service., the University of Maine, and the Laudholm. Trust, a private, non-profit orga-
nization responsible for much of the fund raising that continues to support reserve operations. The
Reserve Management Authority owns or leases only a small amount of land in the Reserve; the
Reserve boundaries encompass land owned by the Town of Wells, and the state and federal gov-
emments. Around Wells Harbor, the Wells Reserve overlaps with the Rachel Carson Refuge.
Both agencies, therefore, are involved in managing these marshlands, although a Memorandum of
Understanding between the two entities gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service primary responsi-
bility for the marsh areas.

A draft brochure about the Rachel Carson Refuge ( U.S. F&WS, 1991) notes that the
refuge habitats such as those surrounding the harbor ". . . attract wildlife throughout the year.
Spring and Fall migrations draw flocks of waterfowl, particularly black ducks. Songbirds and
raptors use the refuges marshes, woodlands and fields to rest and search for pray on their migra-
tions north and south. Many different species of birds, such as the Black-bellied Plover, make
brief but important stops along the Eastern chain of coastal salt marshes. Rachel Carson Refuge
represents the northern-most end of these sand dune marsh systems. Thousands of shorebirds
feast on the rich invertebrate life of the estuaries, gaining fat to carry them as far north as the Arctic
Circle and again to their wintering grounds primarily in South America."

The Rachel Carson Refuge has recorded over 250 species of birds in the refuge system,
and most of them frequent the Lower Wells Division. Table 10.2 contains the complete list of birds
seen in the Rachel Carson Refuge with notes indicating which birds have been seen. in the Wells
Reserve. The Wells Reserve includes primarily the marsh in the Lower Wells Division of the
Refuge, though it includes some upland as well. The Wells Harbor area is also home to a variety
of mammals and includes one of the few significantly used seal haul out areas along the southern
Maine coast.

The Lower Wells Division and adjacent beaches also includes four state registered critical
areas and one nominated (but not yet registered) critical area. A critical area is any site supporting

state listed rare, threatened, or endangered species. The designation of critical area does not result
in any regulation of these areas, but it provides recognition and encourages cooperation from land
owners. The registered critical areas include a small patch of slender blue flag iris located on the
western side of the Webhannet River north of the Town Landing (CA No 48), an historically used
Wells Beach Piping Plover nesting area(CA No. 45), a Drakes Island Piping Plover nesting
area(CA No. 46), Laudholm Beach (CA No. 160). The nominated critical area is a Sassafras
Stand in the Rachel Carson (CA No. 185N). The approximate locations of these areas are shown
infigure_ Wells Beach was last used by nesting piping plovers in 1981. Laudholm Beach (the
northern section of Drakes Island), somewhat surprisingly, served as a nesting site for a pair of
Piping Plovers and three chicks in 1991.

The Webhannet supports a variety of species of fish and serves as spawning grounds for
others. Table 10. 1 contains a list of these species. Lists of the vegetation types found in the har-
bor region of the Wells Reserve are included in the Appendix.

The marshland surrounding the harbor is a valuable asset to the town of Wells: It filters pol-
lutants out of upland runoff and thus works to improve or maintain water quality; it attracts visitors
and bird watchers to the area, thus enhancing tourism; and it provides residents and visitors alike
with areas for fishing, hunting and hiking.

. Access to the marshland within the Rachel Carson Refuge is open to the public. While the
area is posted with signs indicating that "unauthorized entry is prohibited", these signs tend to be
misleading as most common uses of the marsbland are, in fact, "authorized". The Refuge's Draft
1991 brochure states that the following activities are permitted in the refuge: Wildlife observation,
nature study and photography, hiking, canoeing, cross country skiing, hunting of permitted
species in designated areas, and fishing. The only activities that are prohibited are: Off road vehi- IF
cles, camping, fires, pets off leash, and the taking of plants. The Webhannet River marshland, in-
cidentally, is one of the sections of the refuge where hunting is permitt-A

Issues & Concerns

Some sections of the marshland surrounding the harbor and Webhannet River are eroding.@
This is a conce*m. because a loss of marshland constitutes a loss of important wildlife habitat and a
corresponding reduction of the benefits to the town described above. Some of the factors that
cause marshland erosion are winter storms, ice chunks, and boat wake. There is little that the town
can do about winter storms and ice chunks. However, the town can address the issue of boat
wake by controlling boat speed. While there is currently a five mile per hour no wake zone for the
entrance channel and the mooring area, other parts of the river are unregulated. This issue is also
discussed in the chapter on recreation boating and water sports.

It is difficult to accurately assess past erosion rates as no one monitored the contribution of
sediment from the upper estuary that in-filled the harbor following the 1960s dredging. However,
through a process of elimination, one can get an idea of how important the upper estuary source
might be following a new dredge: By determining how much sand will likely come from other
sources outside the estuary, a reasonable estimate could be obtained as to how much fill would
have to come from within the estuary. Timson (1989b), Byrne and Zeigler (1977) and Mariano
and FitzGerald (1989) have all speculated that, in addition to Drakes Island and Wells Beaches, a
significant source of sand for the beach and estuary sources is off-shore sediment (i.e. sand de-
posits in shallow or deep waters some distance from shore). The presence of this off-shore source
of sand would mean that the amount of sand "sucked" from the upper estuary would 'be less signif-
icant than if there were no off-shore sources. This is one area where additional study may be need-
ed'. In the only study conducted to date that attempted to actually locate these off-shore sources,

MGS (1987) was unable to find any. MGS has indicated in verbal communication, however, that
the 1987 study was not exhaustive, and a more in-depth study was necessary to fully understand
the area's sediment budget and presence or absence of off-shore sediment sources.

The Army Corps has recently established a new "environmental restoration" program
(Section 103) ostensibly designed to allow the Corps to correct past mistakes the agency has made,
and to fund actions that will improve the environment. At the suggestion of the US F&WS and
one or two state agencies, the Army Corps has begun studying the possibility of removing some of
the dredged material deposited on Town owned land.in the vicinity of the Town Landing/Passive
Park, and recreating marsh there. While this idea is inappropriate for those areas where the Town
has already made separate plans (i.e. the passive park), the idea may have some -merit elsewhere.
The Army Corps has also discussed the possibility of using this program to install culverts at vari-
ous locations in the Refuge to improve water circulation beneath roadways etc. This idea has been
seen as generally favorable by the harbor plan committee. The Army Corps will not push any pro-
ject under this program that is not supported by the Town and relevant government agencies.

X SHELLFISH

Shellfish have been an important part of Wells' history. The extensive estuarine system and
mud flats comprise an ideal shellfish habitat. The most important commercial species is the soft-
shell clam, Mya arenaria, that inhabits the mud flats of the Webhannet river tidal waters. The
softshell clam is a filter feeder which entraps planktonic plants and animals from the sea water.
Softshells attain their largest size in the lower tidal zonei where they may also achieve a maximum
density of 300 clams per square meter (Maine State Planning Office, 1985). Natural predators in-
clude flounder, ducks, Moon Snails and most importantly, Green Crabs. Softshells are particular- r
ly vulnerable to changes in their stable, low-energy environment: because they circulate water di-
rectly through their system, they consume and accumulate biological contaminants in their tissue.
And because they depend on water currents to deliver a steady flow of nutrients, any activities that
affect the flow of water over the clam flats -- like the Wells Harbor jetties -- wilt also necessarily af-
fect the condition of the clams. Additionally, both temporary and long-term changes in the sedi-
ment structure of the mud flat can harm both mature and juvenile stocks, and prevent or disrupt the
reestablishment of clambeds.

Recent History

Through the 1960s, Wells was one of the state's most productive shellfish areas - the
Wells Marsh was rated as one of the two most valuable coastal marshes in the state by marine biol-
ogists -- and the town took progressive measures to protect the resource. For example, in the early
1960s the town invested $2,000 to successfully control green crab predation. The health of the in-
dustry reflected this proactive management as the annual shellfish landings through the mid 1960s
ranged from 1,500 to 2,700 bushels, with a value in 1991 dollars of $75,000 to $135,000.
According to a recent University of Maine study, the projected total local economic impact of those
shellfish landings can be estimated by factoring in an economic multiplier of 2.85, for a cumulative
economic impact of $213,750 to $384,750 (Goverrimental Services, Inc., 1987).

In early 1965, however, the town was being warned by marine biologists about the in-
creasing levels of pollution in the Webhannet River. By 1969 pollution in the river had risen to
dangerous levels and in March of that year the State Commissioner of Sea and Shore Fisheries
closed the Webhannet estuary to all harvesting of shellfish. The pollution that closed the clarnflats
was caused by two sources. Most important were "the large number of cesspools, septic tanks,
and drainage fields in marshland areas which are washed by high tides," circumstances aggravated
by additions made to the jetties at the mouth of the harbor which apparently reduced the exchange
of seawater in the estuary. Secondly, town sewer consultants identified extensive development
along Route One as a secondary source of estuarine pollution. This development sits atop a
"perched" water table -- a water table typically no more than a few feet below the soil surface and
held there by an underlying layer of impermeable soil -- which is inhospitable to subsurface waste
disposal systems. Poorly constructed septic systems were leaking waste into this confined layer of
water, which was then migrating during ebb tides into the several streams and rivers which flow
through the area and drain into the estuary (Town of Wells, 1980).

To reverse the pollution of the estuary, the town in the late 1970s built an extensive sewer-
age system. The system became operational in 1979, at which time fecal coliform counts were
very high. All thirteen sampling stations reported unacceptable levels of bacteria -- levels exceed-
ing 70 coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters of water -- and eight of them reported scores of 1, 100
or more. The new sewer was expected to take care of the problem, for as the 1980 comprehensive

plan reads, "the Department of Marine Resources... is continuing its regular monthly monitor-
ing ... so that the flats may be re-opened to digging as soon as the present pollution is abated to ac-
ceptable levels ....... However, the authors of the plan were prudent enough to caution against the
expectation that the sewer system just going on line would solve the pollution problem absolutely.
The plan noted that: ... there is is a possibility that significant pol-
lution will continue to exist even after all
properties within the sewer area are connect-
ed. This possibility exists because of a num-
ber of houses built on marginally acceptable
soils in several large subdivisions located
within the Webhannet catchment area...and
also because leachate from the town dump
can enter the river ... (Town of Wells, 1980).

This caution was justified. The clarnflats have remained closed to all but the most restricted
harvests because of pollution attributed to non-point human waste sources in the vicinity of the es-
tuarine system. For the last years for which Wells data is available, 1977 through 1980, only six
licensed commercial clanidiggers worked in Wells, landing a high of 534 bushels in 1978 (since
when landings have been off by two thirds) and a low of 47 bushels in 1980 (Maine Dept. of
Marine Resources, 1979). All of the catch was polluted to some extent and subject to depuration.

Webhannet River Shellfish Habitat

The state has classified the tidal portions of the Webliannet River and its tributaries as SB.
This is the middle classification for tidal waters, lower than SA but higher than SC. If the SB
classification is attained the waters will be suitable for recreation in and on the water, fishing, aqua-
culture, propagation and harvesting of shellfish, industrial process and cooling water supply, hy-
droelectric power generation, navigation, and a a, habitat for fish and other estuarine and marine
life. Attainment of a classification is determined by whether or not the water exceeds standards for
dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and temperature. The state DEP has published no recent data indicat-
ing the Webbannet's attainment status. However, the Department of Marine Resources has closed
the area to shellfish harvesting (along with virtually all other York County shellfish areas) due to
high bacteria levels.

Little historic data on water quality is available for the Webhartnet, but recently several
monitoring efforts have focused on the estuary.

In 1989, the Town of Wells commissioned a study of bacterial contamination in the estuary.
This study, conducted by two microbiologists at the University of NeW'England (Vaughn and
Novotny, 1991) includes analyses of, water samples taken from five sites (see figure 9. 1) from
October, 1989 to September, 1990. This study revealed that all five sites exceeded the bacteria
level set by the state for legal shellfish harvesting. The study showed considerable variation in
bacteria levels by season and by site. The two upper sites yielded the lowest contamination levels;
the three lower sites yielded very high levels of contamination, particularly during the summer.
This would suggest that much of the bacteria is probably coming from surface water runoff origi-
nating in the more developed portions of the watershed. Further testing in the small streams that
feed into the.estuary revealed that significant bacteria loading seemed to be coming from areas rela-
tively close to the estuary. The study speculates that a probable source for much of the bacteria is
septic systems serving homes that never connected to the public sewer. Other possible sources of
bacteria include animal feces, both wild and domestic, that is picked up in the runoff farther up in

.32

the watershed, and leaks in the public sewer pipes that often run, adjacent to the tributary streams.
The Wells Sewer District, however, doubts that the sewer system, which is almost all quite new,
could be leaking.

In addition to affecting shellfish harvestability, bacterial contamination, in high enough con-
centrations, can cause areas to be closed to swimming and other water contact activities. The
U.N. E. study did not find bacterial levels consistently high enough to exceed state standards for
water contact recreation, but readings were high enough to suggest that this could be a problem in
the future.

The Wells Reserve also began a water quality monitoring program in Wells Harbor recently.
The Reserve collected samples at the town dock from May 18 to August 20, 1990. Samples were
collected every half hour, 24 hours a day. The parameters tested included temperature, PH, con-
ductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and oxygen reduction potential. The samples have recently
been analyzed at UNH's Jackson Laboratory, and a report is forthcoming. The report will include
recommendations regarding the type of on-going monitoring program that will be most appropriate
for the Reserve to pursue in the harbor. One thing that is clear from the testing results is that the
site contained relatively low levels of dissolved oxygen (DO). This is a concern as many marine
organisms, including fish, require an abundant supply of dissolved oxygen. Low DO levels sug-
gest, among other things, that the water.is relatively nutrient rich (high nutrient levels typically trig-
ger DO consuming algae growth). While the final report is not yet available, the raw data are cur-
rently available from the Wells Reserve or the Wells Town Office.

The Wells Reserve is planning to develop a program for on-going monitoring in the
Webhannet based on the results of this effort. As both the Reserve and the Town are interested in
on-going monitoring, it would seem logical for the two entities to consider coordinating research
needs and perhaps designing a monitoring program that would serve both interests.,

Threats to Shellfish Habitat

There are three main categories of contaminants that.typically cause problems in coastal es-
tuaries: 1) bacteria, 2) nutrients, and 3) heavy metals and other chemical contaminants. Bacterial
contamination affects the harvestability of shellfish and ultimately human contact with the water.
Pathogens associated with bacteria are harmful to humans if consumed either through shellfish or
directly from the water. Common sources of bacterial contamination include septic systems, ani-
mal feces, and malfunctioning sewer systems.

Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, act as fertilizers in the water and often trigger
algae blooms. Nitrogen causes the most concern as it is usually the limiting nutrient in marine wa-
ters. The growth of algae and other marine plants is typically a problem both for aesthetic and bio-
logical reasons. Algae blooms usually result in a depletion of dissolved oxygen (especially when
the algae die) and many marine organisms need plentiful amounts of dissolved oxygen to survive.
Thus nutrient loading can adversely affect the quantity and quality of marine organisms, including
fish. Common sources of nutrients include stormwater runoff from agricultural land, lawns, ex-
posed soil, and developed areas, as well as sewage treatment plants and poorly functioning septic
systems.

Heavy metals such as zinc, iron and lead typically sink to the bottom of the water body and
settle in the bottom sediment. They are mainly a problem when the sediment is disturbed. Some
chemicals such as chlorine, however, remain suspended in the water and can cause avoidance reac-
tions in marine organisms. These contaminants are toxic to most marine organisms and to humans
that eat affected organisms. Common sources include industrial and municipal discharges, over-

board discharges (chlorine), stormwater runoff, chemically treated wooden structures in the water,
and antifouling paints used on boats.

Possible Sources of Pollution

The watershed that drains into the Webhannet contains the most developed areas in Wells.
The 1990 Wells Comprehensive Plan identifies several confirmed and potential pollution sources
within the Webhannet watershed. The plan identifies leachate from the old landfill as a confirmed
source, and the old Town dump on Route 9B and the Town public works garage on Route 9 as po-
tential sources. The old oil recovery pit on Burnt MiUs Rd is also a likely source of oil contamina@
tion. Runoff from the industrial park and the heavily developed areas along Route I is probably a
major source of nutrients (phosphorous, nitrogen etc.) as well as a source of some bacteria and
various toxic pollutants such as petroleum hydrocarbons.

As noted above, a likely source for the bacterial contamination is septic systems in the
vicinity of the estuary. The Vaughn and Novotny study singles out several trailer parks and a num-
ber of individual residences near the harbor as possible sources.

Part of the reason for the Webhannet's poor water quality is the proximity of development
to the marsh in many areas. When development extends directly to the marsh's edge, the vegeta-
tive buffer around the marsh is lost. This buffer filters out some of the nutrients and other contam-
inants before they enter the water. Without the buffer, runoff enters the marsh directly and is only
filtered by the marsh itself.

Recent Efforts to Re-open the Flats

In the late 1980s, the town became increasingly interested in re-opening the flats. The
Vaughn and Novotny study revealed that all five sites within the estuary contained bacteria levels
above the state limit for legal shellfish harvesting. Additionally the study concluded that: 1) the
highest readings occurred during early Summer to mid-Fall, when human activity in the watershed
was greatest, 2) freshwater, including surface runoff, streams, sewer, and groundwater accounted
for the main sources -- oceanic sources were not significant, 3) rainfall greatly'enhanced the rate of
contamination, 4) the highest concentrations were recorded at the three lower monitoring sites
(those near the most developed portions of the watershed) and the lowest concentrations were
found at the two upper, less developed, sites, and 5) overall, water quality in the estuary has gone
down since 1980, although the Lower Landing site improved somewhat; the overall degradation is
probably related to the increased development in the watershed.

The study also identified a number of very specific potential sources of bacterial contamina-
tion through the "sanitary survey" part of the study. Most of these potential sources were residen-
tial septic systems associated with either single family residences or condominiums. While most
residences east of Route I are connected to the public sewer, there are still a number with private
systems including some trailer parks. Animal sources were cited as possible contributors in sever-
al instances, but human sources were found to be far more probable in almost all cases.

The Next Step

At a Selectmen's workshop meeting in June, 199 1, it was recommended that the town at-
tempt to verify septic system sources by placing dyes into individual systems and checking for the
presence of the dye in the estuary. Once a source was verified the town could request the owner to
connect up with the public sewer. This issue has yet to be acted on by the full body of Selectmen.
One concern that has been raised regarding the dye testing technique is that contamination can be

very slow in some cases, and the dye may take a long time to reach the estuary. Some people who
have tried this technique in the past have cautioned that they sometimes got no results from the dye
even when they knew there could be no other source. Should the town embark on this testing
route, it would be advisable to contact the individual at DEPs licensing and enforcement division
who has been using this technique fairly successfully. Participants at the June workshop deter-
mined that the dye testing should begin on a trial basis at the northern end of the estuary, near
Drakes Island, as this is the area that is least polluted and could be brought up to legal harvesting
levels most quickly.

OtherIssues

Another problem affecting the Wells shellfish resource is productivity. Even if the clams
were legally harvestable, there are not nearly as many of them as there used to be. This is not just
a problem in Wells: shellfish populations are down all along the southern Maine coast. The rea-
sons for this are not fully understood, but predation by green crabs, birds and seals is considered a
significant factor.

The town and the Wells Reserve have discussed the possibility of constructing a clam rear-
ing laboratory at the Town Dock to improve productivity and serve as an educational facility for use
by local school groups and tourists alike. Preliminary plans for a $60,000 structure were drawn
up several years ago. The project has stalled due to lack of funding sources.

There has been little agreement as to what effect a (potential) future dredge would have on
the shellfish resource. The Wells shellfish warden feels that a dredge would greatly improve shell-
fish productivity as the dredge would increase the flushing activity in the estuary and would clear
out some of the sand that is presently suffocating the flats. Others suggest that dredging would
likely destabilize sections of the flats and might therefore harm portions of the resource. At least
one marine biologist has indicated that dredging would probably have mixed effects; some areas
would be improved, other areas might be harmed.

XI BEACH EROSION

The beaches along the eastern side of Drakes Island and Wells Beach make up two of the
town's three major sandy beach segments. Wells Beach is a municipally owned and managed pub-
lic beach and Drakes Island Beach is privately owned but open to the public. Historically, these
beaches have been well supplied with sand and have always been considered to be among the
finest beaches in southern Maine. Both beaches are used heavily during the summer months by
Wells residents and visitors alike. Many residents who own property along tliese beaches derive a.
significant percentage of their income from renting their cottages to summer visitors who come to
use the beaches.

Why are we discussing beach erosion in the Harbor Management Plan? Because the beach-
es are an integral part of the local sand transport system that includes the harbor. Actions taken re-
lated to beach erosion will affect sand movement in the harbor and movement of sand in the harbor
will affect the beaches. Clearly, decisions regarding the management of either area should not be
made in isolation of the other.

Since the construction of the Jetties at the harbor entrance in the early 1960s, the sections of
these beaches farthest from the jetties have been slowly eroding and sand has been accumulating on
both sides of the jetties. A number of geological studies have looked at the sand transport patterns
in this area. These studies have indicated that littoral drift (sand transported by longshore currents)
occurs in both a northerly and southerly direction but net transport appears to be towards the north
(B yrne and Zeigler, 1977; Mariano and FitzGerald, 1989). While the sand trapped along the jetties
has produced some excellent beaches in the immediate vicinity of the jetties, large sections of both
Drakes Island and Wells Beach are now badly eroded and cobble now dominates the beach surface
in several areas. A comparison of air photos from 1953 to 1990 reveals that most sections of the
beaches are now more than 30 meters narrower than they were prior to construction of the jetties.

However, it is important to recognize that the jetties are not the only, nor necessarily the
most significant, factor affecting the erosion of these beaches. For one thing, the sand trapped in
the jetties on the Drakes Island side has been in a roughly "equilibrium" state for the last 10 to 15
years. Hence the sand that has been eroding in recent years from farther down on Drakes Island
Beach has not been caught in the jetties -- it appears that the jetties are no longer obstructing the
flow of sand he way they initially did, The sand currently being eroded from the beaches is there-
fore probably either going around (and over) the ends of the jetties and into the harbor, or it is
being transported out of the system out to sea. The most important factor in the present erosion ap-
pears to be the presence of sea walls. Seawalls reflect wave energy back onto the beach and thus
enhance the scouring effect on the sand. As a beach becomes narrower and the beach profile be-
comes steeper, the erosion will tend to increase as larger waves (no longer impeded by shallow
lower beach conditions) are able to reach the shore. Larger waves can move larger sediment, and
this is why cobble has replaced the sand in many parts of the beaches: these rocks are very com-
mon in high energy wave environments. The seawalls that line these beaches are responsible for
initiating this process, and the beaches were most likely eroding slowly even before the jetties were
constructed in 1962. While the jetties clearly enhanced the erosion problem, the seawalls and resi-
dential development along the frontal dunes of a naturally mobile barrier system are probably the
most important factors affecting beach erosion.

Regardless of the causes, the erosion has created some major problems for the town. Now
that Moody Beach is largely closed to the public, Wells and Drakes Island beaches are the major
beaches open to tourists and residents alike. Since the condition of the beaches has deteriorated,

fewer tourists and summer renters are being drawn to the town. As noted in chapter VI, tourism
represents the life blood of the local economy in Wells; anything that impacts tourism impacts the
local economy. In addition to adversely affecting tourism, the eroding beaches are a serious con-
cern to local residents (both those who live on the barrier islands and those who live elsewhere in
town) who have witnessed a steady decline in the quality of one of the town's most important nafti-
ral resources. Evidence of this concern includes a November 1990 petition to Governor McKeman
signed by 95% of the residents of Drakes Island requesting state assistance with the erosion.

The Army Corps is undertaking a san&transport analysis of the Wells and Drakes Island
Beaches beginning this fall (199 1) which will attempt to definitively establish the dynamics of local
erosion and accretion.

XII DREDGING

While neither the Town of Wells nor the Harbor Plan Committee is in a position to make a
final decision on dredging the harbor -- which decision lies with state and federal agencies -- the
town and its citizens are certainly a part of the decision-making process or at least are in a position
to influence the process. In the interest of promoting informed decision-making, the major argu-
nients voiced to date for and against dredging are briefly summarized below.

Dredging Supporters' Concerns

Among other things, supporters of harbor dredging site the following arguments: 1) The
present "undredged" conditions in the harbor constitute a serious safety risk, 2) the present condi-
tions pose severe hardship on the commercial fishing fleet that is based in the harbor, 3) the
dredged sand is the only feasible source of sand for beach nourishment at Drakes Island and Wells
Beaches, 4) mooring space in York County is now "maxed out" and Wells Harbor is an important
mooring area, 5) Wells has invested in some of the best public harbor facilities in York County --
dredging is essential for the community and the region to realize full benefit from these facilities,
6) there will be major adverse impacts on tourism and the local economy if dredging is abandoned,
and 7) there may be some environmental benefits to dredging.

The safety issue pertains both to entry and exit through the channel between the jetties and
to navigation within the harbor. As noted above, the shoaling in the entrance channel has become
so bad that even moderate seas make navigation dangerous. The Harbormaster himself ran
aground here on a rescue mis sion in 1990. The shoaling in the mooring area has also proved haz-
ardous on numerous occasions as even the most experienced boaters have "touched" in their at-
tempts to access the town dock. Perhaps the greatest safety risk is associated with visiting recre-
ational boaters unfamiliar with the harbor who access the water from the boat ramp. Posted hazard
warnings might reduce but would certainly not eliminate this problem.

The hardship to the commercial fishing fleet is discussed somewhat in chapter V. As dock
access as well as entry and exit from the harbor can only occur at higher tides, fishermen must op-
erate under a severely restricted and constantly changing schedule. As conditions continue to
worsen, it will only be a matter of time before this situation begins to force fishermen out of the
harbor or out of business.

The need for sand on the Drakes and Wells Beaches has been discussed in detail in chapter
XI. Many advocates for beach nourishment point to Wells Harbor sand as the only logical and fea-
sible source for the needed sand.

Mooring space is at a premium in York County and the demand for moorings is projected to
be more than double the supply in York County by the year 2000, according to a 1991 regional
berthing study by the Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission. The study indicates that all
the region's harbors are essentially at capacity and demand currently exceeds supply by some
1,600 boats. As the continued lack of dredging will gradually reduce the amount of usable moor-
ing space in the harbor, dredging is essential to retain the current quantity of moorings. The recre-
ational boating chapter of this plan indicates that the local demand for moorings is projected to in-
crease to 507 boats (mid-range estimate) by the year 2000. This is clearly both a local and a re-
gional issue.

The impacts on tourism and the local economy of not dredging the harbor would be signifi-
cant. These impacts would include the eventual loss of the many "day trippers" who currently use
the public boat ramp; the many non-resident recreational boaters who currently spend money in
town because they moor their boats here; and the loss of tourist attracting activities such as the fish-
ing derbies and the Arundel School of Boat Building and Design's annual launching festivals.

Supporters of dredging have also pointed to several potentially beneficial effects that dredg-
ing would likely have on the harbor environment. Dredging would improve the flushing process
in the harbor which would tend to improve water quality and benefit marine organisms, including
fish, in the estuary. Additionally the dredged material, if placed appropriately, could improve the
attractiveness of area beaches to nesting piping plovers. Lastly, it has been suggested that by re-
moving the sand that is currently smothering shellfish beds in the vicinity of the harbor, dredging
may improve the productivity of the harbor's soft shell clams. These arguments do not pretend that
all the environmental effects will be positive; they merely point out that there are likely to be some
environmental benefits, and these benefits should be considered along with the detriments.

Dredging Opponents' Concerns

Opponents to dredging have identified three major environmental impacts that they suggest
will result from dredging: 1) enhanced erosion of the Webbannet River marsh, 2) Habitat loss as-
sociated with the destruction of the harbor's intertidal sandbar, and 3) migration of sand northward
along Drakes Island if dredged sand is placed on Drakes Island Beach.

The issue of marsh erosion is discussed in more detail in Chapter X. The basic concern is
that if the harbo;r is dredged, the new harbor basin will act as a sink and suck sediment from the
surrounding area. Some of this sediment will come from creeks that dissect the marsh. As sand is
removed from these creeks, the marsh along the edges of the creeks will. gradually be undermined
and the marsh area will decrease. Loss of marshland is primarily a concern because of its high
wildlife habitat value. This concern exists regardless of the magnitude of proposed dredging, al-
though clearly the impact would be less if the dredged basin was very small. The loss of habitat is
important to legal arguments against dredging: State and federal environmental laws, (the federal
Clean Water Act and state laws adopted pursuant to it), contain "antidegradation" provisions that
protect existing uses - including wetlands supporting wildlife or estuarine life -- present in water
bodies.

The concern regarding destruction of the sandbar is quite simple. The intertidal sandbar
now lining much of Wells Harbor and extending up the Webhannet River some distance is used by
a number of species of birds and other invertebrates. Removing a portion of sandbar in the dredg-
ing process would reduce the amount of this type of intertidal habitat in the area and would-again, it
is suggested, violate the Clean Water Act as discussed above.

The placing of dredged material on Drakes Island Beach, which has been part of the more
recent dredge proposals, is also discussed in Chapter XI, Beach Erosion. As noted in that chapter,
geologic studies completed to date for this coastal area have indicated that there is a net northerly
flow of long shore drift at Drakes Island. This means that if a large quantity of sand were added to
Drakes Island Beach (which is now, according to recent studies, approaching "dynamic equilibri-
um") this new sand would quickly be dispersed up and down the beach a 'nd to the lower beach
profile, such that some sand would travel north and clog the Little River *inlet. The Little River
inlet serves as an important source of salt water to the Little River estuary system. While sand has
not blocked the Little River inlet in the recent past (even when large amounts of sand were in

R A K//-f
N

W E L L S
SHORE
REVETMENT

6 FOOT NORT" JETTY
INNER CHANNEL-.*
A A
It0V*q:;;,nL6
LANDING --ft,adims of
IAMO.At F**.ECT
J
.-: C)
C
_R
6 FOOT C NORTH JETTY
ANCHORACE EXTENSION,
TOWN
1,0' DEEP LANO I NG -A.
SETTLING BASIN 70
A.- JETTY
-UPSTREAM LIMIT OF,@W
FEDERAL P 0 ECT 6 FOOT
L 4 ENTRANCE C CIL

R 8 0 R
74- SOUTH J`E TY
EXTENSION

ENTRANCE CHANNEL
REALIGNED AND DREDGED

I&V

A,@

4.j
41

a A

L
FIGURE 12.1 The Major Components of the Army Corps' 1960s Jetty Construction and
Dredging Activities.
Source: I-lie U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977.

beach system) sand transport following beach nourishment tends to be very different from trans-
port under more natural conditions where beaches have adjusted gradually to changes in wave
energy. Inlet blockages following nourishment projects are not uncommon and have been observed
elsewhere in Maine in recent years. Some geologists have suggested that there is a "nodal point"
mid-way along Drakes Island Beach such that south of this point most deposited sand would travel
south. Despite the numerous studies relating to this area that have been completed to date, the
movement of sand along Drakes Island is not yet fully understood. If the concept of this nodal
point is sound, it may well be that sand could be placed on the southern portion of the beach and
pose little threat to the Little River inlet.

Alternatives to Dredging

Any discussion of dredging would be incomplete without some consideration of possible
alternatives to continued dredging of the harbor. The Harbor Plan Committee discussed several r
such alternatives, but was hampered by the lack of currently available information on the feasibility
of some of these alternatives. Five of the alternatives considered at least in a cursory manner by
the committee were: 1) a modified maintenance dredge for navigation and safety; 2)creation of a
new mooring area off of Wells Beach at Fishermen's Cove; 3) relocating the docking and mooring
facilities to the east side of the Wells Beach parking lot, inside the jetties; 4) relocating moored
boats to other harbors; and 5) no action.

The modified maintenance dredge for navigation and safety would be th 'e most desirable al-
ternative, from the committee's point of view. The benefits of this plan are many. First, this plan
would address the serious hazards posed by the current condition of the harbor to all vessels that
use the facility -- commercial and recreational, deep and shallow draft vessels alle. Second,
moorings could be allocated on the basis of a fonnal mooring plan. This would alleviate the cur-
rent situation which jeopardizes the vessels both from damage by collision and damage from
grounding, is a hazard to navigation, and which makes the mooring allocation process unfair to
resident and non-resident owners alike -- five moorings, say, may go in one season and have to
come out the next. Third, this plan would allow vessels to take full advantage of the excellent har-
bor support infrastructure. As discussed in Chapter -IV, these facilities were constructed on fill
from the original dredge, and were envisioned to be the foundation for a perpetually vital recre-
ational and commercial harbor. Given the chronic shortage of both recreational and commercial
berthing in southern Maine, the lack of appropriate shoreside facilities for commercial fishermen,
and the expense and difficulty of creating new facilities, it would seem to be a waste of resources
to allow a location with established access, shoreside facilities and berthing to slip away. Fourth, a
modified dredge would allow the town to continue to realize significant economic benefits from 16
commercial and recreational boating (see Chapters V, VI & VII). Finally, this plan would create the
framework for an environmentally responsible relationship with the Rachel Carson Refuge and the
Wells Reserve and provide the basis for compliance with applicable state and federal laws govern-
ing resource protection.

The Fishermen's Cove alternative would involve the construction of a jetty along the exist-
ing rocky outcropping at the cove and making this area into a mooring area. The advantages of this
idea are that this is a naturally hard bottomed cove, there appears to be little sand movement in the
area that would be intercepted, and there would be plenty of mooring space accessible at all tides.
Additionally, the potential environmental problems associated with dredging the existing harbor
would be avoided. The disadvantages include the lack of parking facilities, and, of course the cost
of constructing the jetty. The feasibility of establishing a public dock at the cove is uncertain.
Committee members suggested that this alternative might include improvements to the existing jet-
ties; possibly these jetties could be shortened somewhat and the excess rock could be used in the

construction of the new jetty. The Army Corps admits that there are some problems with the exist-
ing jetties but cautions that any tampering with them will require careful study. Clearly, the
specifics of this alternative, including the geologic feasibility, the economic feasibility and the lo-
gistical feasibility, would have to be looked at much more thoroughly before any real assessment of
the viability of this alternative could be made.

The idea of moving the town dock across the harbor to the enclave inside the jetties on the
east side of the Wells Beach parking lot was discussed only briefly by members of the committee.
The advantages of this alternative are that the dock would be closer to the ocean and would necessi-
tate much less dredging to remain accessible. Likewise, moorings would be much closer to the sea
and ample parking is available. As with the above alternative, the potential environmental impacts
would be less than those associated with dredging the existing federal project area. The disadvan-
tages are that the area is not large enough to accommodate all of the boats currently moored in the
harbor and that frequent dredging would still be required. The Army Corps has indicated informal-
ly that it would not support this alternative as the frequency of needed dredges would be even
greater than that of the present harbor area. This alternative would also need further study to fully
assess its feasibility.

The concept of moving boats to other regional harbors is dubious at best. To begin with,
all the other harbors in York County are currently at or above capacity (and have long waiting lists)
according to SMRPC's 1991 Regional Berthing Study. Additionally, the commercial fishing ves-
sels need to be near their fishing grounds; they can not simply move to a harbor in Kittery or Saco,
for instance, and continue business as usual. The Wells lobster fleet fishes within a few miles of
Wells Harbor, and winter conditions as well as transportation costs make long distance travel to
fishing grounds unrealistic. There's also the issue of land transportation; 20 out of the 22 lobster
boats are operated by fishermen who live in Wells. Finally, commercial fishing at Wells Harbor
represents an important pan of the community's tradition and lifestyle. One can not simply uproot
an industry woven this deeply into the community fabric, and reestablish it elsewhere.

The 'no action' alternative has been touched on elsewhere in this chapter. The main advan-
tage is that the potential environmental impacts discussed above would be avoided. The disadvan-
tages are that all of the problems described above in the "dredging supporters concerns" section
would not be addressed. This alternative was not recommended by the Harbor Plan Committee.

Agreements/Recommendations: Report of the Barry Lawson Report

The observation of the Harbor Plan Committee is that dredging, even if limited in extent,
could have some important benefits not only to boating interests of the community but also, poten-
tially, to the health of the marshland, the restoration of clamming, and the return of piping plovers.
At the same time, it is recognized that dredging could also have negative impacts on marshland sta-
bility, encourage more and larger vessels, and disturb the ecosystem of the refuge.

The recommendation is to continue the research on the dynamics of the harbor; to obtain a
better understanding of the potential effects, both positive and negative, of dredging and at various
levels; to explore other options in lieu of dredging; and on the basis of evolving knowledge, deter-
mine cooperatively with state and federal agencies, appropriate plan implementation actions to take
to accomplish harbor management goals.

While dredging with the current level of understanding may not be favored, the door
should not be closed to its consideration if trends in siltation, beach sand migration, and reduced
channel flow and intra-harbor flushing continue to have increasingly negative impacts on important
environmental resources as well as on boating interests.

LOWEI( WELLS
RACHEL CARSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE DIVISION
UNITED BTATES YORK COUNTY. MAINE UNITED STATC,
OC ... T.C.T 01 THE INTeMI0. A--
70-3111-30"

UPPER WELLS DIVISION

0
... .. ..... ....

MILL

0
4
akes

W E

It
.41
4v
IZ

-ILE
ROA0
'3 wells Beaeb

L.A.".
G, Rl ... [11,
G a-k. DII..

Upp., W.11. Dj,
L it 1-R Dry,
tn Di,
T

. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . VICINITY MAP
C... 10 2
I
C0-- IN THE 0-1010- 01 ME-T1 70-33-30"
MEAN
OCCLINATION
:7mmwm.mmmci::::=
1973
NEWT N CORNeR. "AIIIISACHUSErTe jUNe.1gea
;tEVI SEO: MARCH 1969 5R ME 770

APPENDIX A Lower Wells Division of the Rachel Carson Wildlife Refuge.

Map prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Wells.National Estuarine Research Reserve
WELLS, MAINE

t"OHRM
wil Ali-

ATLANTIC
0 CEA N

Piping Plover

Least Tern

Iris prismatica
(Slender Blue Flag)
Platanthera flava
(Green Fringed Orcbis)
Laudholm Beach Critical Area

Eupatorium dubium
(Eastern Joe-Pye Weed)
Historical/Cultural Area

Sassafras albidum

Existing Reserve Boundary

Shoreline

(to, Rivers and Streams

SOURCE: Vidoff. L., 1985, The Vegetation of
the Estuarine Sanctuary@
Uain!eS1t1:tcAFti1onn&i1ng Office. Nomination
toI the Official List of Slaine Heritage
Coa3tAl Areas, Rf&iOn 1. 1987.

APPENDIX B Current or Recent Locations of Sensitive and Endangered Species.

This map is from the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve Management
Plan, 199 1, and is included courtesy of the WeUs Reserve.

APPENDIX C Fish of the Wells Reserve'

Species Name Common Name

Ammodvdes hexapterus Sandlaunce
Anquilla rostrata American Eel
Apeltes quadracus Fourspine Stickleback
Clupea harengus Atlantic Herring
Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog
Gasterosteus aculeatus Threespine Stickleback
Gasterosteus wheatlandi Blackspotted Stickleback
Liopsetta putnami Smooth Flounder
meni6ia menidia Atlantic Silverside
Merluccius bilinearis Silver Hake
microgadus tomcod Tomcod
Muail.cephalus Common Mullet
Mvoxoceph lus aeneus Grubby
Pollachius virens Pollock
Pseudopleuronectes americanus White Flounder
Punqitius puncritius Ninespine.Stickleback
Salvelinus fontinalis Sea-run Brook Trout
Scomber scombrus Atlantic Mackerel
Svnqnathus fuscus Northern Pipefish
Tautogolabrus adspersus Cunner

Includes prmarily the Webhannet River and the Little River. This table is from the Wells National
Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan, 1991 and is included courtesy of the Wells Reserve.
The list was compiled by Mr. Sean Murphy, University of Massachusetts, 1988.

APPENDIX D Birds of the Rachel Carson Refuge and theWells Reserve

This list of birds was prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Those
birds listed with an "X" have been seen in the Rachel Carson Refuge lands in
the Wells Reserve.

The following coding scheme applies to the list of birds:

Season

s - Spring March 21 - June 20
S - Summer June 21 - September 20
F - Fall September 21 December 20
W - Winter December 21 March 21

+ - Nesting has' occurred on the refuge, within the past 5 years.

- A species which occurs and/or nests in only one or two locations
in the refuge.

Relative Abundance

a - abundant a species which is very numerous
c - common certain to be seen or heard in suitable habitat
u - uncommon present, but not certain to be seen
0 - occasional seen only a few times during the season
r - rare seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years

Note: This information on birds, including the lists on the
following pages, is inc -luded courtesy of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Wells Reserve. Most of the birds seen in
the Wells Reserve frequent the marshes and waters of the
Webhannet River.

S F W S F W
LO'ONS GREBES Bafrow's Goldeneye ................... r
X Rec-4hroated Loon ... ... .. ....... 0 0 u __Y_ BuIllehead ............ . ........... c c c
Common Loon ........ ............... c 0 C C X Hooded Merganser ..... .......... o o o
P,C,0-0illed Grebe . .. .. ...... ..... o 0 0 X Common Merganser ..... ............ o 0 0
Horned Giebe . @ ... . .. ........... u 0 u --L- Red-t)(easted Merganser .. ....... c C c
Re4-necked Greoe .... ....... . . o u U VULTURES - HAWKS - FALCONS
GANNET - PETRELS - CORMORANTS _X_ Turkey Vulture ....., , - , , * .0 0
Wilson's Slo(m-Pelfel. ....... ..... r X osprey ............. .... . .. u 0 u
Nor,ne(n Gannet 0 u 0 _X_ Bald Eagle . . . , , @ @ . . . . 0
Great Cormorant ...... .............. u Q C X Northern Hamer . . @ . ................ U 0 u u
C"jwe-ciesled Cormorant ........ c c C 0 Sharp-shinned Hawk t ............ u o c o
BITTERNS - HERONS - 181SES Coopor*s Hawk V . ................. 0 o
American Bitlefn ..................... u- u u Nonheirn Goshawk .................... 0 0 0 o
Great Blue Heron ... .............. c c c o Red-shoulde(ed Hawk ......... ....... 0 o o
Greai Egret ...... . .. ....... o o o Broad-winged Hawk. . . ..... .... u U C
SrK7,N-y Egret C c C Red-tailed Hawk ..... ...... .. u o u o
I.A*e Blue Heron .... . . 0 u u Rough-legge-d Hawk 0 0
Tnc(>iotw Heron 0 0 0 American Kestrel u u u 0
Ca-l-e Egret r merim. . _ . 0 0
2- Green-oaCked Heron t ...... . . u c u Peregsine Falcon
X Black-crownea N(ght-Heron t u c c GROUSE - PHEASANT
Yellaw-crowned t4igr-.1-Hefon .... ( r r )L Ring-necked Pheasant t .... u u u u
X G" It),s. __ . ... . .......... u u r A Ruffed Grouse t ................... . u u u .
SWANS - GEESE - DUCKS RAILS
X Snow Goose ..... .... o 1- Virginia Rail ... . .. . ........... .. o o
0 0 _X Sora ......... . . . . .. . . .. o 0
Canada Goose .... .... c o c u Common Moorhen .................... r r
x W000 Ouck ....... .... .. ........ 0 0 u American Coot ........ .... ir r
X Green-winged Teal t .... . ......... u 0 C 0 PLOVERS - SANDPIPERS
X American Black Duck T . @ .... ...... c C C C Blzick.belhed Ploi ................. C U C
mar,,d t ..... ....... ............. c C c c Lesser Golden-Plover .......... 0 a
X Noethern P,ntail ... ........ ... ___ u u 0 X Semipalmateid Plover... . ........ c u, c
X_ Blue-winged Teal t .. .... ........... u o u Piping Plover t .................... .. 0 u o
X No(-J)e(n Shoveler . ...... ........... o X- Kiltdeer t ........................... U C U 0
X Gaawaji .................. ..... ... r r r - American Avocet .. . . . @ . . ....... r
X American Wigeon ........ ........... o 0 _)( Greater Yellowlegs ..... .............. C c c
Ring-necked Duck ..................... o 0 X Lesser Yollow(egs .................... u u c
X Grealer Scaup ....................... o 0 0 X Sciblary Sandpiper .......... .... _ 0 U u
X Common Eider .. ... ............... u u u c Wille( I ............................. U c 0
King Eider r x
_ , ..... Spollad Sandpiper t .. ........ ..... u c u
01d:squaw ...................... .... u o u Upland Sandpiper .................... . ( r
BLack Scoler ........................ u u u Whimbrol .......................... u 0 u
X Surf Scoter ......... ............... u u tj _X Hudsonian Godwi( ......... .......... 0 0
X WhAL-winged Scoler .................. u u u Marbled Godwil .................... r I
X Cxxnmon Goldeneye .................. c u c Ruddy Turnslone ............... 0 0 0 r

3 S F W 3 S F W

X Eastern Bluebird ............................. o o o Yellow-breasted Chat ............................. o o
X Veery ........................................ c o o
X Gray-cheeked Thrush .......................... o o TANAGERS - SPARROWS
Swainson's Thrush ............................ u o
X Hermit Thrush ................................ c u u X Scarlet Tanager .................................. u u u
X Wood Thrush .................................. c c o X Northern Cardinal ................................ u u u u
X American Robin ............................... c c c u X Rose-breasted Grosbeak ........................... u u o
X Gray Calbird ................................. c c c X Indigo Bunting ................................... u u u
X Northern Mockingbird ......................... u u u u X Rulous-sided Towhee .............................. c c c
X Brown Thrasher ............................... c c c X American Tree Sparrow ............................ c c c
Chipping Sparrow ................................. c c c
WAXWINGS - SHRIKES - STARLING X Field Sparrow .................................... u u u
Vesper Sparrow ................................... o u
X Water Pipit .................................. u u X Savannah Sparrow ................................. c c c c
X Cedar Waxwing ................................ u c c X Sharp-tailed Sparrow ............................. c c c
X Northern Shrike .............................. o o o Fox Sparrow ...................................... u u
X European Starling ............................ a a a c Song Sparrow ..................................... c c c u
Lincoln's Sparrow ................................ o o
VIREOS - WOOD WARBLERS Swamp Sparrow .................................... u u u
White-throated Sparrow ........................... c u c
X Solitary Vireo ............................... u u u White-crowned Sparrow ............................ u u
X Warbling Vireo ............................... o o r Dark-eyed Junco .................................. o o u
Philadelphia Vireo ........................... o o r Lapland Longspur ................................. o o u
X Red-eyed Vireo ............................... u c u Snow Bunling ..................................... o o u
Tennessee Warbler ............................ u u u
X Nashville Warbler ............................ u u u BLACKBIRDS - FINCHES
X Northern Parula .............................. u u u
X Yellow Warbler ............................... c c o X Bobolink ......................................... c u
X Chestnut-sided Warbler ....................... u o u X Red-winged Blackbird ............................. a a c
X Magnolia Warbler ............................. u u u X Eastern Meadowlark ............................... u u u
Cape May Warbler ............................. u o u X Rusty Blackbird .................................. o u
X Black-throated Blue Warbler .................. u o u X Common Grackle ................................... a c c
X Yellow-rumped Warbler ........................ c u a X Brown-headed Cowbird ............................. a c c
X Black-throated Green Warbler ................. c c u X Northern Oriole .................................. u u u
Blackburnian Warbler ......................... u u u Pine Grosbeak .................................... o
X Pine Warbler ................................. u u u X Purple Finch ..................................... u u c
Prairie Warbler .............................. o o o X House Finch ...................................... c c c
X Palm Warbler ................................. u u Red Crossbill ....................................
Bay-breasted Warbler ......................... u u u White-winged Crossbill ...........................
X Blackpoll Warbler ............................ u u Common Redpoll ................................... o o
Black-and-white Warbler ...................... c c c X Pine Siskin ...................................... o o
X American Redstart ............................ c c c X American Goldfinch ............................... c c c
X Ovenbird ..................................... u u u X Evening Grosbeak ................................. c u
Northern Waterthrush ......................... u u X House Sparrow .................................... u c c
Louisianna Waterthrush ....................... r
Mourning Warbler ............................. o o o
X Common Yellowthroat .......................... c c c
X Wilson's Warbler ............................. u u u
X Canada Warbler ............................... c u u

* S F W SFW

X Red Knot ........... .......... 000 X Short-eared Owl ................... .. r(r0
X Sanderling ............... .. ...... u0u0 X Northern Saw-whet Owl .............. * '00oo
X Semipalmated Sandpiper .............. aca X Common Nighthawk .................. u
X Western Sandpiper ................... UU X Whippoorwill t ...... ..... ....... uuu
X Least Sandpiper ... ....... . ..... uuc X Chimney Swift ........ .. ... . ..... uu
X White-rumped Sandpiper u0u X Ruby-throated Hummingbird ..... .. u0u
Baird's Sandpiper rr X Belled Kingfisher T ........... CCc0
X Pectoral Sandpiper .... .. UuV WOODPECKERS - FLYCATCHERS
X Purple Sandpiper .. ..... ....... o0u X Yellow-bellied Sapsucker ............... uu
X Ounin X Downny t
U0C cccC
X Curlew Sandpiper .................... (( X Hairy Woodpecker T .................. uuuu
X Stitt Sandpiper. . ......... .. ..... 00 X Northern Flicker T ...... ......... CCC0
X Ruff ......... ........ ............ ,, X Pileated Woodpecker .................. oooo
X Shortbilled Dowitcher ...... ....... rcc Olive-sided Flycatcher . ................ oci
Long-billed Dowitcher ....... ... ..... fr X Eastern Wood-Pewee t .......... ..... uuu
X Common Snipe ........ ... ... ... uou Yellow-bellied Flycatcher . . . ......... 0u
X American Woodstock t uuu Aloof Flycatcher .. .. ...... ......... uu
X Wilson's Phalarope 000 Willow Flycatcher t . . ........ ... 0u0
Red-necked Phalarope rr Least Flycatcher .............. ...... uuu
GULLS - TERNS - MURRES X Eastern Phoebe T .. ... ..... uuu
Laughing Gull ...... ... . ooci X Great Crested Flycatcher I . ... ..... cCC
x Bonapane's Gull uuur X Western Kingbird . ................... r
x Ring-billed Gull ... . .... .. CCcc X Eastern Kingbird t ............. ...... c:cc
x Herring Gulf ....... .......... aaaa LARKS - SWALLOWS - JAYS - CROWS
X Iceand Gull ......... ... . ......... or0 X Horned Lark t ................ ..... UuuU
x Glaucous Gull ... .... ..... ... or0 X Purple Marlin t' . . . . ....... ...... cc
x Great Black-backed Gull .. CcCc X Tree Swallow t ....................... cco
Roseate Tern ................. rr X Northern Rough-winged Swallow t . ...... oo
x Common Tern t ..................... ccu X Bank Swallow .................. uUL
x Arctic Tern ..... .................... ooo X Cliff Swallow I ............. ...... uU0
x Least Tern t . ......... ...... uuu X Barn Swallow t .... ................ Cc0
Black Tern .......................... r X Blue Jay t ........ ........... CCCC
Dovekie ............................ r X American Crow t ..................... CCcC
Common Murre ...................... CHICKADEES - NUTHATCHES - WRENS
X Thick-billed Murre .................... X Black-capped Chickadee t ............. CCcC
Razorbill........................ f Boreal Chickadee .................... r
x Black Guillemot .......... rr
............ X Tufted Titmouse t ... ......... ...... a000
DOVES - CUCKOOS - OWLS - SWIFTS X Red breasted Nuthatch I ................ ccCC
X Rock Dove ...... . .. ......... CCCC X White-breasted Nuthatch t ....... .... CCCC
x Mourning Dove I . ............... CCcC X Brown Creeper t ... ............... . cCCC
x Black-billed Cuckoo ................. . uuo X House Wren T . ............. . . . 0 U0
x Yellow-billed Cuckoo ........ ... 000 Marsh Wren ......................... 00
x Great Horned Owl t .................. uuuu KINGLETS - THRUSHES - THRASHERS
x Snowy Owl ....................... r X Golden-crowned Kingletf ............... C u
X Barred Owl ......................... uuuu X Ruby-crowned Kinglet .............. c

APPENDIX E State Threatened and Endangered Plant List for the Wells Reserve

Agalinis maritima (Raf.3- Seaside gerardia WL, Salt Marsh

Arethusa bulbasa L. Arethusa WL, Wet Meadow

Aster divaricatus L. White wood aster T, Woodlands

Aster durosus L. Bushy aster E, Field

Calamagrostis cinnoides (Muh) Reed grass SC-PE, Salt Marsh

Cardamine sp.(possibly Bittercress E;T
C. bellidifolia L. or (E)
C. longii Fern.) T(b)

ChenoDodium rubrum L. Coast blite T, Salt Marsh

Clethra alnifolia L. Sweet pepperbush T(c), Salt Marsh

Eupatorium dubium Willd. Eastern joe pye E, Salt Marsh

Ilex laevigata (Pursh) Gray Smooth winterbrier SC, Back Dune

Iris prismatica Pursh Slender blue flag T, Fresh Wetland

Rhynchospora sp. (possibly Beak rush E, Meadow
R. capillacea Torr.)

Verbena urticifolia L. White vervain SC-PE, Shrub
Swamp

This table is ftom the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve Management
Plan, 1991, and is included courtesy of the Wells Reserve.

APPENDIX F

Report

Agreements Regarding Objectives, Issues
and Policies
to be Included in a Harbor Plan
for Wells, Maine

by the
Wells Harbor Plan Committee

submitted by

Barry R. Lawson, Conmdttee Facilitator
Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
Concord, MA

May 1991

NOTE: 'Ibis report was a precursor study to the Wells Harbor Plan. The purpose of the
report was to establish frank and open dialogue between the parties with a vested interest in the
future of the Wells Harbor area. This report is an open discussion and is presented here as
background information. This report should therefore not be read as a statement of fact.

Bany Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 Main Street P.O. Box 648 (508) 369-4213
Concord, MA 01742 FAX (508) 369-8609

May 20,1991

Mr. Jonathan Carter
Town Manager
Town of Wells
Wells, Maine 04090

Dear Jon:

Attached please find a 'Ust of Agreements" which encompasses the
agreements reached by the Wells Comrnittee during the facilitated
discussions of the past two months. These are the principal statements of
policy from the committee to the town from which Eric Perkins will
subsequently develop implementation proposals.

I appreciate the cooperation I have received from each of the committee
members, from you and Jack Lyons, and all others involved in this project I
believe that some significant steps have been taken, but realize there are
challenges ahead. It is criticaL that steps toward involving state and federal
agencies in positive dialogues be taken with a "firm but fle)dble" attitude. It is
often not what is done but how it is done which -can spell the difference in
forging these types of cooperative efforts.

Please feel free to give me a call to talk over how you want to proceed, or if
you have questions you would like to discuss. In the meantime, the best of
luck to you all, and I wotdd be pleased to receive a copy of Eric's report and
other "evidence" of your progress toward a proactive harbor plan for Wells.

Since 1Y,
L4AV@
Presid wson

Attachment
Spncerely,
PWresid

List of Agreements

Goals for the Harbor Plan

The committee wishes to develop a harbor plan and ongoing planning
process to guide the protection and development of the harbor and to
establish steps to be taken, or avoided, to achieve the objectives the
town sets for the harbor. Objectives of a harbor plan would include:

* emphasize consistency among the projects, policies and
programs of state, federal and other organizations with the goals
and elements of the harbor plan
* provide an historical perspective of the harbor
0 protect the many interests represented in the town
* be a "proactive" plan which will identify the issues that will
develop over time and prepare the town to anticipate and
respond to trends and activities of the future
* recognize and encourage tourism as a major and continuing
factor in the economic growth of the town
0 protect and enhance the water quality of the harbor,
emphasizing the identification and elimination of cont a*minants
from vessels and bordering residences and lands
* acknowledge the comprehensive plan which currently exists for
the town and to which the harbor plan will be an addendum
* ensure that the plan development/ refinement process will
continue with a committee oversight
e monitor the plan and process every year to determine the
progress made in its implementation and to identify impacts
that result from the plan and harbor development
a promulgate new rules and strong, regulations to implement the
plan with incentives for compliance and penalties for non-
compliance
* produce a set of specific recorrunenclations to the town from this
plan

Seek solutions which achieve a balance among diverse interests, taking
actions which, although they may require some 'give-and-take' on
issues where interests conflict, are in general mutually satisfactory.
Such actions, for example, include:
protect and enhance the harbor's valuable natural
resources (e.g., species, habitats, the refuge and water resources),
while also benefitting, or at least not harming, the long-term
economic interests of the town and the enjoyment of residents
and visitors

support economic interests (e.g., tourism, fishing and
au)dliary services) in part by encouraging business 9pportunities
which protect, or at least do not reduce, the environmental
value of the town and region
eliminate, or minimize, threats to both the
environmental and economic interes@s of the harbor and town,
including pollution, over-use, and inappropriate uses of
valuable and fragile resources

� Maintain and restore a 'safe harbor' (using Coast Guard standards) for
commercial and recreational boats

� Encourage and support research and monitoring by local, state and
federal organizations, promote information sharing and collaboration,
and eliminate current barriers among scientists and between scientists
and other professionals

� Restore and maintain beaches, park areas and other recreational
amenities

Presentation of Specific Issues with Points of Agreement

Planning Process: Seeking A Balance Among Diverse Values

The harbor plan should stress the economic value of the harbor for the Town
of Wells and its region. Wells should continue to be a tourist attraction, and
steps should be taken to maintain commercial fishing and other economic
opportunities in the area. Simultaneously there is a need to protect the
environment and the wildlife of the harbor area, recognizing their
enjoyment by Wells residents and visitors. The town wishes to protect the 1@6
wildlife refuge and to ensure no negative impacts on the refuge or other
natural resources from future development and activities.

To accomplish these'dual objectives, the plan must define the 'fine line'
where environmental interests are protected but economic interests are not
hurt, and vice versa, i.e., to'seek a balance between the refuge and harbor
interests by finding and utilizing* the common ground between conservation
and harbor use.

The harbor planning process includes the following phases:

0 committee deliberation and issues resolution, emphasizing
establishing and maintaining a positive dialogue between the town
and state and federal agendes,,encouraging these parties to work
cooperatively, continually seeking consistency on problem solving.
This will be accomplished through a committee comprised of members
of the harbor plan committee supplemented by members of other
agencies and organizations who have coniributed to the deliberations
on the plan (e.g., Corps of Engineers, DEP, SMRPC, BPL, Maine CZM,
DMR, Maine Audubon and others).

4 preparation of a proactive plan, with boundaries of the geographic area
sufficiently flexible to encompass all direct and indirect impacts on the
harbor and within a ten-year timeframe, utilizing the Southern Maine
Regional Planning Commission's staff to develop inventory
information and plan implementation strategies, with review and
refinements by the harbor committee and then with town boards and
citizens

* plan review, modification an d approval by town citizens and officials

a plan implementation, including the development of rules and
regulations to achieve the goals where appropriate and assuning
consistency with the plan using a system in which project, policy and
program advocates have the burden of proof of demonstrating, in a
written statement, their consistency with the harbor plan

0 plan monitoring over time to measure the impacts of plan and harbor
development, and suggesting revisions to the plan as necessary

Restoring and Maintaining a Safe Harbor

Restoring and maintaining a 'Safe Harbor' includes:

* as safe an entry and exit as possible, i.e., protection from 'death and
destruction'
0 accommodation for various types of vessels - commercial, recreational,
different sizes
0 provision of 300 mooring spaces, as designated in the original federal
project (there were 142 in 1990)
0 accessible boat ramps
0 adequate dock services, a pumping station for boats, emergency
response capability, mechanics, boat services
* depth of 8-foot draft for outer channel; 10-foot draft settling basin

� sufficient channel to mooring basin
� more efficient spacing plan for moored boats
� capacity to meet demand from many types of boats; there is, however, a
preference order on waiting list for -assigning mooring space
� adequate navigational aids (see Coast Guard guidelines), including a
bell buoy to assist on the foggiest days
� cautionary signs posted for the public at the boat ramp concerning the
special conditions regarding obstacles to safe passage in and out of the
harbor

While vestiges oi a harbor would remain even without dredging, the
definition of the harbor would change dramatically in terms of how many
vessels of what types could be accommodated and how well. A harbor would.
remain without dredging, but would basically become accessible only at high
tide, and for relatively fewer and smaller boats. Even in this scenario,
appropriate facilities should be provided to maintain the harbor.

Plan should provide for retaining the harbor as a safe port, where boats
could come and go, both of a recreational and commercial nature. To
ensure that there will be important harbor resources to manage at the
end of 1990s, it is important that economic interests be considered with
other interests. Plan should leave the door open to consider solutions
appropriate for solving specific problems, including dredging if it is
consistent with achieving all harbor plan goals.

Furthermore, to contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of a safe
harbor with appropriate facilities and services, the town should:

set specific zoning limits for commercialization of the harbor area;
maintain the facilities that currently e)dst;
ensure adequate docking and mooring facilities;
contact the Coast Guard concerning the installation of a bell buoy
outside the harbor area, jetty lighting, and the provision of rescue
services;
provide an educational and information program regarding safe
passage in and out of the harbor;
� if there were to be dredgin& consider an additional boat ramp or double
the width of the e)dsting ramp;
� consider a floating dock and other marina ser-vices off Atlantic Avenue
on the harbor side; and
� consider research regarding a catwalk bridge, or boat services, to
connect the marina area with Wells Beach.

Research and Monitoring

It is desirable to include within the planning process a significant role for
research, e.g., providing for information-sharing on clamming research,
harbor water dynamics, beach and marshland erosion and the effects of
various levels of dredging, to mention only examples. Current barriers
between scientists and other professionals must be overcome and there is a.
need to underscore the educational and scientific value of the harbor area.

Among these research and monitoring concerns are:

* obtaining an improved understanding of harbor water dynamics;
a identifying sources of problems of, and alternative solutions for:
habitat loss, beach loss, human effects such as boats, pollution, flood
plain and other uses;
e involving participants from federal, state, local, non-profit, and private
organizations in collaborative efforts, appropriately communicated to
all interests;
monitoring 'before' and 'after' actions included as part of the plan and
restoration programs - perhaps seeking grants for this monitoring from
the state coastal zone management office.

Loss of Marshland

There is little solid evidence of the cause of observed erosion of the harbor's
marshlands in the past. Dredging is not the present culprit as there has been
none in recent years. Althoughcritics of new dredging have pointed to the
potential, problem of erosion of the marshland and subsequent destruction of
a part of the food chain in this ecosystem, few sources of the current erosion
problems have been explicitly identified (e.g., winter ice chunks, boat wakes
and storms have all contributed). There is little scientific consensus on the
likelihood that dredging causes erosion. Therefore, the town welcomes
information to help identify the steps that should be taken to reduce
marshland erosion.

To underscore its proactive approach, the town will work closely with federal
agencies (e.g., Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Service, and NOAA) to
identify the cause of, and possible solutions to, the problem of marshland
erosion. The Corps' habitat restoration program could be a partial solution as
could both reducing the area for water skiing and the speed limits of boats
within the harbor.

The problem of long-term sea level rise is not likely to be a factor during the
next ten years. But harbor planners should identify the longer-term steps that
could be taken to replace marshland (lost in the future due to sea-level rise)
with new upland areas which could be converted to marshland. Identifying
such areas is in the town's long-term interest.

The jetties and their orientation may affect the marshlands, and dredging
probably would cause two effects: (1) increased wave action on the area
adjacent to the dredging and (2) sucking action on the marshland area back r
from the dredging area. The larger the amount of dredge, the larger could be
the effect on the marshland. Therefore, more information is needed on the
effects of different levels of dredging; some of that information may be
forthcoming in research work currently underway.

The dynamics of the harbor are not sufficiently well understood to be able to
attribute effects to different causes at this point Continuing cooperative
research and monitoring of ongoing research by harbor planners are
appropriate. Again, the need for positive dialogue between the town and the
agencies and organizations with knowledge and expertise is underscored.

Flood plain zoning under the state's shoreline protection program addresses
the appropriate uses adjacent to the harbor. Coordination between that effort
and the town's harbor planning effort is essential.

Beach Loss

Major problems are the gradual shifting of large amounts of sand from both,
Wells Beach and Drake's Island toward the harbor's jetty, an accumulation of
sand at these two points, and subsequent migration of sand around or
through the jetties and into the harbor. This observed seasonal pattern
reduces the amount of sand for beach use, and may increase silting of the
harbor.

When the jetties were built, it was assumed that maintenance dredging and
the replacement of the dredged material on the beaches every seven years
would abate, to some degree, this problem. Because there has been no
dredging, the problem has been exacerbated. There may be possibilities of
beach nourishment from offshore areas (if there is sand there to use for the
beaches). Because it has regulations which constrain the options open to the
town, Maine's DEP should provide advice to the town on how to replenish
the sand appropriately. Other suggestions including under-water breakwaters

and structural modification of the jetties are expensive and probably
economically unjustifiable.

The USF&WS may be interested in having dredged material (if there were to
be dredging) used in conjunction as habitat for threatened terns and plovers.
Nourishment from this or other sources on Drake's Island must consider the
'nodal point' on the beach so that material placed on the beach would be less
likely to drift north toward the Little River. A hydrological study is
appropriate to determine what, if any, potential problems to Little River are
posed by beach nourishment programs at Drake"s Island. A cur-rent study of
the barrier beach may provide keys to the solution of the beach erosion
problem.

As a long4erm -issue (beyond the ten-year perspective of this plan), two or
three houses on Drake"s Island are under a threat due to constant beach
erosion. Suggestions for moving these houses before the threat becomes
imminent should be considered, although current National Flood Insurance
Program law requires "imminence" before funds can be used to move
structures.

Clamming

Although clamming has been diminishing south of Casco Bay in general in
recent years, there are two problems regarding clamming in Wells Harbor:

(1) the public health issues related to bacterial pollution, and
(2) reductions in the numbers of dams (noted elsewhere along the coast
south of Casco Bay) in recent years.

On the first problem, research is currently underway at UNE to define the
areas of high pollution and to conduct testing for pollution sources,
particularly from fresh water, e.g., septic problems, sewer leaks and waste
from birds which use the area for breeding and nesting. Low salinity of the
water in dam seeding areas is a probable problem resulting from a restricted
channel which interrupts the flow of saline water throughout the harbor.

Predation is considered a significant problem, particularly from birds, seals
and green crabs. Matted netting should be used as protection as it has been in
the past, but clams must be so protected until they reach at least 1 1/4 in.
There must also be stable clam breeding areas because too much disturbance,
including that which could be induced by dredging (if it were near breeding
areas), could adversely affect breeding attempts. Good circulation and

flushing of water are also essential in the breeding area. A cooperative habitat
restoration program could have a positive effect in promoting better
circulation and in contributing to the restoration of damming in the harbor.

The Jetty lwue

As mentioned earlier, the current jetty (and its alignment) is suspected of
causing problems with respect to the dynamics of the water in the harbor and
the accumulation of sand from the beaches. It is unclear, however, that any
cost-effective structural solution can be undertaken because the Corp@ of .
Engineers may not include recreational benefits in its estimation of costs and
benefits on this type of project.

The jetty is porous and it is likely that sand is getting through the jetty and
making its way into the harbor, exacerbating the channel depth problems.
The town will have to "make do" with the jetty problem unless limited
dredging is conducted between the jetties ahd in the settling basin within the
harbor in maintaining the federal channel.

Habitat Restoration

Efforts toward habitat restoration should be initiated within the harbor.
Current indicators of this need include: eroding marshland; poor clam
breeding; the decrease in dissolved oxygen in the water, perhaps caused by the
increase in water temperature; perceived diminished levels of fish in the
harbor, caused in part by a drop in the salinity of the water; increases in fecal
coliform; increased int-usion of phragmites, also influenced by the decreased
salinity of the water; and diminished numbers of piping plovers.

Several federal programs should be implemented to help reverse these
trends. The Corps of Engineers has a three-year program to begin later in
1991. One of the actions already identified as having some potential for
helping is the installation of culverts in selected areas to increase the flushing
action throughout the harbor. NOAA also has a program run in conjunction
with the Corps; and the Fish & Wildlife Service similarly has a program, with
Corps review, which stresses the benefits to fish and wildlife values. The

town should work closely with all these agencies and encourage them to
initiate these programs on a cooperative basis with the town.

Three steps are also recommended for local action in relation to these federal
programs:

� there should be direct communication and collaboration between
federal and local interests concerning the. steps proposed and taken
with regard to habitat restoration;
� the e)dsting Wells Harbor Conu-nittee should become the focal point
for this dialogue; and
the eventual plans for restoration should become an integrated part of
the town's harbor plan.

Impacts and Opportunities of the Refuge

The USF&WS may have plans for a visitor contact station which could
positively affect tourism in the town by attracting thousands of people to the
area. The town should be receptive to discussing the Refuge's plan and
working cooperatively with the Service in its planning. Moreover@ the town
should be directly Mivolved in the development of all the Refuge's plans,
particularly those activities which coincide with, or affect the achievement of,
the town's harbor objectives.

All planned federal projects. and programs should be con gruent with local
plans. One suggestion to accomplish this.consistency and coordination is to
require, as part of the regular permitting, licensing or plan review functions
of town government, that each agency planning some action in Wells first
demonstrate, in 'a written statement, how its proposed action is consistent - or
inconsistent - with the town@s harbor plan.

Consideration should be given to having the town's harbor plan become part
of the state's coastal zone management plan, which requires federal
consistency.

Water-based Sports

Several steps should be taken in formulating guidelines for water-based
recreation in the harbor. Among,them. are:

� ensure safety for participants of, and others affected by, the water-based
sports activities;
� maintain public access to the boat ramp;
� permit. windsurfing in the harbor, but only south of the mooring area;
� establish a septage pumping station for boats in the marina;
� limit the speed of boats south of the mooring area to no more than 5
miles an hour, that is, slow enough to ensure that there is no wake;
� ban water skiing and jet skiing in the harbor because there is not
enough room to do them safely, there are conflicts with sailboats and
canoes, and they have.potential negative effect on marshland.

Enforcement of these steps should be through the Wells Harbor Master, the
Wells Reserve Authority, the State's Department of Marine Resources, and
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Passive Recreation Activities

Steps to promote passive recreation should include:

� continue current efforts to develop the town's passive park;
� encourage the Landing School to do its boat building near the park;
� provide easy access between the school and the harbor, for field trips;
� recognize and protect Lower Landing Road as a good birding area,
� develop an island of dredged material, if and when dredging occurs, in
coordination with the habitat restoration program, to encourage birds
who particularly like to feed on this type of habitat;
� encourage the development, and perhaps privatization, of canoe trails;
� promote an annual "regatta" and/or other events to focus activities
centered on the harbor.

Note on Dredging as an Element of. the harbor Plan

There was considerable discussion concerning the value, viability, and
feasibility of dredging, at one level or another, the harbor channel and settling
basin. The observation of the group is that dredging, even if limited in
extent, could have some important benefits not only to the boating interests
of the community, but also potentially to the health of the marshland, the
restoration of clarnming, and return of piping plovers. At the same time, it is
recognized that dredging could also have negative impacts on marshland
stability, encourage more and larger vessels, and disturb the ecosystem. of the
refuge.

The recommendation is to continue the research on the dynamics of the
harbor; to obtain a better understanding of the potential effects, both positive
and negative, of dredging at various levels; to explore other options in lieu of
dredging; and on the basis of evolving knowledge, determine cooperatively
with state and federal age'ncies appropriate plan implementation actions to
take to accomplish harbor management goals.

While dredging with',the current level of understanding may not be favored,
the door should not be closed to its consideration if trends in silting, beach
sand migration, and reduced channel flow and intraharbor flushing continue
to have increasingly negative impacts on important environmental resources
as well as on boating interests.'

Background to Wells Harbor Committee Facilitation Project

TI-ds project was initiated to provide assistance and guidance to a harbor plan
committee - a group of local people representing a number of interests in
Wells. A number of representatives from state, federal and non-profit
organizations were also invited to participate in these committee meetings.
Several observers did attend many of the sessions and made considerAle
contributions, adding depth and breadth to the.committee's issue analyses.

Through a state grant, a professional facilitator, Barry R. Lawson of Barry
Lawson Associates, Inc. was hired to organize and run a series of five
meetings of the committee. IEs tasks were to help the committee establish a
workable agenda for its deliberations, both. for the entire project as well as
each individual meeting, to ensure that all interests had an opportunity to
contribute to the discussions, and to prepare "minutes' or summaries of each
session@s discussions. The committee determined that, to the degree possible,
agreements would be reached by the members, and that the facilitator was to.
assist the group in reaching consensus where possible. A final report was also
requested to include a list of the agreements that the comittee reached during
the sessions. The list is included as part of this report.

The committee proved to be successful in meeting its objectives. This success V
is attributable to several reasons:

� it had been previously determined that the committee was not the
appropriate forum to try to determine if there would be dredging of the
harbor. That decision involves state and federal as well as local
interests; and while the committee freely discussed the pros and cons of
dredging, and generally favored finding a compromise solution with
other agencies, the extent, timing and conditions of such dredging, or
even if it would be undertaken ultimately, was beyond the scope of the
group;

� Good attendance by the members of the committee. The chart on the
following page presents the names of the meeting attendees, by session.
Attendance at each meeting was excellent, and only occasionally could
it be said that discussion suffered from lack of attendance of one or
more interests;

� An organized agenda for each session, with the facilitators and Town
Manager's staffs helping to organize background, supplementary and
summary information material for the committee;

� A willingness of all the members to develop the basis for a proactive
plan for the harbor, recognizing that in such a plan lay the foundations
for a future for the town which protects and enhances the local natural

environment and provides the basis for ongoing economic
opportunity and growth for the townspeople;

Assistance from a number of agencies who aided immensely the level
and relevance of the discussion. The participation of the Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and (for the last meeting)
of Maine Audubon Society were most noteworthy. The participation:
of the personnel of the Department of Environmental Protection
would have been most welcomed. Budget constraints were cited as
being an obstacle to that participation-, and

Holding the meetings on a weekly basis for the first four meetings
helped to maintain interest and momentmn toward a common goal.

Members in Attendance 4/1 4/8 4/16 4/2215/13
Bob Bends x
Matt Bley (observer) x
Jon Carter x x x x x
Ron Collins x x x x
Ken Creed x x x x x
Chick Falconer x x x x Ix
Vander Forbes x x x
Terry Fleming (observer) x
Russ Grethe x x x x
Dave Houghton x x x
Bill Hubbard (observer) x x x
John Hudson x
Dave Kershaw x x x x
Norm Lessard x x x
Jim List x x x x x
Jack Lyons x x x x x
Ed Mackel x x x
Marcel Moreau (observer) x
Eric Perkins x x x x x
Robert Pirozok x
Tammy Risser (observer) x Ix I x x
Brad Sterl. (observer) Ix I x
George TOusey x Ix I ;Z--l x

APPENDICES

Summaries of Committee Meetings

April 1, 1991

April 8,1991

April 16,1991

April 22,1991

May 13,1991

Initial List of Committee Members

Bxry Lawson Associates, Inc.
Main 5tnMt FjOL Box 6440 (506) 369-4213

Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 Main Street P.O. Box 648 (508) 369-4213
Concord, MA 01742 FAX (508) 369-8609

March 14,1991

Mr. Jonathan Carter
Town Manager
Municipal Office Building
Wells, ME

Dear Jon:

Under separate cover I am sending the revised letter of agreement between
the Town of Wells and Barry Lawson Associates, Inc. for facilitation services
to be provided to the town in conjunction with the development of a harbor
plan for the town. Please sign onecopy and return to me at your earliest
convenience.

With regard to materials to be sent out to advisory committee members, I see
nothing in the package that you sent me which I think needs to be sent. I
should think a short letter from you thanking them for agreeing to participate
and saying in your own words what you hope to gain from this project
should be sufficient I may want to send something out to them after I have
had a chance to speak to some of them personally, or perhaps just bring some
material with me for the first meeting.

As for the agenda for that first meeting, I would keep that simple, too. Let me
know if you want to modify this suggested list of items.

3:00 p.m. Coffee or refreshments and informal get together

3:30 Welcome -and Purpose by Jon Carter

3:40 Introductory comments by Barry Lawson on process,
possible schedule, and introductions of committee
members - a few words (less than a minute) from each on
particular concerns, interests, or biases he/she is willing to
share with the group

4:00 Group brainstorming of the issues the group members
wish to offer for consideration by the committee during
this process. Facilitator will assist group in categorizing
these issues, setting priorities, and determining which
issues should be logically addressed first, second, etc.

0 rn-moinitv Rplst;- 0 Trnini- 0 mp.t;- F-14@t;- 0 Nnhor-Al RP<niirrP An;;Ivqi,

5:00 Establish an initial set of group goals, procedures to be
followed during the facilitation process (facilitator will
suggest some options), and a schedule for proceeding.

5:30 Final comments regarding number and range of
participants, other factors to be considered, information
required by committee, and other special concerns.

5:45 Adjourn

Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.

9 Main Street P.O. Box 648 (508) 369-4213
Concord, MA 01742 FAX (508) 369-8609

Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 Main Street PD. Box 648 (508) 369-4213
Concord, MA 01742 FAX (508) 369-8W9

April 3,1991.

From: Barry R. Lawson
To: Harbor Plan Committee
Re: Notes and Conclusions from the April 1 Session

First, I want to thank you all for a productive beginning. We have challenges
ahead, but I feel we are off to a good start. I hope that most of you will be able
to participate in all the sessions; continuity will be valuable both for the town
and for you.

In this memo I will only provide the outline from the flip charts. In the
ensuing days I will attempt- to rearrange the information and to organize it in
a fashion which suggests a productive way to proceed. r1l bring that along
with me to our meeting next Monday.

Our agenda for the April 1 meeting, which we followed fairly closely was:

Introduction Jon Carter, members of committee, and Barry
-Lawson (10 minutes)
Facilitator's Role Barry Lawson (10 minutes)
Expectation of the Group Group discussion (25 minutes)
Harbor Plan Issues Group discussion (70 minutes)
Schedule for Group
Deliberations Group discussion (10 minutes)
Geographic Scope (5 minutes)
Other Participants (5 minutes)

With respect to a schedule for future deliberations, we decided that we would
meet once a week in April on the following tentative dates: April 8, April 16,
April 22, and (only if necessary) April 29. All meetings would start at 3:00
p.m. sharp and run until 5:00 pm.

With respect to geographic scope, it was tentatively agreed that we would
include an area one property shoreward from the harbor and also any area in
which there is activity which could affect the harbor or harbor plan.

Several suggestions were made concerning possible other participants in the
group. The committee expressed a strong desire to leave the door open for
Maine Audubon Society participation. In addition, it was suggested that
personnel from the Maine Geological Survey and from a state

harbor/dredging agency be invited,to participate. It was noted that several
people who were unable to make the first meeting are expected to attend the
second and subsequent meetings. It was agreed that all such people would
receive the notes from Meeting One.

Expectations of the Group
Members of the group expressed individually what they felt were the'results
they hoped would come from the committee deliberations. Responses
included:
* The preparation of a finished plan, which did what it could to protect
the self-interests of many in the group
* Plans for retaining the harbor as a safe port, where boats could come
and go, both of a recreational and commerical nature
* The need to protect the environment and the wildlife of the harbor
area, recognizing their enjoyment by Wells residents and visitors
* The desire to protect the wildlife refuge and to ensure no negative
impacts on the refuge from future development and activities
* To define the "fine line" where environmental interests are protected
but economic interests are not hurt
* To seek a balance between the refuge and harbor interests
* To include a role for research, e.g., providing for information sharing
on clamming problems
* To find the common ground between conservation and using the
water for the harbor - setting important priorities and engaging in a
process of giving-and- taking
0 Address the issue of beach use, recognizing the unfortunate
disappearance of some of Drake's Island beach
0 To find a way to satisfy all interests
0 To develop a "proactive" plan which will identify ahead of time the
issues that will develop over time; not to have the town placed on the
defensive but to be prepared for trends and activities of the future
0 To find a way to promote commercial fishkig
* To ensure that there will be important harbor resources to manage at
the end of 1990s - and tell the state that economic interests have to be
considered - plan should not indicate that the town intends to concede
plans for dredging
* To draw in DEP and the Corps of Engineers to help work on the town!s
behalf - there is a need for a positive dialogue
* A comprehensive plan currently exists for the town and should be
acknowledged - the harbor plan would be an addendum to this plan
* This harbor plan should be monitored over time; planning as an
ongoing process, and that it is important to check every year to see the
progress that is made in its implementation and the impacts that result
from the plan and harbor development - a system of checks and
balances should be in place

The plan should lead to some new rules and regulations which have
teeth in them, with fines for non-compliance
There should be a set of specific recommendations made to the town
from this plan
Must break down the barriers between scientists and other
professionals, e.g., on the clamming issue
Plan development process would continue, with this group's
participation, after the facilitation process is completed

Harbor Issues/Plan Elements

� Habitat restoration
- The Corps of En eers and NOAA have new habitat restoration
gin
programs; the town should be aware of the implications should
these new programs be implemented
The Corps might take action to mitigate past errors; town should
be aware of the implications
� Impacts of harbor plan on the Refuge as a landowner, also other
residents (e.g. on Drake's), and vice-versa
� Future of fishing and "safe" access to ocean
- Safe harbor for fishermen and othe:7 boaters
- Maintain viabillty as. a harbor
� Marshland loss (erosion); important to understand cause and effect and
the dynamics. Dynamics of beach erosion need. also to be understood.
Plan should include material to describe how to manage causes of
erosion or changes in land and other resources.
� Clamming - seek restoration of industry by cleaning up pollution and
determining impact of industry on the harbor and refuge. The research
aspect should be acknowledged. Seek agreement among scientists and
professionals on why there is not reproduction.
� Potential for aquaculture in Wells (i.e., mussels) and the possible
impacts
'Tassive park" Eke Plum Island, for instance, perhaps access for birding
Water sports and beach use should be addressed. A lot of information
exists; but priorities must be determined - how to accommodate sports?
40 Expansion of interpretive trails and canoe trails to increase access
Mooring plan - availability of water is a problem
Jetties problem - seek possible engineering -solutions to help solve
flushing problem in the harbor. Does the Corps have alternatives?
Protect existing residences and parking areas
Boundary identification: (a) one property in from the marsh (these
properties potentially have the most impact (b) location of impacting
activities might not be easily definable in terms of distance; boundary
should include all activities which impact the harbor
Plan should address where this plan stops and others start, to avoid
duplication

Harbor infrastructure (mechanical, fueling services, for instance)
should be sufficient to support the plan
Dredging - without dredging, it is almost not a harbor
Relocation of the harbor as a possibility
- to Fisherman's Cove
- to Little River
Define areas for certain boating activities

04
Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 Main 5treet P.O. Box 648 (508) 369-4213
Concord, MA 01742 FAX (508) 369-8609

April 10, 1991

From: Barry R.
To: Harbor Plan ee
Re: Notes and Conclusions from the April 8 Session

Attached please find notes from last Monday's session. It was good to see
some new people who were unable to participate in the first session. I hope
that we are able to maintain active involvement by the whole group from
here on out, as we're really starting "to get down to brass tacks." And please
do what you can to be there sharply at three o'clock.

Menibers in Aftendance 4/1 4/8 4/16 4/22 4/29
Bob Bemis X
Jon Carter X X
Ron Collins X X
ke'n -Creed X X
Chick Falconer X X
Vander Forbes X
Terry Fleming (observor) X
Russ Grethe X
Dave Houghton X X
Bill Hubbard (observor) X
John Hudson X
Dave Kershaw X X
Norm Lessard X X
Jim List X X
Jack Lyons X X
Ed Mackel X
Eric Perkins X X
Tanuny Risser (observor) X
George Tousey X

I am providing the notes a little differently this week. I have transferred,
word for word, the flip chart sheets that I prepared for the meeting; but win
save you the problem of trying to decipher the notes from the meeting. I
have reorganized that information to make it more legible. Look at it
carefully, so that I don!t lose something important in my translation.
aw&,

4/10/91

0 Communitv Relations 0 Trainina E Meetinq Facilitation 0 Natural Resource AnalV5i5

The Agenda for 4/8/91:

introductions 3:20 @ m. (10 minutes)
p
Opening Comments, Barry Lawson (5 minutes)
Preview and Approve Agenda (5 minutes)
Conclusions of First Session on April 1 (20 minutes)
0 plan and plan process
0 �oals or expectations of group
* issues to be addressed by committee
Assumptions, parameters of Option A, i.e., "no dredging" (30 minutes)
Issues To Be Resolved (50 minutes)
Pursue Agreements of Issues
Czitique and Plan for Next Meeting, April 16 (5 minutes)

Actually, the path we took once we got into defining issues was a bit different
than had been planned at the beginning of the meeting. Essentially, on the
basis of group discussion and some good suggestions, we decided to
determine, on an issue-by-issue basis, the degree to which dredging might
make a difference. We stopped short of reaching solid agreements on any of
the issues, but we did discuss the issues to the point that the next step after
this process can be to forge specific agreements. We may get to this stage by
the end of meeting 3; if not it will occupy most of meeting #4, 1 would guess.

Conclusions from Meeting #1

Planning Process
committee deliberation and issues resolution, emphasizing "positive
dialogue between state and federal, agencies," and getting these parties
together to work toward problem solving
plan preparation with key words* being "proactive," "developing a set
of recommendations", that the harbor plan will be an "'addendum to
the comprehensive plan," ensure that plan is integrated with others'
plans, and that the boundaries of the geographic area would be flexible
enough to consider all impacts on harbor, as appropriate; 10-yr.
timeframe
0 121an review and gpproval
0 121an implementation, including rules and regulations*with ",teeth"
0 plan monitg&&-over time - registering impacts of plan and harbor
development

Goals, Expectations
4 Maintain and restore a safe harbor for con-unercial, recreational boats
[see Coast Guard for meaning of 'safe harbor]
0 Seek a balance between environmental and economic interests ('give-
and-take," "satisfy'all interests")

4/10/91 2 Lawson Associates, Inc.

9 M.1. St@t F.O. B.. 646 j5()8).369-4213
C-Cold- MA 01742 FAX 0081 36943609

protect envirorunent and wildlife for enjoyment of Wells
residents, others (no negative impacts of refuge)
protect economic interests (minimize adverse impacts, seek new
opportunities)
� Encourage research (clamming protection, information sharing,
eliminate barriers between scientists and other professionals)
� Restore and maintain beaches
� Address problems regarding commercial fishing

Issues To Be Addressed [to a large degree in order of importance as reflected by
discussion of April 11
� Maintain and restore safe harbor and ocean access [includes mooring
plan, infrastructure for harbor facilities, and possible relocation of
harbor]
� Reduci 'ng, eliminating loss of marshland
0 Reducing, eliminating loss of beaches
* Restoring, protecting clamming (research and exploring aquaculture
potential]
a Understandin& monitoring, regulating impact of plan *on refuge,
economic interests, and other environmental values,
* Addressing the jetty issue (problem and possible solutions]
0 Restoring habitats, possible with help of Corps of Engineers, NOAA,
and USF&WS
Developing guidelines for water-based sports (what, when, where, and;
how]
Exploring opportunities for more passive recreational activities [e.g.,
birding]
Expanding opportunities for interpretive trails and canoe *trails
Providing adequate, appropriate facilities, services for parking, traffic,
harbor infrastructure

Questions to Address - These were thoughts by Barry Lawson generated by a
review of the 'first week's comments and the directions we were likely to
.follow in meeting #2:
Are the goals we have established'so far applicable whichever
dredging/ without dredging option is selected?
.41 Do we have agreement on the critical issues, their. definition?
� Can we agree on a plan process?
� Do/will we need more research'or resources before some issues can be
successfully resolved?
� Are there new economic opportunities that should be explored, others
regulated?
Are there new environmental opportunities including those which
can benefit the economy?
Must environmental and economic interests be opposing?

4/10/91 3 Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 Main M-t F-G. Sox 648 j5081 369-4213
C-cord. MA 01742 rAX (5081 369-8609

Dredging Variations
Some time was spent by the groupdefining various levels of dredging, in
terms of cubic yardage of dredged material removed (or water area affected)
and the effect on the various issues of assuming dredging(at various levels)/
no dredging
0 Maintenance dredging of original channel, basin and anchorage -
200,000 cubic yards (5 acs)
0 Partial maintenance dredging of authorized federal channel- 100,000
cubic yards (3 acs)
0 Minor corrective angling (modification of 100,000 option) - 85,000 cubic
yards
* Open dosed-in mouth of channel only (this is the option reserved by
USF&WS;- in effect abandoning federal channels) - 15,000 cubic yards
0 No dredging, whatsoever

Issues Addressed As Part of Evolving Plan

The first issue discussed was that of "Safe Harbor" and early discussion
focused on the attributes that a safe harbor would have, in, comrrutte@e
members" minds. These attributes included:
* safe enty and e;-dt i.e., protection from 'death and destructiow
0 various bTes of vessels - commercial, recreational, different sizes
* number of boats accommodated, i.e., moored - 142 in 1990, 300 a goal
* boat ramps
* adequate dock services, pumping station for boat5, emergency response
capability, mechanics, boat services
* depth of 8 foot draft for outer channel; 10 foot draft settling basin
0 channel to mooring basin
0 adg:quate spacing for moored boats (current lack of space = damages)
* cal2aci!y to meet demand from whatever type of boat, there is, however,
a preference order on waiting list for assigning mooring space .
0 adequate navigational aids (see coast Guard); need for a bell buoy to
assist on the foggiest days

4/10/91 4 Harry Lawson Associates, Inc.
SO M.1. 5(m,t PO. B- 646 (-,Om 369- 42 13
Concord. MA 01742 FAX 4508) 369-8609

Effect of Various Levels of Dredging
(in thousands of cub* yards)
Safe Harbor 200 85-100 is W/o Dredge
Characteristics (5 acres) (3 acres)

Type of Vessels Full range mom Some Serious
limiting, commercial threat to
restricted boats,:many. commercial
depth, area would go and deep
or both elsewhere or draft boats
out-of-
business
Number of Vessels 300 225 150, but 150, but
limitations on limitations on
commercial commercial
Safe Entry/Exit (depth) Very Safe Saf e Unsafe at low Unsafe at low
tide; delays tide; delays

Safe Mooring (space) Very Satisfactory Limited, Limited,
satisfactory move upriver move all
boats upriver

Dock Services Full range Full range, Same services Very few
but some as now but services
limited limited would be
capacities, capacities; no provided; no
e.g. ramps, marina marina
fuel
Navigational Aids No effect No effect May need Safety aid
enhance-ment will need to
be enhanced

The net effect of the group's analysis of this issue is that while vestiges of a
harbor would remain even without dredging, the definition of the harbor
would change dramatically in terms of how many vessels of what types could
be accommodated and how well. A harbor would reinain without dredging,
but would basically become accessible only at high tide, and for relatively
fewer and smaller boats.

Loss of Marshland

This issue seemed to be one whose resolution was somewhat independent of
dredging. That is, there is little solid evidence of what has caused the
observed erosion of the marshland over the past few years. Certainly
dredging cannot be the culprit as there has been no dredging in recent years.
Although critics of new dredging have pointed to the potential problem of
erosion of this marshland and therefore destruction of a part of the food

4/10/91 5 Bany Laivson Associates, Inc.
9 Mal. Scrt" ra 5o. 6" (508) 369-4213
Concord. MA 01742 rAX (5061 369-6609

chain in this ecosystem, none has been forthcoming as far as the group
knows, in determining the sources of the current erosion problems. The
town is looking for information which can help identify what steps should be
taken by anybody to reduce the problem of marshland erosion.

It was also pointed out that recent seeding of clams has been largely
unsuccessful, again reasons unknown; there is some speculation that
predation by green crabs and increased sand levels may be a problem. On the
other hand, clarruning has been going down along the coast south of
Portland, so the phenomenon is not unique to Wells Harbor.

To follow its proactive approach, the town would probably work closely with
agencies to identify the cause of, and possible solutions to, the problem of
marshland erosion. It is possible that Corps habitat restoration program could
help in these regard; it is possible that both reducing the area for water skiing
and the speed limits of boats within the harbor would be beneficial.

The problem of long-term sea level rise was addressed and it was determined
that its influence is not likely to be a factor during the next ten years. But
then, the plan might well keep an eye on longer term steps that could be
taken to replace lost marshland with new upland areas which could be
transferred to marshland with a sea level rise. Identifying these areas may be'
in the town's long term interest.

4/10/91 6 Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 Main St-t FJO. 5ox 648 j5061 369-4213
Concord. MA 01742 rOkK (5081 369-8609

Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 Maln Street P.O. Box 648 (508) 369-4213
Concord, MA 01742 FAX (508) 369-8609

April 18,1991

From: Barry R. Laws
To: Harbor Plan C. ttee
Re: Notes and ConOusions from the April 16 Session

Attached please find notes from last Tuesday's session.

Members in Attendance 4/1 4/8 4/16 4/22 4/29
Bob Bemis X
Jon Carter X X X
Ron Collins X X X
Ken Creed X X X
Chick Falconer X X X
Vander Forbes X X
Terry Fleming (observer) X
Russ Grethe X X
Dave Houghton X X X
Bill Hubbard (observer) X X
John Hudson X
Dave Kershaw X X X
Norm Lessard X X X
Jim List X X X
Jack Lyons X X X
Ed Mackel X X
Eric Perkins X X X
Tammy Risser (observer) X X
George Tousey X X
Matt Bley (observer) X
X

The notes this week are a bit shorter, not because we didrl!t accomplish much.
I thought our discussions were productive, but we now have to .get on with
the other issues facing us beside dredging. If you can all preview these issues
as I suggested at the end of the meeting on Tuesday, we can have a good
chance of getting through them all at our Monday meeting. that would save
an April 29 meeting to review and approve the range of agreements and
priorities.
r@k
qm=

N Community Relations N Training N Meeting Facilitation 0 Natural Resource Analysis

Our agenda on Tuesday consisted of:

Introductions of new people (5 minutes)
Summary of Accomplishments to date (5 minutes)
Looking at Issues and Possible Solutions (2 hours, 20 minutes)

Marshland Loss

At Dave Houghton@s request, we reviewed the discussions on marshland
from the previous meeting, looking more closely at the effects that dredging
could have on the goal of eliminating the loss of marshland. Our discussions
basically pointed out that more information is necessary and that some of it
may be forthcoming in some of the work that is currently underway by
researchers.

On one hand, it was pointed out that the jetties and their orientation may
effect marshlands, and that dredging probably causes two effects- (1) increased
pressure on the area adjacent to the dredging and (2) sucking action on the
marshland area back from the dredging area. These effects are largely a
function of the volume and depth of the dredge. Therefore, it is likely that
the larger the amount of dredge, the larger could be the effect on the
marshland.

On the other hand, erosion of marshland has been occurring despite the fact
there has been no dredging in recent years, so there is obviously some other,
perhaps natural, causes. The dynamics of the harbor are not sufficiently well
known to be able to attribute -effects to different causes at this point. In
addition to the suggestions made the previous week concerning federal
restoration programs and boat speeds," continuing cooperative research and
monitoring of that research by town plarmers are appropriate. Again, the
need for positive dialogue between the town and the agencies and
organizations with knowledge and expertise was underscored.

The enormous relative effect of large storms was a lso noted.

It was also pointed out the flood plain zoning under the shoreline protection
program is addressing the appropriate uses adjacent to the harbor. Certainly
coordination between that effort and the town's harbor planning effort is
essential.

Beach Loss

The problem of beach loss was discussed in d etail. The major problem
appears to be the gradual shifting'of sand from both Wells Beach and Drake's
Island toward their respective jetties, and an accumulation of land at these
two points. It was conjectured that some of the sand has gone over or around

Barry Lawson Associates, Inc
9 Main 5(Mct FjGL &ox 648 (508) 369-4213
Concord. MA 01742 rAX (5081 369-8609

the jetties and may be also getting into the harbor. This observed drift causes
seasonal problems in the distribution of sand for beach use.

There are evidently problems in moving sand around and in dealing with
the cobble which gets exposed in areas from which sand migrates. It was
noted that even if dredged material were to be placed in areas of sand loss,
that it would provide only cosmetic improvements, demonstrating the large
amounts of sand that are lost over time. Fir

The possibilities of nourishment from offshore (ff there is sand there to use
for the beaches) was mentioned. Evidently DEP has regulations which
constrain the options open to the town. It was suggested that DEP provide
some advice to the town on how to replenish the sand appropriately. Some
other suggestions were posited including underwater breakwaters and
modification of the jetties. These are expensive and probably judged
uneconomical. It was pointed out that when the jetties were built it was
assumed that maintenance dredging every 7 years would occur to abate, to
some degree this problem. Since there has been no dredging, this problem
has been exacerbated.

Dave Houghton mentioned the interest USF&WS could have in seeing
dredged material (if there were to be some) used in conjunction with
promoting the threatened terns and plovers.

Any nourishment of Drake"s Island,'it was noted, would have to take into
consideration the "nodal point" on the beach so that material placed on the
beach would not drift north toward the Little River. It was also noted that a
current study of the barrier beach is being conducted and its results may
provide some key to the solution of the beach erosion problem. Perhaps one
result could be the development of a comprehensive budget of the sand and
its dynamics.

Finally, it was noted that two or three houses on Drake's Island are under a
long-te.rm threat due to constant erosion. Suggestions were offered about
moving these houses before the threat became imn-dnent (current Maine law
requires imminence before funds can be used to move structures). This was
considered a long-term issue; extending beyond the 10 years supposed for the
current planning effort.

Clamming

Two problems were noted here: (1) the public health issues related to bacterial
pollution, and (2) reductions in the numbers of clams (noted elsewhere along
the coast south of Casco Bay) in recent years. On the first problem, research is
currently underway at UNE to define the areas of high pollution and to
conduct testing for pollution sources, particularly from fresh water, e.g., septic

BarTy Law"n AssocWe5, Inc.
9 Main 5tMct F.O. Box 648 (5081 M9-4213
Concord. MA Ot742 rAX (508) 369-86019

problems, sewer leaks and waste from birds which use the area for breeding
and nesting. Low salinity of the clam seeding areas was also pointed out as a
potential problem; the possible effect of a dosed channel interrupting the flow
of saline water into the harbor was mentioned.

For the second problem, predation was considered a big problem, particularly
from birds, seals and green crabs. Matted netting has been used in the past,
but it was emphasized that clams need to be protected until they reach at least
1 1/4 in. Moreover, the need to have a stable breeding area was pointed out.
Obviously if there is too much disturbance, including that which could be
induced from dredging (if it were near breeding areas), such stability would be
lost. Finally, good circulation and flushing of water is essential for good
breeding. Perhaps, the restoration. program mentioned in conjunction with
the marshland could have a positive effect in promoting better circulation.

Next Week

We have several issues to go over for the meeting on April 22. Two of these
issues have been addressed pretty directly already - the jetty. issue and
restoring habitats. I will summarize at the beginning of th@.. meeting what we
have said about them already so that we need not reinvent the wheel. We
have also underscored the relationship between the refuge and harbor and
the impacts of each on the-other. Some of this has already been addressed.
Perhaps I can summarize what has been said about this relationship so that
we can cover only new ground on Monday.

Please take a little time before the meeting to jot down a few notes on new
facts, problems, possible solutions to the other problems which were outlined
in the notes from. meeting #2 held on the 8th but have not yet been addressed
in our meetings. This could be a big help. ThanksH

Harry Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 -(- St"It P.O. 1@.. 6418 (506) M9-4213
Concord. MA 01742 FAY, (5,0,6) 369-8&09

Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 Main Street P.O. Box 648 (508) 369-4213
Concord, MA 01742 FAX (508) 369-8609

April 29, 1991

From: Barry R. Lawson
To: Harbor Plah Committee
Re: Notes and Conclusions from the April 22 Session

Attached please find notes from last Tuesday's session. These include a
summary of the points made. A follow-up document will provide a draft of
the proposed areas for group agreement to be addressed as part of next week's
meeting.

Members in Attendance 4/1 4/8 4/16 4/22 5/6
Bob Bemis X
Jon Carter X X X X
Ron Collins X X X
Ken Creed X X X X
Chick Falconer X X X X
Vander Forbes X X
Terry Fleming (observer) X
Russ Grethe X X X
Dave Houghton X X X
Bill Hubbard (observer) X X X
John Hudson X
Dave Kershaw X X X X
Norm Lessard X X X
Jim List X X X X
Jack Lyons X X X X
Ed Mackel X X X
Eric Perkins X X X X
Tammy Risser (observer) X X X
George Tousey X X X
Matt Bley (observer) X
Brad Sterl (observer) X

The agenda for the session consisted of-
Introduction (5 minutes)
Summary of Progress (5 minutes)
Complete Issue Disscussion (2 hours, 10 minutes)

4/29/91

Community Relations Training Meeting Facilitation Natural Resource Analysis

Agreements - plans for next session (10 minutes)

After accepting a recommendation that tourism development be added as
another issue for the group to deliberate, the group decided to take the
remaining issues in the following order:
0 the jetty (ies)
* habitat restoration
* mutual impacts of refuge and other landowners on harbor
* water-based sports
more passive recreational activities
provision of adequate harbor facilities and services
tourism development

All of the above were addressed except tourism, which will be the lead-off
item at the last session.

The Te!!y Issue

Although the current jetty, and particularly its alignment, is suspected of
causing problems with respect to the dynamics of the water in the harbor and
the accumulation of sand from the beaches, it is unclear that there is. any cost-
effective solution that can be undertaken. Any federalstructural. change is
difficult, because the Corps of Engineers may not include recreational benefits
in its estimation of costs and benefits to the project.

It was also pointed out that the jetty is porous and there is a suspicion that.
sand is getting through the jetty and -making its way into the harbor,
exacerbating the channel depth problems. The general feeling is that the
town may have to "make do", although a more justifiable option for
resolving the jetty problem would be to conduct limited dredging between the
jetties and the settling basin within the harbor in order to maintain the
federal channel.

Habitat Restoration

There are several indicators that efforts should be made toward habitat
restoration within the harbor. Eroding marshland and poor dam breeding
are two. Others include: the decrease in dissolved oxygen over time, perhaps
caused by the increase in water temperature; perceived diminished levels of
fish in the harbor, caused in part by a drop in the salinity of the water;
increases in fecal coliform; increased inh-usion of fragmites, also influenced.
by the decreased salinity of the water; and diminished numbers of piping
plovers.

4/29/91 2 Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 Main 5tr-t r.0. Box 648 (508) 369-4213
Concord. MA 0 9 742 fAX (508) 369-8609

There are several federal programs which can be tapped to help reverse these
trends. The Corps of Engineers has a three-year program which could begin
later this year. One of the actions already identified as having some potential
for helping is the installation of culverts in selected areas to increase the
flushing actions throughout the harbor area. NOAA also has a program run
in conjunction with the Corps; and the Fish-& Wildlife Service similarly has
a program, with Corps review, which stresses the benefits to fish and wildlife
values. 0

Three steps were identified for local action in relation to these programs. One
is to assure that there is direct communication and collaboration between
federal and local interests concerning the steps proposed and taken with
regard to habitat restoration. Two, the Wells Harbor Monitoring Committee
should be the focal point for this dialogue. Three, whatever plans for
restoration axe undertaken should become an integrated part of the town's
harbor plan.

Impacts on the Refuge

The USF&WS may have plans, it was noted, which could positively impact
tourism in the town. A visitor contact station is being considered which
could attract thousands of people to the area. The group's opinion was that
the town should be receptive to the Refuge's plan but not that the entire town
be turned into a refuge - stressing an "appropriate or proper balance." It was
emphasized that the town should be directly involved in the -development of
the Refuge's plans particularly with respect to those activities which coincide
with the town"s objectives.

Some discussion focused on the ways in which all federal activities could be
made congruent with local plans. One suggestion was to require, as part of
the regular permitting or licensing functions of local government, that each
agency proposing some action in Wells demonstrate, by written statement,
how its proposed plan is consistent with - or inconsistent with - the town's
harbor plan. Other thoughts included the consideration of the town's plan as
part of the state's coastal zone management plan, which does require federal
consistency. Just how this latter suggestion might work and whether it was a
good idea were not determined.

Water-based Sports

Several specific steps we're suggested as part of a set of guidelines for water-
based recreation in the harbor. Among them were the following:

� take appropriate steps to ensure safety in the sports activities;
� maintain public access to the boat ramp;
� permit windsurfing in the harbor, but only south of the mooring area;

4/29/91 3 Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 Main 5(@t P.O. box 648 (506) 369-4213
C--d. MA 01742 rAX (508@ 369-6609

0 establish a septage pumping for boats in the marina;
0 limit the speed of boats south of the mooring area to no more than 5
miles an hour, that is, slow enough to ensure that there is no wake;
a ban water skiing and jet skiing in the harbor because there is not
enough room to do them safely, there axe conflicts with sailboats and
canoes, and they have potential negative effect on marshland.

Enforcement of these steps was suggested through the Wells Reserve
Authority, the State's Depart3nent of Marine.??, and the Fish & Wildlife
Service.

Passive Recreation Activities

Among the steps identified to promote passive recreation were:

* continuing current efforts in developing the Passive Park;
0 possibility of encouraging the Landing School to do its boat building
near the park;
0 providing easy access between the school and the harbor, for field trips;
* recognizing and protecting Lower Landing Road as a good birding area;
0 possibly developing and island of dredged material, were dredging to
occur, in coordination with the restoration program, to encourage birds
who particularly like to feed on this type of habitat; and
encouraging the development, perhaps privatization, of canoe trails;
promoting an annual "regatta@' which could focus activities centered
on the harbor.

Adequate Harbor Services JFacilities

A number of specific steps were mentioned as contributing to the harbor
facilities. These included:

e set specific zoning limits for commercialization of the harbor area;
0 maintain the facilities that currently e)dst,
0 ensure adequate docking and mooring facilities;
0 contact the Coast Guard concerning the installation of a bell buoy
outside the harbor area, jetty lighting, and the provision of rescue
services;
0 if there were to be. dredging, consider an additional boat ramp or double
the width of the e)dsting ramp;
0 consider a floating dock and other marina services off Atlantic Avenue
on the harbor side; and.
0 consider research regarding a catwalk bridge, or boat services, to
connect the marina area with Wells Beach.

4/29/91 4 BasTy Lawson Associate-s, Inc.
9 Main 5tr"t FJO. box 648 (5G8) 369-421.)
C.n-d. MA 01742 rAX (5081 Mg-645019

It was pointed out that some other minor facilities (e.g., picnic tables and
cookers) will be part of the passive park now being developed

Other Points Made

It was suggested that the harbor plan should provide a history of the harbor,
identify 'and underscore the educational and scientific value of the harbor
area, and stress theeconomic value of the harbor for the Town of Wells and
its region. With regard to this lattermost point, it was agreed that Wells
should continue to be a tourist attraction.

In addition, a number of points were mentioned regarding research and
monitoring in the context with the plan and its orderly implementation.
Among these research concerns were:

4 understanding harbor water dynamics;
0 identifying sources of problems of,. and alternative solutions for:
habitat loss, beach loss, human effects such as boats, pollution, flood
plain and other uses;
* involving participants from federal, state, local, non-profit, and private
organizations in collaborative efforts, appropriately communicated;
9 monitoring "before" and "after" actions included as part of the
restoration program - perhaps seeking grants for this monitoring from
the state coastal zone management office.

4/29/91 5 Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
9 M31n Stmct P.O. Max 64B 4508) 3459-4213
MA01742 FAA 0108) 369-@@5M

Town of Wells. Maine CODE HARBOR Chapter 86 - page I

APPENDIX G
Chapter 86

HARBOR

� 86-1. Definitions.
� 86-1. Definitions.
� 86-2. Applicable area. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have.
� 86-3. Effect of other regulations. the meanings indicated:
� 86-4. Appointment of Harbor Master.
� 86-5. Responsibilities of Harbor Master. WELLS HARBOR - The Webhannet River and all of
� 86-6. Obedience to Harbor Master; Appeals Board. its tributaries both now and hereafter appearing where
� 86-7. Selectmen to make rules and regulations. the tide ebbs and flows.
� 86-8. Designation of mooring areas.
� 86-9. Mooring standards.
� 86-10. Moorings for smaller boats and flotations. � 86-2. Applicable area.
� 86-11. Mooring blocks.
� 86-12. Inspection of moorings. A. This chapter shall apply to all shores of the Wells
� 86-13. Repair by Harbor Master, recovery of costs., Harbor as described in the definition of "Wells Harbor"
� 86-14. Denial of mooring placement. in � 86-1. with the addition of the, channel to the outer
� 86-15. Tying up to moorings required. end of the, north and south jetties, all of its access roads
� 86-16. Permit for construction required. and lands adjacent thereto, both now and hereafter
� 86-17. Abandoning of vessels and flotations; notice to created by natural or mechanical crosion. including
remove. acreage on all public properties.
� 86-18. Sunken vessels or flotations,
� 86-19. Laying out and marking of channel. B. This chapter and all other rules and regulations shall
� 86-20. Speed limit. apply to the jetties, access roads and all other public
� 86-21. Marking of shoals. properties adjacent thereto.
� 86-22 Aircraft and airboats prohibited.
� 86-23. Rules and regulations, fees.
� 86-24. Authorization to promulgate fishing rules and 86-3. Effect of other regulations.
regulations.
� 86-25. (Reserved) This chapter shall include all state and federal statutes
� 86-26. Enforcement; appointment of Deputy Harbor and rules and regulations in effect and hereafter enacted.
Master.
� 86-27. Violations and penalties.
� 86-28. Mooring fee schedule. 86-4. Appointment of Harbor Master.
� 86-29. Moorings not transferable.
� 86-30. Leaving boats unattended restricted. The Board of Selectmen shall be authorized to appoint a
� 86-31. Damages to moorings, floats or docks; liability. suitably qualified Harbor Master and fix a reasonable
� 86-32. Unapproved moorings restricted. compensation for such service.
� 86-33. Scuba divers to display flag.
� 86-34. Diving and swimming.
� 86-35. Lengths of tenders. 86-5. Responsibilities or the Harbor Master.
� 86-36. Maintenance of tenders.
� 86-37. Placement of moorings. The Harbor Master shall enforce all ordinances, rules and
� 86-38. Fishing gear restricted. regulations and state and federal statutes applicable to
� 86-39. Children to be accompanied by adults. the Wells Harbor and other public properties as herein
� 87-40. Throwing of rocks prohibited. described in this chapter.
[HISTORY: Adopted 3-11-67 ATM, Art- 40. Amendments noted where
applicable.)

bour Computing - 3/18/90

Town of Wells, Maine CODE HARBOR Chapter 86 - page 3

other part of the river as set forth in the definition of B. The speed of any boat, vessel or flotation from the
"Welis Harbor" in � 86-1 for the purpose of mooring anchorage to the outer end of the jetties shall be
which would not be safe to others and would not be in r=onable so as not to endanger others.
the best interest of the harbor facilities. This section shall
not apply in the event of emergency or by written permit
of the Harbor Master approved by the Town Manager � 86-21. Marking of shoals.
and the Board of Selectmen as required by law. The Harbor Master shall mark for public safety any shoal
or other submerged object when not marked by others.
86-16. Permit for construction required.

No dock, floats or any other type of structure shall be 86-22. Aircraft and airboats prohibited.
erected in an am as described in the definition of "Wells
Harbor" in � 86-1 without fust obtaining a permit from No aircraft or airboaL or any other type of air-driyen craft
the Board of Selectmen and the Army Engineers shaU be operated in the area as set forth in the definition
whenever required. of 'VeUs Harbor" in � 86-1..

f 86-17. Abandoning of vessels and flotations; notice to 86-23. Rules and regulations; fees.
remove.
Ile Board of Selectmen, the Town Manager and the
A. No boat@ vessel or any type of flotation shall be Harbor Masta shall be authorized to make reasonable
abandoned or left to disintegrate in any area as set forth rules and regulations and set reasonable fees for the use
in the definition of "Wells Harbor" in � 86-1. of all harbor facilities on an equal basis as to the
requirements of each.
B. The Harbor Master, by direction of the Town
Manager and the Board of Selectmen, shaU notify its
owner, owners or agents for its removal within a 86-24. Authorization to promulgate fishing rules and
reasonable length of time, after which it shaU be regulations.
removed by others, the- cost of which shall be levied
upon its owner, owners or agents. The Board of Selectmen, the Town Mmmger and the
Harbor Master shall. be authorized to make reasonable
rules and regulations as to the storage of bait, bait barrels
86-18. Sunken vessels or flotations. and all types of fishing gear, including skiffs, punts and
tenders, applicable to aU for the purpose of safety,
Any boat, vessel or any type of flotation which sinks at a cleariliness and facility deterioration except by natural
mooring, dock or float in any area as set forth in the w0ar and t=.
definition of "Wells Harbor" in � 86-1 shall be subject to
86-17B. L
� 86-25. (Reserved)
(Fc=cr� 86-25,LiabiMy for damaps, repcaW 11/41W
� 86-19. Laying out and marking of channeL
Ile Town Manager, Board of Selectmen and the Harbor 86-26. Enforcement; appointment of Deputy Harbor
Master shall lay out channel of not less than forty (40) Master.
feet in width through the anchorage and place markers
determining such channel. The enforcement of this chapter shaU be the duty of the
Harbor Master whenever not otherwise provided, and in
the absence of the, Harbor Master, he may appoint a
86-20. Speed limit. Deputy Harbor Master after approval of the Board of
Selectmen and the Town Manager and fix a reasonable
A. No boat. vessel or any type of flota6on shall travel compensation for such service.
more than five (5) miles per hour when approaching the
anchorage, through the anchorage- or near its docks or
floats. � 86-27. Violations and penalties.
(1114186)

-?rbour Computing - 3/18/90

Town of Wells, Maine CODE HARBOR Chapter 86 - page 5

It shall be unlawful to throw rocks or any hard objects at
boats or in the water of Wells Harbor.

bour Computing - 3/18/90

REFERENCES

Byrne, R.J., and Zeigler, J.M., 1977. Coastal Enpineering Study, Wells Harbor. Maine. U.S-
Army Corps of Engineers: Waltham, MA.

Childs Engineering Corporation, 1989. Harbor Berthing Management Plan for the City of Portland
& City of South Portland. City of Portland, Portland ME.

Doggett, L., 1990. "Preserving and'Protecting Marine Water Quality through Comprehensive
Planning." Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta, ME.

Governmental Services Inc., 1988. Saco River Public Access Study The City of Saco, Saco, ME.

1987. Comprehensive Harbor Plan for the Town of ScarboKgpgh. The Town of
Scarborough, Scarborough, ME.

Humm, W.R., 1985. "Wells Harbor: Beach Erosion, Sedimentation, and Mediation." in Gambling
with the Shore: Proceedinizs of the Ninth Annual Conference of the Coastal Society. The Coastal
Society, Atlantic City, N.J., p. 55-60.

Lawson, B.R., 1991. "Agreements Regarding Objectives, Issues, and Policies to be Included in a
Harbor Plan for Wells, Maine." Barry Lawson Associates, Inc., Concord, MA.

Maine Department of Marine Resources, 1979. Shellfish Management in Maine Towns. MDMR,
Augusta, ME. . W

Maine State Planning Office, 1985. Maine Inter'tidal Habitats. MSPO, Augusta, ME.

Mariano, C.G., and FitzGerald, D.M., 1989. Sediment Transport Patterns and Hydraulics at
Wells Inlet, Maine. CERG Tech. Rept. No. 12, Boston University, Boston, MA.

Milliken A.S., and Lee, V., 1990. "Pollution Impacts from Recreational Boating: A Bibliography
and Summary Review." Rhode Island Sea Grant Publications, University of Rhode Island Bay
Campus, Narragansett, RI.

Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission, 1991. Southern Maine Regional -Berth in a Study.
SMRPC, Sanford, ME.

Timson, B.S., Pickart, D., and Pickart, G., 1989. Sand Transport Budget: Wells Harbor &
Ad iacent Beaches. Timson, Schepps & Peters, Inc., Hallowell, ME, for the Town of Wells.

Timson, Schepps & Peters, Inc., 1989. Analysis of Salt Marsh Shoreline Changes, Webhannet
River Estuary, Wells, ME. Timson, Schepps & Peters, Inc., Hallowell, ME, for the Town of
Wells.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1980. "Wells Harbor, Maine: Operation and Maintenance
Reconnaissance Report." U.S. A.C.E., Waltham, MA.

- 1978. Desipn for Harbor Entrance Improvements, Wells Harbor, Maine. U.S.
@@.C.E_ \Val'diani, MA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991. "Rachel'Carson Wildlife Refuge, Draft Brochure." U.S.
F&WS, Wells, ME.

Y 1990. Station Management Plan, Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. U.S.
F&WS Region 5, Wells, ME.

Vaughn, J.M., and Novotny, J.F., 1991. Microbial Contamination in the Webhannet River
EstpM. Dept 7of Microbiology, University of New England, Biddeford, ME.

Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, 19 91. Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve
Mannement Plan.Tbe Wells Reserve- Wells, ME.

Wells, Town of, 1980. Town of Wells Comprehensive Plan, 1980 Update. Town of Wells, Wells,
ME.

1991. The 1990 Update of the Town of Wells Comprehensive Plan. Town of Wells,
Wells, ME.

COMPREHENSIVE HARBOR-PLAN

Norman Lessard
List of Members: WELLS HARBOR ASSOCIATION
2 Rosewood Circle
Spring-vale, Maine 04083
Richard Moody
HARBOR MARINA PARTNERS
P. 0. Box 366 Martin Smith, Chairman
Moody, Maine 04054. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE
RFD#I, Box 514A
So. Berwick, Maine 03908
Vander Forbes, Jr.
P. 0. Box 99
Wells, Maine 04090
BOARD OF SELECTMEN

V. Owen Grumbling, Chair
WELLS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
RFD#I, Box 213A
Sanford, Maine 04073
Tim List
4ELLS RESERVE AUTHORITY
IR#2, Box 806
4ells, Maine 04090 Robert Pirozok
p. 0. Box 274
Wellss Maine 04090
Dick Steinbeck
RACHEL CARSON WILDLIFE RESERVE
RR#2, Box 751 joseph IgnaziO
Wells, Maine 04090 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
424 Trapelo Road
r Waltham, MA 01890
Wbert Foley
.ORAKES ISLAND ASSOCIATION
IR#2, Box 373
4ells, Maine 04090 David Kershaw
P. 0. Box 100
Wells, Maine 04090
.uss Grethe
ELLS PLANNING BOARD Robert Bemis
. 0. Box 512 Commercial Fisherman
ells, Maine 04090 RFD#l, Box 250
No. B,r,,i,k, Maine 03906

ebra Richard
EPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Mr. Kenneth Creed
tate House Station #17 WELLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
agusta, Maine 04333 p. 0. Box 356
Wells, Maine 04090

oland "Chick" Falconer
ELLS HARBOR MASTER
- 0. Box 398
ells, Maine 04090

3 6668 14102 6981