Search

Dec 17, 2021

Safe Harbors. DEP flawed review of Visual/Scenic Impacts

DEP's 

2. EXISTING SCENIC, AESTHETIC, RECREATIONAL OR NAVIGATIONAL USES:



The NRPA, in 38 M.R.S. § 480-D(1), requires the applicant to demonstrate that the
proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic, aesthetic,
recreational and navigational uses.

A. Scenic and Aesthetic Uses: In accordance with Chapter 315, Assessing and
Mitigating Impacts to Scenic and Aesthetic Uses (06-096 C.M.R. ch. 315, effective June
29, 2003), the applicant submitted a copy of the Department's Visual Evaluation Field
Survey Checklist as Appendix A to the application along with a description of the
property and the proposed project.
The applicant also submitted several photographs of
the proposed project site and surroundings. Department staff visited the project site on
November 5, 2021.

The proposed project is located in Rockland Harbor, which is a scenic resource visited by
the general public, in part, for the use, observation, enjoyment and appreciation of its
natural and cultural visual qualities. The project site is located adjacent to Sandy Beach
(also known as South End Beach), a 200-foot-long municipal beach. The project parcel
contains a paved walkway that is part of the Harbor Walk, a system of paths on multiple
public and privately-owned, waterfront properties that connects several public spaces and
viewpoints along the shoreline including Sandy Beach, Harbor Park, and Buoy Park, all
of which are located within 0.2 miles of the project site, and all of which meet the
Chapter 315 definition of a scenic resource of local significance. The project site is
located approximately 1.35 miles from the Breakwater and the Breakwater Lighthouse,
both of which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places as areas of local


L-20386-4P-P-N/L-20386-4E-Q-N 5 of 20


significance. The harbor is developed with two municipal piers, a coast guard station,
and numerous commercial piers and buildings, including the applicant’s existing pier,
which are visible from the scenic resources listed above.

To reduce the visibility of the proposed project from the harbor and nearby scenic
viewpoints, the applicant designed the expanded marina with materials similar to those of
other commercial piers in the immediate area. In response to public feedback during
project design, the applicant reduced the size of the proposed float system and redesigned
the layout to avoid vessels being berthed broadside to viewpoints to the west, including
Buoy Park, a municipal pier (the Public Landing), and the boardwalk portion of the
Harbor Walk. 

The applicant reduced the proposed landward extension of the fixed pier, eliminating a proposed vehicle and crane access platform for servicing boats. The applicant also eliminated the need for an additional timber wave fence to the east by designing the proposed floats of Dock A to be concrete-encased wave-attenuating floats.

In their comments, many of the interested persons expressed concern that the applicant
will revoke public access to the Harbor Walk on their property and that large vessels
berthed at the marina will block views of or from the scenic features listed above.

Herein, “large vessel” refers to a vessel greater than 70 feet in length. A subset of
commenters expressed concerns about light pollution at night and the visual impact of
tour buses, which could be chartered by marina patrons for transportation to nearby
points of interest, parked in the upland near Sandy Beach. A number of commenters also
raised concerns about noise from electric generators of vessels berthed at the expanded
marina.

The Department provided a consolidated list of these comments to the applicant and 
requested a response. In its response, the applicant stated that the portion of the Harbor
Walk on its property will remain open to the public, and that the applicant will work with
the City to create a formal agreement for continued public access to the walkway. The
applicant also responded that the proposed landward extension of the pier will be open to
the public, and that the existing gate on the pier will be moved seaward, such that the
proposed project will provide a 120-foot-long viewing platform open to the public, with
views to the east beyond the expanded marina.

The applicant stated that the size of the vessels that will use the expanded marina is 
expected to range from 20 feet to 200 feet long, but the majority of the vessels berthed at
the marina will continue to range from 30 to 60 feet long. The applicant stated that the
vertical height of most large vessels that may use the pier is approximately 25 feet above
the water, or 7.5 to 17.5 feet above the height of the existing fixed pier, depending on the
tide. The applicant noted that the proposed project is primarily for transient dockage,
defined as a stay no longer than 15 consecutive days, and that the average size vessel at
the marina during the summer of 2020 was approximately 56 feet long, and the average
stay of a vessel over 70 feet long was only 2.6 days. 

The proposed Dock C, located innermost in the harbor, will be dedicated to vessels approximately 30-40 feet in length, whereas large vessels will be located farther from the Harbor Walk at Docks A or B. The applicant noted that a similar version of Dock C was previously approved in Department
Order #L-20386-26-G-B/L-20386-4E-H-N, although it was not constructed, and that
previous approved versions of Dock A extended farther seaward than the proposed
project. The applicant pointed out that large vessels already use the harbor, and
submitted a photograph dated June 2019, of a 200-foot-long cruise ship berthed at the
Public Landing, facing broadside to Harbor Park. The applicant stated that currently,
cruise ships and other large vessels often anchor in the outer harbor, where they can block
views of many of the scenic features noted above, such as the Breakwater and
Breakwater Lighthouse, whereas vessels berthed at the expanded marina will have a more
limited visual impact, primarily only affecting views of existing developed areas in the
harbor such as other commercial marinas, the Municipal Fish Pier, and the Dragon
Cement pier. The applicant concluded that the proposed project would have minimal
impact on views of significant scenic features.

The applicant stated that the expansion will use lighting similar to that of the existing
pier, which consists of lighting of the dock walking surface and potentially low-voltage
lighting directed at the floats. The Department determined that this lighting is compatible
with the existing visual landscape of the harbor at night. The applicant stated that the
proposed dock systems will include electrical hook-ups for small and large vessels, and
therefore the proposed project will not result in additional noise from onboard generators.

The applicant further stated that accommodations for buses are not contemplated in this
application, and any upland alterations to accommodate buses would require review and
approval by the Department in a future application. The Department acknowledges that
buses could potentially use the existing parking lot and nearby side streets, if allowed by
local ordinance to do so. However, the Department determined that this activity is
ultimately outside the scope of the Department’s review.

In assessing the visual impact of the proposed project, the Department considered the
information in the NRPA application, the interested persons’ comments, the applicant’s
responses, observations by Department staff at the site visit, and other related materials
on file. Some commenters stated that the applicant should provide a visual assessment
report with photographic simulations or concept drawings; however, the Department
determined that the information in the permitting record is sufficient for the Department’s
review.

 During the review, the Department considered views from Rockland Harbor, the
Harbor Walk, Sandy Beach, Harbor Park, and Buoy Park, which are located in close
proximity to the project site and were of particular concern to the interested persons. 

The Department took into consideration the developed nature of Rockland Harbor, the size
and layout of the proposed marina expansion, and the existing viewsheds from the scenic
resources. 

The Department determined that the viewshed foreground of the Harbor Walk, Harbor Park, 
and Buoy Park are dominated by existing pier and float systems,
some of which currently berth large vessels during the summer. 

Sandy Beach, which faces northeast, has a viewshed of 120 degrees, bounded to the southeast by the Dragon Cement pier and bounded to the north by the applicant’s existing pier. 

Department staff  determined that the proposed expansion of the marina will affect approximately
17 degrees of the far west extent of the beach viewshed. The blocked views include other
commercial marinas to the north as well as a small portion of the harbor mooring field.
The proposed project will not interfere with views from the beach of the Breakwater,
Breakwater Lighthouse, islands, or other land masses to the east. 

Department staff also considered the potential view of the proposed project from the Breakwater and visited the landward end of the Breakwater on November 5, 2021; however, given the distance to the
project site and the highly developed nature of the harbor, the Department determined
that the proposed project will be consistent with the existing use of the harbor and will
result in little to no additional impact on views from the Breakwater.

The Department staff utilized the Department’s Visual Impact Assessment Matrix in its
evaluation of the proposed project. The Matrix is used to assess the visual impact
severity of a proposed project based on the distance and visibility of the project from a
natural landmark or other outstanding natural or cultural feature, State, National, or
locally-designated park or trail, and on the approximate number of people likely to view
the project from the resource or a public way per day. 

The severity rating is also based on the visual elements of landscape compatibility, scale 
contrast, and spatial dominance  as defined in Chapter 315, § 9. 

The Department determined that the visual impact of the  proposed project was acceptable with mitigation. As discussed above, the applicant  reduced the size and revised the layout of the proposed project considerably during the design phase, in response to concerns about visual impact. The applicant also proposes to create a public viewing platform and to maintain public access to the Harbor Walk over its private property. 

In light of these mitigation measures and based on the information  submitted in the application, information submitted during the review, the visual impact rating, and the site visit, the Department determined that the location and scale of the proposed activity is compatible with the existing visual quality and landscape characteristics found within the viewshed of the scenic resources in the project area.

Dec 12, 2021

Maine DEP approves Safe Harbors Marina expansion. But did they blunder?

 Say goodbye to the view?

Maine DEP approved and signed what marina expansion wannabees Safe Harbors Marinas LLC wanted and environmentalists feared: Marina Sprawl approved in Rockland Harbor

DEP gave Safe Harbors  a combined Natural Resources Protection Act permit, Coastal Wetlands Alteration approval and a Water Quality Certification. Read DEP's 23 page rationale for this misguided approval at the above link





Dec 1, 2021

Sears Island - Latest port wannabees make their move

 Sears Island  Wind Port proposal?                                                                  Read all 17 sections and 2 appendices, as seperate pdf files

In this document, a  94 page November 2021 report put out  by consultants  Moffatt & Nichol for the Governor's Energy Office, tries to make the case for ignoring a perfectly ample alternatives to Sears Island to develop the state "Windport": Bath Iron Works.

Offshore Wind Port Infrastructure Feasibility Study full 94 page study Concept Design Report Moffat & Nichol . Nov 2021

Cover letter_report cover

Table of  Contents

Part 1 Introduction  

Part 2 Study Purpose  Part 2A

Part 3 European Examples

Part 4  Floating Offshire Wind Criteria

Part 5 Proposed Sites

Part 6 Initial Analysis/ Elimination of 2 sites

Part 7 Site Characteristics of remaining two sites

Part 8 Site Layouts and  Required Infrastructure

Part 9  VHB Environmental Assessment on Recommended Infrastructure

Part 10 Cost Estimating and Construction Schedules

Part 11  Assessment of Proposed Site

Part 12. Port of Searsport Offshore Windhub

Part 13 Sears Island Conservation Area Proposed Improvements

Part 14. Offshore Wind Comercial Analysis

Part 15 Recommended Next Steps

Part 16 Project Geotechnmical Risks 

Part 17. Limitations of this Report

Appendix A.  Conceptual Drawings 9 pages

Appendix B. Cost Estimates and Schedules 

App B1 Construction Schedules/  Proposed Phases Charts

END




Nov 26, 2021

Army Corps FOIA docs AGAIN Sept 15 to Nov 9, 2021 Part 1 & Part 2 (30 PDF FILES)

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOIA RESPONSE
PART 1 & Part 2    
Below are email discussions on the proposed marina expansion between  state & federal agenecies, Safe Harbors Marinas, Sen King's office, with input from concerned citizens  intermingled

PART 1.  15 PDF FILES

 1_9/15/21 ACOE _re_ Time for a quick call 
6.9K 
 2__9/15_16_COE _re Consultation Status..>3.8K 
 3__9/15_17/21 ACOE Time for a quick call_
 


5.3K 
 4_10/22_25_acoe_bpl_re SHM Rockland.txt1.4K 
 5_10/26_27_2-21   BPL_ACOE3.6K 
 6_10/26//21_coe_bpl_10/26/21_bpl_rockland
2.6K 
 7_10_26_27_2021_ACOE_BPL 
 

8_1026_27_2021_BPL_ACOE 

4.0K 
 8_10/28/21 BPL_ROCKLAND_ACOE DMR Site Visit21.1K 
 9_10/29/21_ACOE_SHM
956 
 10_11/4/21 ACOE_NOAA
938 
 11_10/29_11/5/2021  BPL_SHM_ACOE_8.8K 
 12_11/5_8_2021_ACOE_ROCKLAND_ROCKLAND_ACOE Expan
6.9K 
 13_11/8/21_ACOE_SEN_KING_.txt
2.5K 
 14_11/7/11/8/2021 PBW_ACOE_ACOE_PBW2.1K 
15_11/8/2-21_ROCKLAND_ACOE_DEP_BPL 1.8K

PART 2.   15 PDF FILES
 1_rector_stukas_0917211.9K 
 2_acoe_noaa_092921
29K 
 3_usfws_noaa_acoe_092921
13K 
 4_usfws_noaa_acoe_100121
30K 
 5_usfws_acoe_101521
5.4K 
 6_usfws_noaa_acoe_10152125K 
 7_noaa_fws_acoe_1022212.7K 
 8_mdot_acoe_102621.txt25K 
 9_noaa_fws_mdot_acoe_10262130K 
 10_shm_acoe_dep_bpl_10_26_27_2021
47K 
 11_acoe_fws_mdot_102821
19K 
 12_acoe_noaa_102921.txt
6.5K 
 13_bpl_rockland_acoe_1108212.4K 
 14_acoe_dep_bpl_rockland_110921
3.8K 
 15_bpl_acoe_dep_rockland_110921..>

Part 3  Outlook  files

https://penbay.org/rockland/shm/foaa/acoe_foaa_response/text/pt3_outlook/Non-DoD%20Source%20RE%20Site%20Visit%20to%20SHM%20Rockland%20Marina%20III.msg





Nov 21, 2021

Keeping state environmental decisions consistent with Federal law.

Maine Guide to Federal Consistency Review October 2020

The Federal government has delegated  many of its environmental permit reviews to the state of Maine.  

Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act, the state decisions must be consistent with federal laws and not weaker.  

Nov 18, 2021

Limerock RR records Bicknell, deeds info



DEED2040-15407/23/1996ROCKLANDROCKLAND
2LIME ROCK LLCBICKNELL MANAGEMENT COMPANYDEED3140-16001/09/2004ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK LLCDUPONT SPECIALTY PRODUCTS USA LLCDEED5410-22105/02/2019ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK R R COMAINE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYDEED252-35410/06/1937ROCKLAND 
2LIME ROCK R R COFR PORTLAND NATL BANKRELEASE268-55809/16/1941ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK R R COROCKLAND ROCKPORT LIME CO INCDEED268-56009/16/1941ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK RAIL ROADPLAN1-14803/14/1975ROCKLANDTRIPP
1LIME ROCK RAILROAD COPHILBRICK R EDEED258-44003/31/1939ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK RAILROAD COSCOTT GEORGE WDEED269-14611/24/1941ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK RAILROAD COMPANYMAINE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYDEED252-35410/06/1937ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK RAILROAD COMPANYUNION SAFE DEPOSIT AND TRUST COMPANYRELEASE252-57201/21/1938ROCKLAND 
2LIME ROCK RAILROAD COMPANYPORTLAND NATIONAL BANK TRRELEASE256-202/25/1938ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK RAILROAD COMPANYSMITH PHILIP LDEED253-50503/16/1938ROCKLAND 
2LIME ROCK RAILROAD COMPANYPORTLAND NATIONAL BANK TRRELEASE259-37903/30/1939ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK RAILROAD COMPANYPHILBRICK R EDEED258-44003/31/1939ROCKLAND 
2LIME ROCK RAILROAD COMPANYFR PORTLAND NATL BANKRELEASE268-55809/16/1941ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK RAILROAD COMPANYROCKLAND ROCKPORT LIME CO INCDEED268-56009/16/1941ROCKLAND 
2LIME ROCK RAILROAD COMPANYFIRST PORTLAND NATIONAL BANK TRRELEASE270-5611/18/1941ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK RAILROAD COMPANYSCOTT GEORGE WDEED269-14611/24/1941ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK RR COMAINE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANYDEED252-35410/06/1937ROCKLAND 
2LIME ROCK RR COFR PORTLAND NATL BANKRELEASE268-55809/16/1941ROCKLAND 
1LIME ROCK RR COROCKLAND ROCKPORT LIME CO INCDEED268-56009/16/1941ROCKLAND 
1LIME RR COSMITH PHILIP LDEED253-50503/16/1938ROCKLAND 
4-30507/19/2002ROCKLANDROCKLAND
1LIMEROCK RAIL ROADPLAN1-14803/14/1975ROCKLANDTRIPP
1LIMEROCK RAILROAD COROCKLAND CITY OFLIEN3098-9510/22/2003ROCKLANDROCKLAND
1LIMEROCK RAILROAD COMPANYROCKLAND CITY OFLIEN2969-2404/28/2003ROCKLANDROCKLAND
1LIMEROCK RAILROAD COMPANYROCKLAND CITY OFLIEN2969-2504/28/2003ROCKLANDROCKLAND
1LIMEROCK RAILROAD COMPANYROCKLAND CITY OFLIEN2969-2604/28/2003ROCKLANDROCKLAND
1LIMEROCK RAILROAD COMPANYROCKLAND CITY OFLIEN3308-13510/05/2004ROCKLAND 

Nov 11, 2021

Nov 10, 2021 meeting of the Right To Know Advisory Committee. AUDIO Topic: Public Records Exceptions

Audio from the November 10, 2021 meeting of Maine's Legislatures'  Right to Know Advisory Committee's  new  Subcommittee on Public Records Exceptions   

Meeting Purpose:  Updates on  existing  state laws & rules on FOAA  fee waivers .  (When  should agencies not charge for responding to a FOAA letter? (1) When requester is indigent. (2) When  the info will help the public understand how their govt operates. But some agencies state they "they don't do waivers". Is that lawful?

RECORDINGS 

1.  Introductions by subcommittee members   3min 41sec

2. Colleen  McCarthy OPLA analyst on fee waiver process in other states. 6min 50sec. 

3, Colleen McCarthy QA 11min

4. Brenda Kielty, FOAA ombudsman, AG's office 6min 5sec

5. Brenda Kielty Q&A  14min

6. Discussion part 1.  14min 30sec


(more to come)

Attendees at the RTK's Subcommittee meeting

PUBLIC INTEREST
Justin Cianette (sp?) for the public,
Jim Campbell MFOIC, ME Freedom of information coalition

MEDIA
Judy Myer, Lewiston Sun Journal
Lynda Clancy,  Pen Bay Pilot news
Amy Beveridge Me Assoc B'casters,

LOCAL GOVT
Linda Cohen Town mg Montmouth- local government,
Vicky Walloch, School boards,
Neil  Goldberg, Maine Municipal Association

LAW ENFORCEMENT
Chris Parr, staff atty Maine State Police. 
STATE GOVT
Rep Tom Harnet committee  chair,
Senator Anne Carney, So Portland, jud comm
Kevin Martin MDEP,
Julie Finn Me Judicial Branch.
Jonathan Bolton Atty General's office,
Brenda Kielty FOAA Ombudsman , AG's office.
Kate McBrien State Archives
Eric Stout Informaton Tech expert.   

OPLA staff Peggy Reinch, Colleen Reed McCarthy & Rachel Olson

Background   The Advisory Committee is required by law to review of existing public records exceptions in Titles 8 through 12 during 2021  The state FOAA ombusdsman Brenda Kielty  pafrticpates in the meetings too

Current law relating to fee waivers, 1 MRSA Section 408-A, subsection 11  

Draft amendment to 1 MRSA Section 408-A, subsection 11 previously considered by RTKAC Improve FOAA Subcommittee in 2019 

 (not recommended to full committee or considered by full committee)
Email received from Ken Capron

Oct 21, 2021

LBA bill of 2019

A  bill that I had introduced in 2019   by Belfast State Rep Janice Dodge.  Require cumulative impact study when more than  one  Land Based Aquaculture  operation  gets proposed in a  single waterbody. (a bay or reach of a river)

1.LD 620, HP 448,129th LegislatureAn Act Regarding Licensing of Land-based Aquaculture Facilities
 
CLICK HERE for testimony for and aagainst  LD620

Oct 14, 2021

Safe Harbors' NRPA Application broken into its sections

 Safe Harbors' Maine subsidiary is attempting to make  Rockland's Inner  Harbor other users lose  public moorings spaces on behalf of this  overly  mega yacht-friendly  proposal .Below is Safe Harbors; application for a Natural Resources Protection Act permit, broken it into its sections for ease of access. Complete NRPA application  as a  89 page PDF  at bottom of links 

Cover of application,introductory information

Title, Right or InterestWarranty Deed, Knox County Registry Of Deeds Book 5663 Pg 224,   Certificate Of Good Standing Letter Of Agent Authorization

Attachment 1 _ Activity Description

Attachment2   Alternatives Analysis

2a. Project Scope, Overview

Attachment3  USGS Quadrangle Site Location Map And Aerial Tax Map

Attachment4  Photos Of Area

Attachment5   Plans Of Activity

Attachment 6  Additional Plans – Cross Sections

Attachment7  Construction Plan

Attachment8  Erosion Control Plan

Attachment 9  Site Condition Report

Attachment 10 Notice Of Intent To File

Attachment11 Maine Historic Preservation Commission & Five Indian Tribes

Attachment12 Functional Assessment

Attachment 13  Compensation

APPENDICES 

Appendix A   Visual Evaluation

Appendix B  Coastal Wetlands Evaluations

Appendix C   Supplemental Information for dredging Activity in Coastal Wetland

 Full NRPA application  here  89 pages