Search

Jun 24, 2022

BEP Agenda 6/16/22 with links Juniper Ridge appeal of Increasing the importation and use of of Bulky Waste for cover

Juniper Ridge Landfill, Oversized Bulky Waste, Minor Revision, Appeal by Edward Spencer, S-020700-WD-CM-M (Decision) Staff Person: Susan Parmelee, Bureau of Remediation and Waste Mgmt


Link to BEP Boardmembers info

Sue Lessard mtg chair

Staff Memo 

Proposed Board order 

Dept licensing Decision appealed

AUDIO

* Mtg Opening Introductions Staff reports 6min  

* 2. DEP Bill Hinkle  permit writer response. 6min11sec

* 3a Ed Spencer testimony 24min

* 3b_Ed Spencer QA 13min 21sec



Welcome to the Penobscot Bay report  for June 25, 2022

Struggles up and down the bay, and where the activists roam

Here to reveal you a bit of the civil clashes, and the primacy of  economics over  Environmental Protection   in and around the bioregion of Maine's biggest Bay, 

Today we'll feature ed Spencer  Ed is a longtime land and water defense  activist who has been at the forefront of the broad movement Don't Waste ME a coalition of  peoples that has  recently achieved important legislative victory  in the struggle with Big Waste to end out of state  waste importation into Maine.

Well also take a look at NOAAs new Aquaculture initiative that is being fast tracked  From Fishing Grounds to Aquaculture Opportunity Areas is. aREN'T MARINE CONSERVATIONISTS TICKED OFF!

NOAA  is supposed to be reglating this industry. What are they doing promoting it?    We'll get to that a little later 


WAVES OR GULLS 

On June 16, 2022. Ed Spencer  came before the Maine Board of Environmental Protection, appealing, pro se, a Maine DEP decision to increase the amount of OBW  heading off to Juniper Ridge Landfill.


AKA Oversize Bulky Wastes, thise materials are our society's discarded mattresses, couches, tables, refrigerators, ovens, old TVs and toilets, crunched a bit,             Casella at the state landfill would spread them to cover the more finely ground wastes  that get  dumped at the site. when not in use. 


While these large pieces of junk are  only a small piece of Maine's  greater waste importation and application crises.  It helps one see how the Board of Environmental Protection process works, in a smaller tightly focused appeal. How the state DEP, and  the private trash company Casella  worked together against  Ed's appeal

 

As I said on the 16th End Spencer  was before the Board of Environmental Protection appealing DEP's Waste division's  decison  to increase the amount of oversized bulky waste (OBW)  that can be added to the Juniper Ridge waste mound.


We will start with the meeting introductions of the Board members and review of the last meeting 


Next the asst attorney general ? for the BEP or another official describes the appeal brought by Mr. Spencer  and their responses to it.


then the analyst for the BOard of envrionmental protectoin holds for , than 


FINALLY  Ed Spencer makes his case for rejecting the increased use of Bulky waste junk as a "cover" for the raw  working faces of the landfill

   

tJHERE'S MUCH MORE BUT WE  e are running out of time  and will save  for later review  on the Penobscot Bay Blog  

Tune in there to get the resdt of the story 

The attorney reprsesenting the  waste company giving their side of the story. 

Then the board's deliberattions and  their decision 


But until then remember persistence despite setbacks  can yield victory after Victory for Nature




*






Jun 14, 2022

Maine PUC caves to industrial sprawl in our region approving taxpayer funding of a powerline upgrade to benefit power eaters like the proposed Nordic aquafarm with Section 80 powerline decision

Below read the 6 minute transcript of the  Section 80 Powerline decisionmaking on June 14, 2022  by each of the three PUC members:  Chair Phil Bartlett, Patrick Scully and Randall Davis.   Listen to audio of the 6 minute section of the meeting

At issue is whether (1)  a non-wires distributed power system including solar, lunar  and wind would be adequate to the projected future or (2) stay with the wires-only and  make them massive   and replace all the main powerlines    All three voted for Maine to stay  hooked on wires.  No grid? No go!    Seemingly  uneasy with Change  unready for that newfangled eco-stuff'.  Many a buggywhip maker felt the same , time back

Chair Bartlett: "[T]he evidence does not support a finding that the proposed non powerline alternative meets the applicable reliability criteria and can reliably meet the identified need. " Can['t depnd on the fickle sun moon and ...tide?

PUC Chair Phil Bartlett opened the June 14th meeting

Good morning. Welcome to deliberations of June 14, 2022. We have six items on our agenda today.

The first is Docket Number 2011 -138. Pending before us is CMPs petition for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to rebuild Section 80, which runs between Windsor and Warren. 

The non wires alternative coordinator issued a report identifying an unwired alternative for our consideration. 

Pursuant to 35A MrsA 30 sec 31 and 32, we first must assess whether there's a public need for the proposed transmission line. 

Here the need has been well documented over the years. The potential need for this project was identified over a decade ago, but deferred for consideration of non transmission alternatives. 

More recently, ISO New England found reliability deficiencies in studies conducted in 2020 and 2021, and reaffirmed the need for this project at a technical conference in February of this year. 

Accordingly, I find that there is a public need as required by Section 31-32. 

The next question is whether the identified need can be reliably met by the non wires alternative. 

What is striking about this record is how many disputes of fact there are around seemingly technical issues. In some cases, the parties seem to be talking past each other with respect to the import or need for certain studies and analysis. 

After reviewing the record, I tend to agree with the examiner's report that the evidence does not support a finding that the proposed non powerline alternative meets the applicable reliability criteria and can rely reliably meet the identified need. 

Of particular significance is the potential impact on the sub transmission system of the non wires alternative. 

The Section 80 rebuild proposal put forward by CMP was limited to the bulk electric system. In contrast, the non wires alternative relies on upgrades to the underlying 35.5 KV system. CMP's analysis identified adverse impacts on the lower voltage system that would need to be resolved. 

The NWA coordinator did not study this impact and offered no analysis to counter this evidence.

Another issue in dispute was whether to consider the winter peak. Doing so is consistent with their criteria. And there's significant evidence in the record that questions the adequacy of relying on DRS as proposed to the NWA during the winter peak.

 Given the reliance on solar generation, it'd be irresponsible not to consider whether the reliability achieved in the summer months would apply to the winter peak as well. 

For these reasons, as well as others detailed in the examiner's report, I find there's insufficient evidence in the record to support the contention that the non wires alternative can reliably meet the identified need. 

Even if it could, it is doubtful the nonwires alternative could do so more cost effectively. The benefit cost analysis shows a razor thin net benefit, it does not include significant costs, including the need for additional upgrades to make the non wires alternative reliable solution. 

Accordingly, I would grant CMPs petition for Certificate of Public convenience and necessity. 

While I cannot accept this particular non wireless alternative, I do want to emphasize the importance of exploring cost effective alternatives to transmission. 

With a new statutory planning process for our largest electric utility utilities, there may be opportunities to improve and strengthen the NWA process going forward. 

Finally, there were many comments to this docket with respect to a particular customer Nordic Aqua farms. I want to be clear that the evidence of the record demonstrates that the rebuild of Section 80 would be needed even without the potential future load growth from Nordic Aqua farms. 

Moreover, utilities are prohibited from unfairly discriminating against customers. And the commission generally has no role in deciding whether a particular customer shouldn't be allowed to interconnect electric system so long as they can do so safely and reliably. 

Commissioner Randall Davis:

" The OPA's  April 15th exceptions to the April 6 Examiner's Report urges the commission to reject the examiner's report recommendations and deny Central Maine Power a Certificate of Public convenience and necessity for the Section 80 project at this time. 

I am not persuaded by the OPAs arguments. Under other circumstances, I believe that many technical and engineering questions would or at least could have been answered.

I cannot decipher whether the unanswered questions are related to the passage of time, which has been approximately 14 years since a Section 80 rebuild was first proposed, or perhaps the changes in legal statutes or jurisdictional changes between the local TND and ISO New England over the 14 years are driving the lack of clarity. 

Most every project is faced with ever changing decision inputs and assumptions for the future, with this project being no different. 

What is different with this project is the general agreement among the parties that something must be done, and I believe that resolution should not wait for an additional undetermined length of time.

For the reasons articulated by Chair Bartlett. I will adopt the examiner's report recommendations. 

Thank you. 

Commissioner Patrick  Scully: 

"I agree with the analysis of my colleagues and I would grant this CPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) for the rebuild of Section 80.

As has been said, based on the record, I conclude and there appears to be consensus among the parties, that of reliability need exist.. 

I'm unconvinced, based upon the record in this matter, that the proposed NWA meets that reliability need, particularly with respect to the two issues Chair Bartlett identified, involving both the winter peak question and the potential impacts on the sub-transmission system. 

And I find that the benefit-cost analysis of the proposed NWA does not support it as a less cost costly alternative, as it is, in best case, extraordinarily close . 

And very likely, if not certainly, doesn't reflect all of the costs that would be necessary to ensure that the NWA was built in a manner that preserve the reliability of the system. Thank you.

END OF PUC ON  SECTION 80



Jun 8, 2022

BDN coverage of Safe Harbor Marinas Rockland effort

 

 BDN 2/26/21  "A national marina company is investing in Rockland Harbor as a tourist destination"

by Lauren Abbate   

ROCKLAND, Maine — A company that owns more than 100 marinas across the country has purchased a locally-owned marina on Rockland Harbor to stake out the city’s growing reputation as a boating destination, according to industry experts.

Rockland-based Yachting Solutions — a multifaceted boating and marine services company — has been sold to Safe Harbor Marinas, of Dallas, Texas. The deal includes the company’s boatyard property and 5 acres of Rockland waterfront. The sale price was undisclosed. Yachting Solutions has leased for about a decade to operate its marina.

Given that the city has grown into a tourism hotspot over the last 20 years, folks in the marine and tourism industries say this investment from a national company further signals that Rockland’s reputation as a destination is growing.

“The reality of the fact that someone is willing to make that kind of an investment just shows that they believe in the area,” Greg Dugal, HospitalityMaine Government Affairs Officer, said. “It’s a tremendous place to make an investment.”

The Rockland purchase is Safe Harbor’s second in Maine. Last year, the company purchased Great Island Marina in Harpswell. The company operates about 110 marinas across the country, according to its website, the bulk of which are on the east coast.

Yachting Solutions’ employees have retained their jobs through the sale, according to Yachting Solutions owner Bill Morong. The company’s name will be changing to Safe Harbor Rockland.

The sale to Safe Harbors doesn’t come with any “big changes or a big master plan” that stray from what Yachting Solutions has already been pursuing, Morong said, which includes expansion plans that have been in the works for several years.

The expansion project, which would triple the dockage capacity at the marina, is still in the request for proposals phase, according to Morong.

However, becoming a part of a larger cooperation will help propel expansion plans. If all permits are granted, Morong hopes construction will begin next winter.

“There is a tremendous amount of benefits to joining a group of this size as compared to being out there on your own,” Morong said. “[Safe Harbors] brings a tremendous amount of horsepower to all the expansion projects and things that we want to do with the business.”

Most of Maine’s oceanfront marina’s are locally-owned, according to Maine Marine Trades Association Executive Director Stacey Keefer, and a majority of them have less than 25 employees.

Staffing is a big concern in the boating industry, Keefer said. Other hurdles include the steep costs of running a waterfront business. Being a part of a larger company could help financially bolster the marina.

“The waterfront infrastructure is costly. Insurance is costly. So if they have buying power through a larger corporate name, that could certainly be a benefit,” Keefer said.

There also has been a trend in the marina industry to have multiple locations, Keefer said.

With its existing location in Harpswell, Safe Harbor now has two marinas in Maine where its boaters can navigate between.

“This property in Rockland provided us the opportunity to acquire a well-established yacht service operation with a talented team of marine service professionals, which, along with our recently acquired Great Island location in Harpswell, will allow us to better serve our boating network as they transient greater New England and the coast of Maine,” Jason Hogg, Safe Harbor Marinas Chief Investment Officer said.

While there used to be a “stigma” about coming to Maine for recreational boating because of navigating the “fog and rocks and lobster pots,” Keefer said GPS systems have largely relieved some of those fears. She isn’t surprised to see a national company purchasing marina locations in Maine.

“We have some of the most world-class cruising grounds anywhere. You can cruise the Maine coast all summer long and not get bored. It’s probably some of the best cruising in the world,” Keefer said.

With most of Rockland’s tourism generators — like restaurants and hotels — being locally owned, Dugal, of HospitalityMaine, and Morong feel this national investment at the harbor level is a sign that recognition of the city as a worthwhile destination is growing.

“I think it’s a tremendous nod to the city of Rockland that we have a company at this level with this much interest in this area,” Morong said. “It’s exciting that a national company is willing to invest in our little corner of Maine

END

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

Rockland pursuing agreement with private marina to preserve public access to waterfront boardwalk       BDN  11/2/21

ROCKLAND, Maine ― For two decades, the public has been allowed to use a boardwalk along Rockland Harbor without any type of legal agreement between the city and waterfront property owners. 

But with a changing waterfront, city officials are working to ensure access remains in a more formal way. 

The city has begun discussions with a private marina company that recently purchased a property that the boardwalk crosses about creating a formal license or lease agreement that would legally ensure public access to the popular walkway on its property. 

The boardwalk access talks are the result of Safe Harbor Marinas’ plan to expand its footprint in Rockland Harbor, where it owns an existing marina. While some in the city have feared the expansion would negatively impact the harbor, the size of the project has been scaled back since it was initially proposed several years ago and marina representatives have said they are prioritizing improving public access on and around their property. 

“Working out some legal format for continued access to the boardwalk is certainly more than we’ve had in the past. We’ve used it and continued to use it without any sort of legal guide and I think this is a step ahead in that direction so I’m quite pleased that we’re going to be working on that. Hopefully it’s fairly ironclad and lasts us for a long, long time,” Rockland Mayor Ed Glaser said during a city council meeting Monday night. 

Glaser, City Manager Tom Luttrell, Councilor Louise MacLellan-Ruf and Harbormaster Ryan Murry met with Bill Morong, a consultant for Safe Harbor Marinas, last week to discuss how the expansion plan would include increased public access to Rockland Harbor.

Creating a legal agreement for public use of the stretch of boardwalk on Safe Harbor Marinas’ 60 Ocean Street property was discussed as one of the ways to accomplish this, according to city officials who were at the meeting. 

The boardwalk was built 20 years ago when MBNA opened its waterfront complex in Rockland, and the public was permitted to walk the harborside path. Through Rockland Harbor Park LLC, local developer Stuart Smith purchased the property in 2007 and has continued to allow the public to use the boardwalk, which is now a part of the city’s harbor trail. 

Earlier this year, Safe Harbor Marinas purchased Yachting Solutions’ Rockland marina, including a piece of property Yachting Solutions had been leasing from Rockland Harbor Park LLC. The land purchase split ownership of the boardwalk between Safe Harbor Marinas and Rockland Harbor Park LLC. 

City officials said Morong is working to bring Smith to the table to discuss an agreement for the Rockland Harbor Park LLC stretch of boardwalk as well.

“Safe Harbors supports the Harbor Trail effort and we are on board for finding a tool, such as a lease or a license where the public access across the boardwalk is ensured,” Morong said in a letter to council. 

It is unclear when a final agreement will be reached, but MacLellan-Ruf said the city would pursue a strong agreement that protected public access for the community. 

“This is all going to go to legal [counsel], so anybody who has concerns that people will back out on their word, we’re going to make sure that we have clad and sealed, and absolutely, protection for the community, for that public access,” MacLellan-Ruf said. 

As a result of the “positive direction” discussions with Safe Harbor Marinas’ are going, Councilor Nate Davis dropped an effort to have the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands require that Safe Harbor Marinas compensate the city if the agency approves the marina’s expansion. 

Safe Harbor Marinas has also indicated that it would pay for the relocation of any mooring balls that need to be moved due to the expansion, create a new pier and lookout point that will be open to the public on its property, improve access to a nearby city-owned beach and contribute architectural assistance to a plan for public restrooms near the beach, according to city officials. 

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

Rockland residents to weigh in on revamped marina expansion plan

by Lauren Abbate October 9, 2021

ROCKLAND, Maine — With a public comment deadline looming, Rockland residents will have an opportunity next week to learn more about a recently revised marina expansion project slated for the city’s harbor.


The proposal from Safe Harbor Marinas — a national company that recently purchased a Rockland marina — is currently being reviewed by the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands and by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

When it was first proposed three years ago, the project caused concerns among residents who feared the expansion would negatively affect the harbor. Revisions to the plan have caused delays in the proposal moving forward. Aspects of the dredging permitting process have also caused delays.

The expansion plan has been scaled back since it was first proposed in 2018, but the City Council has heard from residents who still have concerns about it. To help bring residents up to speed on the revised proposal — and to offer a venue for questions and concerns — the City Council is hosting an informational meeting on Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. The Bureau of Parks and Lands is accepting public comments on the proposal through Friday.

“If we can have that informational discussion, maybe some folks will feel more confident in their position about it and still can make public comments through the 15th,” Rockland City Councilor Sarah Austin said this week.  

Since the current proposal is only dealing with water-related developments, city approval is not needed, but the council decided it would help to host an informational discussion on the project before the Bureau of Parks and Lands public comment deadline. A councilor suggested sending minutes of the discussion to the bureau, though it is not clear if the city will follow that suggestion.

City officials are working to have an engineer who is working for Safe Harbor Marinas on the project at Wednesday’s public forum, as well as the harbormaster and members of the city’s harbor management committee.

Safe Harbor Marinas acquired the Rockland marina last year, when it purchased the locally-owned company, Yachting Solutions. The marina expansion was originally proposed by Yachting Solutions in 2018, after the company received a $1 million in federal grant funding to expand the transient boater capacity in Rockland.

The project must be completed by fall of 2022 before the grant funding expires, according to the permit application that Safe Harbor submitted to the Bureau of Parks and Lands. Safe Harbor is looking to amend its existing submerged lands lease at the marina site in order to expand.

The project will include expansions of the existing float system to both the east and west of the marina’s main pier. An area of about 138,000 square feet of harbor bottom will need to be dredged for the project, according to the application.

The revised expansion plan will still at least double the marina’s dockage capacity, according to Bill Morong, a consultant for Safe Harbor Marinas, but it also requires less dredging than the earlier proposal. Other revisions include a planned pier extension that has been reduced by about 4,000 square-feet, and having larger boats dock either stern or bow toward the view rather than broadside, to help minimize impacts on the view of the harbor from shore.

“I was one of the people who objected fairly strongly to the original plan several years ago and it is important to acknowledge […] that it is a very different plan now. It’s a much better plan. It’s a plan that was significantly redesigned in response both to public feedback and also city council actions,” Rockland City Councilor Nate Davis said.

If the state approves the project, Safe Harbor Marinas hopes to begin dredging work next month and have the expansion completed by May 2022, according to the application.




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




A year later.....

 BDN 1/12/22  Midcoast residents are fighting to stop a Rockland marina’s expansion.                by Lauren Abbate

More than a dozen midcoast residents are fighting against a proposed marina expansion in Rockland Harbor.

The Department of Environmental Protection granted Safe Harbor Marinas a permit under the Natural Resources Protection Act last month to allow for the expansion of the company’s Rockland marina.

The expansion has faced pushback in Rockland since it was proposed several years ago. The project has since been scaled back, but the group recently appealed the permit, feeling the expansion would ruin the scenic views of the harbor and impede overall access.

“If the proposed expansion is permitted to proceed, the appellants and other Rockland residents and visitors will have an undisclosed number and size of mega yachts as well as numerous other large yachts blocking the scenic view so many now enjoy and even rely on as part of their aesthetic day-to-day life practices,” according to the appeal.

The appeal was received on Jan. 7, and it’s now being reviewed by the department’s Board of Environmental Protection, which handles matters like rulemaking and appeals, according to spokesperson David Madore.

“The permit will remain in effect until the Board deliberates the appeal request and issues a decision,” Madore said.

The project needs the permit to move forward. It also needs final approval from the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, which granted preliminary approval last month. A final decision is expected later this week or early next week, according to Karen Foust, a submerged lands coordinator with the bureau.

Safe Harbor Marinas is planning to more than double the docking capacity and increase the availability of dockage in Rockland. Additions include new floats, pilings and fixed piers that would result in 3,500-square-feet of additional docking space. The expanded marina will serve vessels ranging from 20- to 200-feet long, according to Department of Environmental Protection documents, with a majority of vessels ranging from 30- to 60-feet long.

In its review of the project, the department found that the “proposed activity will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational or navigational uses of the coastal wetland.”

But the group fighting the permit feels the department erred in their approval and argue that the project will ruin views of the harbor, its public use as well as the use of a nearby beach and boardwalk. They also claim that the environmental concerns were not adequately considered and the potential impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Appellants also expressed concern that a formal agreement regarding public access and compensation for mooring relocation between Safe Harbor Marinas and the city of Rockland has yet to be signed.

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


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

Rockland pursuing agreement with private marina to preserve public access to waterfront boardwalk  11/2/21  by  Lauren Abbate

ROCKLAND, Maine ― For two decades, the public has been allowed to use a boardwalk along Rockland Harbor without any type of legal agreement between the city and waterfront property owners. 


But with a changing waterfront, city officials are working to ensure access remains in a more formal way. 

The city has begun discussions with a private marina company that recently purchased a property that the boardwalk crosses about creating a formal license or lease agreement that would legally ensure public access to the popular walkway on its property. 

The boardwalk access talks are the result of Safe Harbor Marinas’ plan to expand its footprint in Rockland Harbor, where it owns an existing marina. While some in the city have feared the expansion would negatively impact the harbor, the size of the project has been scaled back since it was initially proposed several years ago and marina representatives have said they are prioritizing improving public access on and around their property. 

“Working out some legal format for continued access to the boardwalk is certainly more than we’ve had in the past. We’ve used it and continued to use it without any sort of legal guide and I think this is a step ahead in that direction so I’m quite pleased that we’re going to be working on that. Hopefully it’s fairly ironclad and lasts us for a long, long time,” Rockland Mayor Ed Glaser said during a city council meeting Monday night. 

Glaser, City Manager Tom Luttrell, Councilor Louise MacLellan-Ruf and Harbormaster Ryan Murry met with Bill Morong, a consultant for Safe Harbor Marinas, last week to discuss how the expansion plan would include increased public access to Rockland Harbor.


Creating a legal agreement for public use of the stretch of boardwalk on Safe Harbor Marinas’ 60 Ocean Street property was discussed as one of the ways to accomplish this, according to city officials who were at the meeting. 


The boardwalk was built 20 years ago when MBNA opened its waterfront complex in Rockland, and the public was permitted to walk the harborside path. Through Rockland Harbor Park LLC, local developer Stuart Smith purchased the property in 2007 and has continued to allow the public to use the boardwalk, which is now a part of the city’s harbor trail. 


Earlier this year, Safe Harbor Marinas purchased Yachting Solutions’ Rockland marina, including a piece of property Yachting Solutions had been leasing from Rockland Harbor Park LLC. The land purchase split ownership of the boardwalk between Safe Harbor Marinas and Rockland Harbor Park LLC. 


City officials said Morong is working to bring Smith to the table to discuss an agreement for the Rockland Harbor Park LLC stretch of boardwalk as well.


“Safe Harbors supports the Harbor Trail effort and we are on board for finding a tool, such as a lease or a license where the public access across the boardwalk is ensured,” Morong said in a letter to council. 

It is unclear when a final agreement will be reached, but MacLellan-Ruf said the city would pursue a strong agreement that protected public access for the community. 

“This is all going to go to legal [counsel], so anybody who has concerns that people will back out on their word, we’re going to make sure that we have clad and sealed, and absolutely, protection for the community, for that public access,” MacLellan-Ruf said. 

As a result of the “positive direction” discussions with Safe Harbor Marinas’ are going, Councilor Nate Davis dropped an effort to have the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands require that Safe Harbor Marinas compensate the city if the agency approves the marina’s expansion. 

Safe Harbor Marinas has also indicated that it would pay for the relocation of any mooring balls that need to be moved due to the expansion, create a new pier and lookout point that will be open to the public on its property, improve access to a nearby city-owned beach and contribute architectural assistance to a plan for public restrooms near the beach, according to city officials. 

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


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