Search

Jul 25, 2014

News: Activists continue to push for official investigation of Kidder Point erosion

Activists continue to push for official investigation of Kidder Point erosion


Photo by: Jordan BaileyAn aerial view of the GAC Chemical Corp. property in Searsport, courtesy of Project LightHawk.
SEARSPORT — Friends of Penobscot Bay, an activist group, is facing obstacles as it continues to call for an official investigation into the possible erosion of legacy wastes from the property of GAC Chemical Corporation in Searsport.
The group maintains that wastes from former uses of the site are running off into the shoreline sediments of Kidder Point and the adjacent mudflats.
Dr. Mark Green, an oceanography professor at St. Joseph's College in Standish, tested samples of mud FOPB members collected from the area and sent him according to his instructions, and found the samples to be unusually acidic. Green concluded in an April 9 report on the study, “Results presented here clearly demonstrate a significant anthropogenic acid source and should merit concern for the well being of local residents in contact with these sediments, recreation in the immediate area, and wildlife.”
Several attempts by FOPB to prompt official investigations have dead-ended. At the group's request The Department of Environmental Protection did a site visit and visual inspection of the property in October 2013 and found no reason to further investigate. FOPB then filed a complaint with the National Response Center of the Environmental Protection Agency. Officer Timothy Balunis of the U.S. Coast Guard base in Portland was assigned to review the DEP's documentation related to the site and materials provided by FOPB. He also concluded that there was no need for further investigation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at the request of FOPB, is planning to do a site walk, but Kelsey O'Neil said in a phone call with The Journal July 22 that this should not be characterized as an investigation.
"We don't anticipate finding anything more than the state found," O'Neil said. "The state has been doing a lot of sampling over the years and has a relationship with GAC and with Friends of Penobscot Bay. GAC has been cooperative and compliant, and at this point there is no reason to believe that further action is necessary."
Searsport will not investigate
When FOPB member Harlan McLoughlin requested at the July 15 Searsport selectmen's meeting that Searsport "take some samples like we took, find a reputable lab to test them and then decide on what your action would be from there," board chair Aaron Fethke agreed with the Department of Marine Resource's statement to the Bangor Daily News that the study is not verifiable.
McLoughlin explained that the study is verifiable: "This is why we were so careful," he said. "In science..., other people have to be able to do what you did using what you used the way you did it. If the guy at DEP says they can’t verify [our] samples, then test your own samples."
"No that's not how it works, Harlan" Fethke responded. "If we can’t make sure your testing was accurate then I don't think the study holds water. No one can verify that you did it correctly."
Fethke confirmed the town would not be doing its own testing in a phone call with The Journal July 21. "Testing is done by the DEP and the DMR," he said. "Municipalities don't get involved in that."
Scientist defends original study
Green, who has recently been awarded his third National Science Foundation grant to continue his pioneering studies on the effects of acidification on juvenile clams and has been appointed to Maine's Ocean Acidification Commission by DMR Commissioner Patrick Kelliher, wrote to The Journal July 21 about how the sampling process could have affected the test results. He said the sample containers he received were completely full of mud with no head-space, meaning that there was very little oxygen available for bacteria, and that the samples had been put on ice, which made the bacteria metabolism drop to a very slow rate. But the effect of any bacteria action would be a raise in pH, not a lowering, he explained, because alkalinity is produced in the absence of oxygen during bacterial respiration.
"There is no amount of time these samples could have sat around to give you the low values that were recorded, in my opinion," he said.
Green also doesn't believe the samples were contaminated, accidentally or deliberately, because the pH changes appeared to follow a pattern, increasing away from a low, highly acidic region as one proceeds seaward. Such a pattern would be very hard to achieve through doctoring the samples.
"At the end of the day, I only received the mud samples as an overnight delivery and had no oversight of the collection," Green said. "If [DMR and the Searsport select board] dismissed them out of hand, I find that to be pretty ridiculous and not at all based on knowledge of how these samples would behave post-collection prior to my measuring them. If they dismissed them because they don't trust the original source of the samples... when they measure them again they'll see the same values generated."
Searsport Police get involved
In the meantime, the group has been going to the shore at Kidder Point each Sunday to warn the public of the potential dangers in area, but their right to do so is being challenged.
“Searsport police threatened arrest for criminal trespass if we continued to gather samples there,” FOPB president Ron Huber said in an email. "We consider the threat to arrest sediment samplers to be suggestive ... of something to hide."
Searsport Police Chief Richard LaHaye said on three Sundays — June 29, July 6 and July 13 — police were called to the area by someone at GAC Chemical reporting trespassing. The first two Sundays a police officer spoke with the FOPB members at the shore, gathered information about who was there and why, and made them aware of the laws against trespassing. The police took no action at that time, he said. The third Sunday, police observed someone with a fishing pole on the shore.
“I'm aware of the fishing and fowling laws on shoreline property that borders private property, and the individual did have a fishing pole so we did not address that individual,” LeHaye said.
LeHaye indicated that he was waiting to find out if the GAC deed extends to the low water mark or to the high water mark, which will make a difference as to how the trespassing laws are enforced.
“If people don't have a right to be there, then they shouldn't be there,” he said.
The Journal consulted quitclaim deed 01902 (Book 1440, page 294), of March 8, 1994, in which Delta Chemical granted General Alum New England Corp two parcels of land The deed indicates the boundary is at the low tide line. The first parcel's shoreline boundary is described as: “Thence continuing on the same course to the low water line of [Stockton] Harbor; thence in a generally southwesterly direction following said mean low water line a distance of two thousand thirty (2,030) feet more or less” to the boundary of Parcel 2. Parcel 2's shoreline boundary is described as “continuing on the same course to the mean low water line of [Stockton] Harbor; thence … following the mean low water line of said Harbor, to a point at a corner of Parcel 1...”
Observations from above
On July 17, FOPB’s Olivia Gomes and Robert Huber, with the help of Project LightHawk, a non-profit which donates flights to groups engaged in conservation projects, took aerial photos of the GAC Chemical plant, the shoreline and the cove. Their photographs showed a red discoloration of sediment that appeared to be washing out from shore.
FOPB will be passing on their photos and video to the EPA as it conducts its asessment, which Kelsey O'Neil said in an email to Ron Huber includes reviewing data collected by the state and FOPB, meeting with the parties and visiting the site to observe current conditions.
"No sampling is planned at this first site visit,” O’Neil wrote in the email.

Jul 10, 2014

Green crab "harvest facilitation" public hearing Monday July 14, 2014

The European Green Crab seems to  have dropped sharply this year in upper Penobscot Bay -  both in the Bagaduce River and in Searsport Harbor.

But Mainers must still be prepared for when the next spike in green crab numbers happens - Weather related? Have they moved away from the plundered shores  and gone subtidal?  Whatever  the reasons, Maine's policy is to facilitate their capture and death.

On Monday July 14th the Maine Department of Marine Resources will hold a public hearing on the newest regs at DMR HQ. Friends of Penobscot Bay will be there.

Read all about it:
Green Crab Harvest Facilitation; Ch. 8.02 Compliance & Ch. 8.20(A) Harvester Reporting Green Crabs. Proposed Rulemaking (7pg pdf)

PUBLIC HEARING: Monday July 14, 2014. 1 p.m. Natural Resources Service Center.  Room 106. 6 Beech Street, Hallowell, Maine 


DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS: July 25, 2014

OFFICIAL SUMMARY
"This proposed regulation would improve the ability of individuals to collect and remove from coastal Maine waters the invasive and damaging green crab species. The considerable adverse effect of green crab predation on Maine’s valuable shellfish population has increased the importance of streamlining and improving DMR regulations regarding the harvest of green crabs." 

"The proposed regulations include: eliminating the restriction on the taking of green crabs as bycatch by licensed commercial lobster harvesters; no longer requiring a lobster/crab license holder to obtain a green crab-only license in order to sell green crabs; eliminating the harvester reporting requirement for green crabs; and clarifying requirements prohibiting harvesting green crabs at night and the usage of unapproved bait."

Details:
http://www.maine.gov/dmr/25.40greencrabproposedweb.pdf

Jun 26, 2014

Newspaper: Study finds acidic mud at Kidder Point

Study finds acidic mud at Kidder Point

Local group calls for action
By Jordan Bailey | Jun 25, 2014  Waldo Village Soup/Republican Journal
Photo by: Jordan BaileyFriends of Penobscot Bay President Ron Huber points toward one of the areas where low pH was measured.
SEARSPORT — A study by Dr. Mark Green, environmental science professor at St. Joseph’s College in Standish and ocean acidification expert, found sediment along the shore on the western side of Kidder Point in Searsport to be “extremely acidic,” and a local group is calling for federal agencies to investigate the site.
At the request of Friends of Penobscot Bay, pH of mud was measured at 22 sites on the east side of Sears Island and the west side of Kidder Point. Green reported one location measuring a pH of 1.4 and the rest ranged from 4.55 to 7.15. The average of all the sample measurements was 6.03. Sediments with pH measurements in the 6's and below, Green said in his April 9 report on the study, should be considered incapable of supporting any marine life. In a quick microscopic analysis of the sediments tested, he said he did not see evidence of any of the microscopic organisms that are usually ubiquitous in coastal mud.
The report concluded, “Results presented here clearly demonstrate a significant anthropogenic acid source and should merit concern for the well-being of local residents in contact with these sediments, recreation in the immediate area and wildlife.” Green also expressed the concern in a message sent with the report that metals that would normally be locked in sediment particles could be mobilized by the acidity of the environment.
At a meeting with The Journal April 18 for a previous article, GAC President David Colter and GAC's environmental consultant John Pond of CES Inc. explained that GAC has a fully implemented Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan by which stormwater is treated because of wastes present at the site from its historic uses.
"If GAC wasn't here," Pond said, "the stormwater would be running off  pollution into the bay."
However, Green stated in his report, “Based on the proximity of these stations to the phosphogypsum waste area at Kidder Point there is little doubt that these deposits are being severely impacted by runoff at the adjacent shoreline.”
A group of 10 people met at Sears Island Sunday, June 22, for an informational tour of the Kidder Point shoreline led by FOPB President Ron Huber. The group walked to Green’s sample sites and observed the erosion along the western side of Kidder Point. They saw that the sediment was discolored in areas, with red and yellow hues, and yellow pebbles, believed to be sulfur from a former sulfur acid plant on the property, were peppered among the gravel and cobbles. The erosion appeared to be controlled on the eastern side of the point.
FOPB had been bringing their concerns about this site to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection's attention for several years, and in response an inspector from the department did a site visit October 18, 2013. Karen Knuuti of the Division of Solid Waste Management described a visual inspection of the site in a memo in which she noted areas of yellow and orange discoloration of sediments and some gradual erosion. The only discussion of phosphogypsum in the memo is: “Regarding phosphogypsum, it is not clear if this waste would have been produced by the superphosphate process. I saw no indication of large quantities of waste in the area we walked over." Knuuti also discusses reviewing logs of borings that were made in the area as part of an investigation in the late 1980s. "Sulfur [was noted] in one boring," the memo states. "No other waste materials are noted [in the logs].”
DEP Communications Director Jessamine Logan told The Journal June 23 “the department found no reason to further investigate the property.”
However, many on the June 22 shoreline walk felt the DEP should continue their investigation.
Randall Parr, Green Party District 95 candidate for the Maine House of Representatives, read from a statement he had prepared: “Failure of Maine state agencies to investigate acidification... is a dereliction of duty, shirking their responsibility to the people who depend on the sea for livelihoods and recreation. A scientist who has taken samples determined that there is reason to investigate this site further.”
Mike Dassatt, treasurer of Downeast Lobsterman’s Association, pointed out that there is no life “not even seaweed” along the portion of shoreline near the test site. “From Downeast Lobstermen's Association’s point of view,” he said, “if there's nothing to be concerned about, and there's nothing to hide, then there shouldn't be any reason [for the DEP] not to take samples and get them tested.”
Frustrated with the DEP’s response, FOPB filed a complaint through the National Response Center (NRC), the federal contact point for reporting all hazardous substance releases and oil spills, but it is unclear if the Environmental Protection Agency or Coast Guard will conduct a full investigation.
Timothy Balunis, chief of incident management at the U.S. Coast Guard office in Portland, has been assigned to the case. He emphasized in a call with The Journal that “the site is not a Superfund site," and their response is not a Superfund investigation, as has been implied in a press release by FOPB, but simply the standard procedure after any NRC report is made. According to the EPA website, reports to the NRC activate the National Contingency Plan in which the on-scene coordinator assigned to the incident collects available information on the size and nature of the release, the facility or vessel involved, and the party or parties responsible for the release. Balunis is currently working with the Maine DEP and is reviewing the department’s findings.
“DEP has gone up several times and have been thorough and pro-active in looking into the site,” Balunis said.
At this point, Balunis says, he is not sure if the Coast Guard will be doing any of its own inspections or sampling, and he has made no determination as to hazards to public health at the site.
If state and federal agencies are not yet pursuing full investigations of the site, GAC Chemical may be in the process of doing so voluntarily. A request for comment on GAC’s plans regarding testing, mitigation or cleanup of the area tested by Green was not responded to by press time, but in an email to Huber dated May 21, Colter said “GAC is voluntarily exploring options and alternatives with an environmental consulting firm,” and though no specific timetable can be determined at this early stage of their exploratory efforts, GAC “will continue those efforts in a deliberate manner.”

Jun 16, 2014

Islesboro Island Trust unveils alternative dredge plan. Plus Media reaction to Report

PENOBSCOT BAY. Plans for expansion dredging of Searsport Harbor came under fresh fire today, as a bay area land trust and other opponents of the project renewed their call for the US Army Corps of Engineers and Maine Department of Transportation to perform an Environmental Impact Study on the controversial project before further action is taken. See media coverage at end of release

Islesboro Island Trust today released a report by prominent consulting firm Dawson and Associates that notes that the agencies have not considered 


less damaging alternatives, nor considered the impact to bay fisheries of the release of large quantitities of methylmercury into Penobscot Bay water column.

The Dawson & Associates Report  APPRAISAL OF SEARSPORT DEEPENING PROJECT (pdf) suggests maintenance dredging the entry to Searsport Harbor only to mintenance standard to 35 feet rather than 45, and instead  deepening the layover berths next to the piers to 45 feet. The report says


97% of projected shipping benefits identified by the Corps in their proposal would be achieved using this alternative, the report says, "but would require substantially less dredging than the Corps’ proposal."

Ron Huber, executive director of Friends of Penobscot Bay lauded the report.
"Our state and federal governments need to take the concerns of Penobscot Bay area citizens seriously." Huber said. "This project could radically change the lives of people who fish Penobscot Bay. And those who beachcomb, swim and sail it. "

FOPB's concerns are the same as other dredge critics: the mega-dredge could bring mercury, then methylmercury resuspension, reduce primary production by bay seaweeds and microalgae by turning the water nearly opaque for up to a year, & could stimulate increased coastal industrial growth in the upper Penobscot Bay estuary.

"With the river dams coming down, this estuary needs more protection, not less" he said. "As more and more seafood species come up Penobscot Bay and down Penobscot River, this estuary, as the transition crossroad for them, must be kept ecologically sound."

For more information about the Dawson  & Associates report contact Steve Miller, Islesboro Island Trust 207-734-6907 iitsmill@gmail.com

MEDIA COVERAGE

 Group Unveils Possible Alternative to Searsport Dredge plan. WLBZ

Possible alternative to Searsport dredge plan advanced. WCSH 6

Group advances alternative Searsport Dredging Plan MPBN

Land Trust Promotes Alternative to Searsport Harbor Dredging Bangor Daily News

Jun 12, 2014

FOPB joins renewed call for Searsport MEGA dredge EIS

Citizens tell Feds: Prepare an environmental impact study and smarten up dredge plan before risking New England's top lobster ground - to benefit two foreign oil interests!

PENOBSCOT BAY.  Plans for expansion dredging of Searsport Harbor came under fresh fire today, as a bay area land trust and other opponents of the project renewed their call for the US Army Corps of Engineers and Maine Department of Transportation to perform an  Environmental Impact Study on the controversial project before further action is taken.

Islesboro Island Trust today released a report by prominent consulting firm Dawson and Associates that notes that the agencies have not considered less damaging alternatives, nor considered the impact to bay fisheries of the release of large quantitities of methylmercury into Penobscot Bay water column.

The Dawson report suggests maintenance dredging the entry to 35 feet rather than 45, and instead and deepening the layover berths next to the piers to 45 feet.  The report says  

"97% of projected shipping benefits identified by the Corps in their proposal would be achieved using this alternative, the report says, "but would require substantially less dredging than the Corps’ proposal."

Ron Huber, executive director of Friends of Penobscot Bay lauded the report.

"Our state and federal governments need to take the concerns of Penobscot Bay area citizens seriously." Huber said.  "This project could radically change the lives of people who fish Penobscot Bay. And those who beachcomb, swim and sail it. "

FOPB's concerns are the same as other dredge critics"
the mega-dredge could bring mercury, then methylmercury resuspension, reduce primary production by bay seaweeds and microalgae by turning the water nearly opaque for up to a year, & could stimulate increased coastal industrial growth in the upper Penobscot Bay estuary.   
"With the river dams coming down, this estuary needs more protection, not less"   he said.   "As more and more seafood species come up Penobscot Bay and down Penobscot River, this estuary, as the transition crossroad for them, must be kept ecologically sound." 

For more information about the Dawson report contact Steve Miller, Islesboro Island Trust 207-734-6907iitsmill@gmail.com

End

"Friends of Penobscot Bay: People who care about Maine's Biggest Bay."

May 22, 2014

Cabot Lyman hotel plan gets overwhelming NO from Rockland citizens at 5/20/14 hearing before Rockland planning board

Audio recordings from the 5/20/14 Rockland planning board meeting on Cabot Lyman's application to build a hotel at the intersection of  Main and Pleasant streets. Listen as people speak  eloquently or plainly in defense of their neighborhood against this shining example of "Dumb Growth"

1. Architect Pamela Hawkes (in process)  10 minutes

May 8, 2014

Dagher gets knife in back from US Dept of Energy - Maine's not an ocean windpower grant finalist!



Appears that the feds figured out the good doctor Dagher just isn't ready for prime time.

Maine didn't get the $46 million dollar grant to build two fullsize floating windturbines off Monhegan.

The UMaine-led floating ocean winturbines project has suffered terribly from the near paranoid insularity of the project under  Principle Investigator Dagher, who spurned suggestions from anyone outside his charmed circle. (Charmed by the allure of all those tens of millions and what a grand time they would've had expending it

DeepCwind is getting three million federal bucks in the nationwide competitino. but according to a University source this 3 million isn't even enough to make a single full size prototype. One that can actually be tested, unlike the ridiculous toy windmill that the Maine the windies rushed out and wouldn't take out to the test area - They knew it would sink! 


So the feds took a look at this  furtive public-be-damned-operation  that UMaine engineering professor Habib Dagher, Principal Investigator  for the DeepCwind Consortium and its spin off progeny has been running.

They gazed upon the tiny toy windturbine bobbing off Castine. Too shabbily built to be safely tested at the test site off Monhegan, the design inspired no confidence  among the grantors. Where did the money  given DeepCwind to buld a fullscale prototype go? they must have wondered!

This is an important stay.  The University and its hangers-on in the DeepCwind Consortium presumably figured that if they could get away with  soiling Monhegan's viewshed with its  heavy public use and high scenic values, then all marine viewsheds of the Maine coast are vulnerable. Maine has spent too many years stewarding        

Floating off shore windpower extraction is worth trying out, but not when  it is needlessly view-polluting; or within the Gulf's  ecologically (hence economically) vital coastal currents. Nor are great sweeping blades the only way to extract energy from the seawind.   Dr. Dagher should follow his own advice and commit to siting his floaters beyond the curvature of the earth from any inhabited part of Maine.

The scent of imminent Big Money  may have pushed that civic responsibility from his mind. Now that DeepCwind Consortium and its spinoff children are no longer suffering that temptation, perhaps they will step outside of their echo chamber and listen - really LISTEN -to the existing Gulf of Maine communities of interest about how to avoid wrecking  or damaging their existing economic and cultural sectors and the manylayered heavily webbed ecosystem that fills these waters.

May 3, 2014

Maine Trawl survey comes to Penobscot Bay May 19th through the 23rd

Trawl Survey Time again!

Some of us hate 'em. Some revel in the data. Others  like the photos and videos  the surveyors take of the catches as they move from New Hampshire: a snapshot of life on Maine's coastal seafloors.

Sez DMR: "The Inshore Groundfish Trawl Survey is a fisheries independent assessment of living resources inside the coastal waters of Maine and New Hampshire. Its purpose is to fill a significant information gap that hampers efficient management of Maine’s fishing industry."

Links below are to large images of navigation chart that show the locations within Penobscot Bay and just outside it that the Maine trawl survey will visit with the planned dragging lines.
Day 11, tentatively May 19th – E of Monhegan to Tenants Hbr.
Day 12, tentatively May 20th – Upper Penobscot Bay
Day 13, tentatively May 21st – 1 Mile Ridge and Matinicus SSW
Day 14, tentatively May 22nd – SE of Matinicus Rock to Seal Is.
Day 15, tentatively May 23rd – East Penobscot Bay
Dates  approximate.  Possible stormy weather or stormy lobstermen. (see below)

"Gear consists of a modified shrimp net with a 2 inch mesh in wings and ½ inch mesh liner in the cod end. Foot rope and head ropes are 57' and 70' respectively, with 6 inch rubber cookies.  The F/V Robert Michael, a Northeast 54’ from Portland, ME is used as the platform vessel for this survey."  (End of excerpt.)
Lobstermen  escorting the  Maine trawl survey  boat out of the waters off Corea, Maine in 2001.
 In the past, lobstermen have been outraged by the number of shedder lobsters killed or declawed  by the rough treatment they receive, packed into a trawl's cod end bag. In this 2001 photo several dozen expressed their discontent by escorting the Maine trawl survey boat out of the waters off Corea where most lobsters were in that soft shelled shedder stage

"Noted one Corea fisherman, Arvin Young: "I told them they can't drag here, it's all soft shell lobsters. It's just so ridiculous what they were doing. We've been working for years on conservation, and they drag right through." 
[from: Fishermens Voice, November 2001]

May 2, 2014

MLA holds lobstermen-only dredge issue presentation in Belfast - Interesting people I met.

I was up at the Belfast library this morning where the Maine Lobstermens Associationwasosting a meeting for lobstermen only with the dredging interests. These include John Henshaw Maine Port Authority, David Gelinas Penobscot Bay & River Pilots, Jay Clements ACOE & Marina Lentine Eggett MDEP on "Private Dredge projects, dredging the piers; Steve Wolfe Army Corps of Engineers expert on Testing dredge and dumping dredge spoils. Attached is a copy of their agenda fopr the meeting and a photo of lobstering filing into the meeting room at the library.

The dredge fighters were there as well, filling the sidewalk in front of the library, knots of fishfolk and and a few 

others seem to have it together in a rather ferocious way (though until they make Maine's US Senators get their boots off the Corps of Engineers neck, so the agency _can_ call for an EIS they may make little progress). 

The lobstermen-only decision is because fishing leaders have noticed that at public hearings on dredging where the greater public is there and often quite emphatic in their positions, the fishfolk feel a bit crowded out and unable to ask questions without the public ooohing or booing at what they say. Its a societal Heisenberg uncertainty principle sort of thing, where the observer modifies the observed and we anti-expansion dredge environmental interests were doing some modifying. So like it or not there it is. 


I went into the room before it started and after an encounter with a worried-then-chilled-out MLA exec director, I got hold of John Henshaw of the port authority. John, you know what I want answered; when can I get you on a landline for the interview? Bloke travels around quite a lot and cellphones sound tinny, so about a week of the 12th Henshaw said he'll be back at his desk in his cubicle at MDOT HQ. He promised.

Then I had to hurry because Dave Gelinas was there and I needed to talk Belfast-to-Bangor river corridor; reenergizing the Penobscot Riverside towns' access to river deliveries on non toxic cargoes. David urged me to contact the chambers of commerce for the river towns. A great idea and I'll do so.

Then it was almost time to go; the megadredge meeting was about to start. I went out and talked with lobsterman Richard Nelson about the other end of the bay, where the UMaine is leading a well conceived but awful-in-execution offshore floating wind turbine. Nelson's been keeping an eye on the offshore wind wannabees about as long as I have; but because his Way is of thoughtful inquiry and reflection, the Windies thought they could get him to stand up at an event and give a thumbs-up to their plan (keep in mind that the state standard is 10 miles offshore including 10 miles away from inhabited islands. That they choose less than 3 miles from an island with one of the most painted seascapes in America , a world class tourist destination and arts colony, shows a certain level of contempt for the irreplaceable scenic assets of an island that has little else but a seasonal lobster fishery.

Happily there are plenty of dissident lobstermen at the meeting , so no wool is going to get pulled over anyone's eyes. It just ended; I'll check in with my lobstering sources who attended in a short time. There will also be a teach-in by dredge opponents after the meeting - but I was disinvited - told I should "stay in the weeds" and not speak there. While Maine Sierra Club and other NGOs held forth!  Such is life.

Apr 26, 2014

GAC Shore waste cleanup - Who the players are

It is going to take a welter of local state and federal agencies working together to eliminate the waste erosion at GAC Chemical's abandoned shorefront area harborward of the railroad track.  We'll start with a list of  state officials expect this state list to grow, as well as the municipal and federal lists of players .

MDEP staff with  GAC Chemical oversight responsibilities 

Karen Knuuti, Environmental Spec,
Bureau of Remediation and Waste Mgmt. Bangor
(207) 941-4561  karen.knuuti@maine.gov

Wilkes B Harper. Brownfields/VRAP Project Mgr
Bureau of Remediation & Waste Mgmt. Augusta
(207)  287-4856  office / (207)  592-1192  cell
wilkes.b.harper@maine.gov

Nick Hodgkins Oil & Haz Materials Specialist
Bureau of Remediation & Waste Mgmt, Augusta
(207) 287-4854 (desk) (207) 592-0882 (cell)
nick.hodgkins@maine.gov

Susanne Miller, Director,
Maine DEP Bangor Office
Phone: (207) 941.4190 / Cell: (207) 557.2700
Susanne.miller@maine.gov

Apr 19, 2014

DMR scientist Carl Wilson on on lobsters and pesticides

Listen to Carl Wilson, Maine DMR lobster scientist give this presentation at the  4/18/14  meeting of the Maine Board of Pesticides Control. 

Broken into two  parts for ease of listening but also the full full 17 minutes


The Board has  committed to organizing pesticide sampling of intertidal areas of Penobscot Bay and Casco Bay.

Wilson had something to say about Maine lobsters and pesticides at the meeting Friday of the Maine Board of Pesticides Control. where a plan was agreed on to seek out and test pesticide hot spots in the intertidal shores of Penobscot Bay and Casco Bay, Click on the link to hear Dr Wilson and then his questioners 17minute 45second




Apr 17, 2014

Five Feet of Muck...

I was very disappointed to learn that nearly all of the members of the Bangor City Council did not ask the Army Corps to complete a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). I hope they'll reconsider.

 The folks down on the Midcoast deserve their own extra margin of safety in the form of a full EIS. There were lots of questions asked at the second dredge meeting. The Army Corps claimed their recent determination of “no dredge, not even maintenance” needed for the large DCP-LPG Tankers ( in 2012 ) had originated with a report done by the Coast Guard. We are left wondering if an
Environmental Assessment can perhaps be tailored to fit the political pressures prevailing. An EIS might be an instrument that is not so easily manipulated.

 A recent pronouncement that this project is “too small to warrant an EIS” is surely a cavalier and misleading assessment. The scale of this project is unprecedented in Penobscot Bay. Besides the immediate effects of the dredge, which could be substantial, the Corps needs to look deeper. An expanded and more industrialized port could have a variety of benefits and hazards, and all these futures must be examined.

 Sure, folks down in New York City or Boston wouldn't bat an eyebrow about a million cubic yards of dredge spoils, but we have things here that those large metropolitan areas have lost. Change is inevitable, but this change needs to be accomplished transparently and responsibly.

                                        Sincerely, Mrs. Sally Jones
                                                                    Bangor

Apr 15, 2014

Belfast Bay craters - bigger than you think! And more important.

From the Island Institute, important facts about the floor of upper Penobscot Bay.
Images courtesy NOAA.

Pen Bay pockmarks as big as the Rose Bowl

It turns out that Penobscot Bay hosts the largest known concentration of these pockmarks anywhere in the world   by Heather Deese and Susie Arnold


Image by NOAA vessel RUDE
The seafloor of Penobscot Bay has been in the news quite a bit lately due to controversy around a proposed dredging project in Searsport. A little-discussed aspect of the dredge proposal is that the Army Corp of Engineers is proposing to deposit the dredge spoils into an expansive cavern on the sea floor in western Penobscot Bay, called a "pockmark."

The existence of these giant pockmarks is not widely known outside the scientific and fishing communities—but has been the subject of study for three decades by our leading marine geologists in Maine. It turns out that Penobscot Bay hosts the largest known concentration of these pockmarks anywhere in the world, each one formed by the release of naturally-occurring methane gas.
The University of Maine's Dan Belknap and Joe Kelley started studying these features in 1984. On their first cruise, they partnered with a local lobsterman because fishermen have known about these depressions for decades. At the time they weren't on the charts, but fishermen observed that lobsters congregate in the depressions, and traps set in them came up carrying sticky blue clay.

The blue clay was the first clue indicating glacial sediments and methane.
"We have had incredible cooperation from fishermen over the years," Belknap said. "They have provided us with very good clues about what is actually going on. It would have taken us a lot longer to figure this out on our own."

Three decades later, after ship-based surveys with side-scan and multi-beam sonar, ROV (remotely-operated vehicle) surveys, and even manned submersible visits, Belknap and his colleagues now know a lot more about these formations. But they still have unanswered questions.

In a sonar image the pockmarks appear as a field of cone-shaped depressions crowded together in groups or strung out in chains "as if connected like a string of pearls," explained Belknap.

There are thousands of pockmarks in northwestern Penobscot Bay, but they also occur in smaller clumps or chains in muddy seafloor areas up and down the coast of Maine. A medium sized pockmark is about 60 feet wide and 20 feet deep. Many are smaller. A few are as large as the Rose Bowl.

Sonar and sediment core data pointed to naturally-formed methane gas as the force creating these pockmarks. The methane seems to have been formed by microbes acting on rich organic material that was deposited when these areas were wetlands at the end of the ice age, over 11,000 years ago. Over time, as the methane bubbles have escaped through the surrounding sediments and up through the water, the seafloor has slumped, forming the cone-shaped features.

While the pocks are ubiquitous in the bay, the total amount of methane is small, and capturing it commercially would not be economically feasible.

But questions about the pockmarks still persist: Do they form in rapid events or through slow outgassing? Are they still being formed? Are they stable?
There are anecdotal reports of fishermen seeing bubbles come to the surface—one lobsterman described it as looking like a submarine was surfacing—but this outgassing has not been observed or recorded during scientific surveys.

The most recent scientific evidence indicates the pockmarks are not likely actively forming, Belknap noted. Nonetheless, uncertainly persists about whether methane is being released and what the contribution could be to local ocean chemistry, including acidification.

What the scientists do know is that the pockmark walls contain what appear to be vents, and that these walls are not stable.

"I was in a submersible one time too close to the edge of a pockmark and we started an underwater landslide," Belknap recalled. "The captain of the submersible said ‘We are not doing that again!’”

While we do not know everything we would like to about these features, they serve as a reminder that the seafloor off our own coast can be a fascinating and ever-changing environment—not the silent deep many of us think of as sitting below the waves.

Dr. Heather Deese is an oceanographer and VP of Strategic Development at Island Institute. Dr. Susie Arnold is a marine ecologist and Marine Scientist at Island Institute.

Apr 13, 2014

Maine, the Feds and the Coastal Zone Management Act

There are many laws that must be considered as the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Maine decide whether or not to approve the Searsport Harbor expansion dredge application.

Here is the list according to the Coastal Zone Management Act, which  requires the state and feds to be satisfied that the application meets the standards of all the below laws that apply.   (see CZMA Wikipedia entry)

o Natural Resources Protection Act (38 M.R.S. §§480-A to 480-S; and 480-U to 480-HH)
· Wetlands Protection rules (Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules ch.310)
· Coastal Sand Dune rules (DEP rules ch. 355)
· Permit by Rule standards (DEP rules ch. 305)
· Significant habitat rules (DEP rules ch. 335; Department of Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife (DIFW) rules ch. 10)
· Scenic Impact rules (DEP rules ch. 315)
o Site Location of Development Law (38 M.R.S. §§481 to 485-A; 486-A, -B; 487-A to 490; and 490-A to 490-TT)13
· Definitions of terms used in the site location of development law and regulations (DEP rules ch. 371)
· Policies and procedures (DEP rules ch. 372)
· Financial capacity standard (DEP rules ch. 373)
· No adverse environmental impact standard (DEP rules ch. 375)

Soil types standard (DEP rules ch. 376)
· Review of roads (DEP rules ch. 377)
· Variance criteria; performance standards (storage of petroleum products) (DEP rules
ch. 378)
· Planning permit (DEP rules ch. 380)
o MaineDOT Traffic Movement Permit Law (23 M.R.S. §704-A )
o Erosion Control and Sedimentation Law (38 M.R.S. §420-C)
o Wind Energy Act (35-A M.R.S. §§3451-3459)
· Scenic viewpoints of state or national significance on public reserved lands or
publicly accessible pedestrian trails (Department of Conservation rules ch. 3)
o Storm Water Management Law (38 M.R.S. §420-D)
· Storm Water Management rules (DEP rules ch. 500)
· Direct Watersheds of Water bodies Most at Risk from New Development, and
Sensitive or Threatened Regions or Watersheds (DEP rules ch. 502)
o Maine Waterway Development and Conservation Act (38 M.R.S. §§630 to 636-A; and 640)
o Protection and Improvement of Air Law (38 M.R.S. §§581 to 610-A, -B)14
· DEP rules chapters: 100 (regulatory definitions); 113 (growth offset regulations); 115
(major and minor source air emissions license regulations); 117 (source surveillance);
118 (gasoline vapor recovery); 134 (RACT for VOCs emitting facilities); and 138
(RACT for nitrous oxides emitting facilities)
o Protection and Improvement of Waters Act15 (38 M.R.S. §§361 to 367; 371-A to 372;
410-N; 411 to 424; 451 to 455; and 464 to 470)

---------------------------------
Nutrient Management Act (7 M.R.S. §§4201-4214)
 Land Use Regulation Law (12 M.R.S. §§681 to 689)
· List of Coastal Islands in the Jurisdiction of the Maine Land Use Planning
Commission
· Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) Rules and Regulations, ch. 10 - Land Use
Districts and Standards16
o Maine Hazardous Waste, Septage and Solid Waste Management Act (38 M.R.S.
§§1301 to 1310-BB; 1316 to 1316-L; and 1317 to 1319-W)
o Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Sites Law (38 M.R.S. §§1362 and 1367)
o Asbestos Law (38 M.R.S. §§1273 and 1281)
o Lead Abatement Law (38 M.R.S. §§1296 and 1298(3))
o Sale of Consumer Products Affecting the Environmental Law (38 M.R.S. §§1608
and 1609-10)
o Mercury-Added Products and Services Law (38 M.R.S. §§1661-1661-C; 1665-A, -B;
and 1672)
o Solid Waste Management and Recycling Law (38 M.R.S. §§2133, sub-§2(A) and
2165)
o Priority Toxic Chemical Use Reduction Law (38 M.R.S. §§2321-2330)
o Wellhead Protection Law (38 M.R.S. §§1391-1399)

---------------------------------
Wellhead Protection: Siting of Facilities that Pose a Significant Threat to Drinking
Water (DEP rules ch. 700)
Siting of Oil Storage Facilities (DEP rules ch. 692)
Rules and Regulations for Flammable and Combustible Liquids (Dept. of Public
Safety rules ch. 34)
o Nuclear Facility Decommissioning Laws (PL 1999 c. 739 and PL 1999 c. 741)
o Oil Discharge Prevention & Pollution Control Law (38 M.R.S. §§541 to 560)
o Oil Storage Facilities and Ground Water Protection Law (38 M.R.S. §§561; 562-A; 563, sub-§1(A) and 2; 563-A-B; 564; 565-A; 566-A; 568; 568-A-B; 569-A, -C; 570; and 570-A-G, I-M)
Rules for Underground Storage Facilities (DEP rules ch. 691)
o Maine Endangered Species Act (12 MRSA §§12801-12810 [inland species]; 12
M.R.S. §6971-6977 [marine species]; and 12 M.R.S. §10001, sub-§§19 and 62
[definitions])
· Endangered species (DIFW rules ch. 8)
o General licensing and enforcement authorities; fees (38 M.R.S. §§341-D; 344 to
349; and 352-353, and 353-A, -B[fees])17
o Maine Rivers Act (12 M.R.S. §§403 and 407)
o Marine Resources Law (12 M.R.S. §§6171 to 6192; and 6432-A)
o Subdivision Law (30-A M.R.S. §§4401 to 4408)
o Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Law (38 M.R.S. §§435 to 449)
· Guidelines for Municipal Shoreland Zoning Ordinances (DEP rules ch. 1000)


o Coastal Management Policies Act (38 M.R.S. §§1801 to 1802)
o Coastal Barrier Resources System Act (38 M.R.S. §§1901 to 1905)