Search

Jan 24, 2022

Legislature's ENR Committee held hearing to require PFAS pre-testing of Juniper Ridge landfill leachate. Have a listen.

Listen below to mp3s of each speaker at the Jan 24thmeeting of the ENR Committee as it took testimony on LD 1875 "Act To Address Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Pollution from State-owned Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. " Bill would require PFAS  pretreatment of state landfill's leachate  before sending it to a wastewater plant. 

1 Committee Introductions 3min35sec 3min 

2 Bill Intro by Sponsor, Rep Bill Ziegler 5min39sec

3 DEP  Brian  Kavanaugh Dir  Bureau of Water Quality  6min15sec

4 DEP _Kavanaugh Q&A 21minutes

5 Johanna Davis and Adam Nordell 5min9sec

6  Davis & Nordell Q&A 13min22sec

7 Sarah Woodbury Defend our Health 4min

Leachate  from Juniper Ridge Landfill gushing into Penobscot River  
8 Woodbury QA 3min3sec

9 Sharon Treat  IATP 3min  

10 Nathan Saunders Maine Drinking Water Program  6 min 30sec

11 Saunders QA 4min 24sec

12 Dan Kusnierz Penobcot Nation_and QA_9min13sec

13 Kate Manahan 2min 51sec

14 Bill Lippincott Don't Waste Maine 3min 8sec

15 Peter_Blair Conservation Law Foundation and_QA_7min

16 Heather Spalding MOFGA 2min2min

17 _Luke Sekera Flanders 3min45se

18  Mark Hyland_ret DEP 8min 45sec

19 Shelby Wright Casella 8min49sec

20 Ed Spencer 3min 39sec

21 Dawn Neptune to end 2min 57sec

Full hearing  2hr 18min



Jan 14, 2022

Maine Board of Pesticides Control_PFAS_and_Pesticides

Maine's Board of Pesticides Control held an online meeting January 14th at 9am to discuss the ever worse PFAS issue. Agenda

0  Meeting introduction 4min33sec

CHAPTER 20

1. Rupert Mason Sierra Club 1

1_Karen Reardon RISE 2min18sec 

 2 Sarah Woodbury Defend Our Health & QA 8min

3 Sharon Treat Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy_7min48sec

4.Heather Spaulding MOFGA 6min4sec

5. Representative Grohoski 9min22sec  ++

7. Anya Fletcher Environment Maine 10min 36sec 

6.Heather Spaulding MOFGA 6min 4sec

7., Patricia Rupert Mason2 Sierra Club & QA 9min23sec

8. Jesse Obrien 3min55sec


Aerial pesticides: Report on Governor Mills'' Executive Order 41 at Jan 14, 2022 hearing of ME Board of Pesticides Control

Executive Order 41  An order establishing the Governor's review of the l Aerial Application of Herbicides  for Forest Management directed the Maine Forest Service and the Board of Pesticides Control to review rules related to the aerial application of synthetic herbicides and make recommendations intended to further protect waterways, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources.

Below are links to the joint report  made by these two government entities

1 Cover Page

2 IFW Report

3 Other States on aerial pesticides

4 Cover Blank

5 Summary of Considerations for rule changes

6. Summary of Maine regulations on aerial spraying

7 Addendum B Report by SCS Consultant 44pages

8   Addendum C Guidance for Pesticide application in Forests

Addendum D  Addendum D—Preliminary Water Quality Work

10  Establishment and Purpose

11 Contributors to the report


Jan 7, 2022

Money that LPA licensees pay is used to support the whole Aquaculture industry. FOAA email chain tries to explain

The below email chain seeks to find out (1) what the Aquaculture Research Fund  is for and (2) why are Limited Purpose Aquaculture licensees the one ones paying into it while the aquaculture leaseholders do not?

Email conversation is started by Ron Huber, Penobscot Bay Watch on Dec 26, 2021,  12:46 pm; and  ended by Meredith Meldelson, Deputy Commissioner DMR, January 6 2022, 4:11pm.

Thus: 

From: coastwatch@gmail.com <coastwatch@gmail.com>

Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2021 12:46 PM
To: OSC Accounting Staff <OSCAccountingStaff@maine.gov>
Subject: WEBSITE QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the State of Maine Mail System. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Contact from website:
----
Name: Ronald Huber
Email: coastwatch@gmail.com
Topic: Accounting
URL:
Question/Comment: I am looking for informaton about the Aquaculture Research Fund. Its account number is  014-13A-0258-12

Can you please direct me to ways to find details of the monetary  inputs to this fund and its funding outputs?

Thank you
Ron Huber
Penobscot Bay Watch

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

From: Vincent, Jeremy W <Jeremy.W.Vincent@maine.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 9:07 AM
To: Ron Huber <coastwatch@gmail.com>; Conneely, Kelli <Kelli.Conneely@maine.gov>; George, Christopher A <Christopher.A.George@maine.gov>
Subject: RE: WEBSITE QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

Hello Ronald,
You will need to speak to someone at the agency for that information. I have included a few people that work with 13A to better assist you.
Thank you

Jeremy Vincent
Senior Staff Accountant
Office of the State Controller
O14 State House Station
111 Sewall Street
Augusta, Maine 04333-0014
Jeremy.w.vincent@maine.gov
J Tel. (207) 626-8434
T Fax.(207) 626-8447

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


On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 11:52 AM
Nichols, Jeff <Jeff.Nichols@maine.gov> wrote:

Ron,
I was asked to follow up on your request. The only thing I can provide to you is a link to the authorizing statute - https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/statutes/12/title12sec6081.html

Let me know if you have other questions and I can forward them to the folks in finance.


Jeff

Jeff Nichols
Communications Director
Maine Department of Marine Resources
jeff.nichols@maine.gov
207-624-6569 | 207-592-7301 (cell)

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

From: Ron Huber <coastwatch@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 12:07 PM
To: Nichols, Jeff <Jeff.Nichols@maine.gov>
Cc: Vincent, Jeremy W <Jeremy.W.Vincent@maine.gov>
Subject: Re: WEBSITE QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

 Dear Mr Nichols

 I have that statute.  I need to review the amounts of money entering and exiting the  Aquaculture Research Fund's account # 014-13A-0258-12  and  its sources and recipients.   Yes, please forward  my request along to the finance folks!

Thank you and best wishes 

Ron Huber

Ron Huber
Penobscot Bay Watch

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


Macaluso, Melissa <Melissa.Macaluso@maine.gov>
Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 4:08 PM
To: Ron Huber <coastwatch@gmail.com>
Cc: "Macaluso, Melissa" <Melissa.Macaluso@maine.gov>

On behalf of the Department of Marine Resources (“Department”), I am acknowledging the request for documents on December 28, 2021, under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (F.O.A.A.), 1 M.R.S.A. §401 et seq.

The Department is reviewing the request for documents, and as soon as I can, I will provide you with an estimated time and cost

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

From: Ron Huber <coastwatch@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: FOAA-WEBSITE QUESTIONS/COMMENTS Penobscot Bay Watch
To: Macaluso, Melissa <melissa.macaluso@maine.gov>

Thank you for writing me, Ms. Macaluso.  I would like to ensure the scope of this  FOAA request is as narrow as possible.

All  I know  at present  about the  Aquaculture Research Fund  (ARF) is the statute noting that it is funded by a combination of  (1) fees paid by limited-purpose aquaculture licensees and (2)  "other sources" .  Further, that the Fund awards monies for  "research and management related to the aquaculture industry."  I found  Aquaculture Research Fund's account # 014-13A-0258-12  mentioned in a report. I don't know whether that is the sole account for that Fund, or one of  many.
That is all I know about the Aquaculture Research Fund, 

Please limit the search to (a) records identifying  the "other sources"  of funds entering the Aquaculture Research Fund in 2021  and the amount from each source, and (b)  records identifying the recipients of ARF funding during 2021 and the amounts granted.  If 2021 data are not available, then those from the most recent  period available. If the data is published quarterly, then the most recent  two quarters available.    Note If those are within a  larger public record or records, then you may  send the larger doc(s) as  pdfs or other record type, instead of spending time  digging the FOAA responsive bits out of them 

 With that in mind, please do not go over the 2hr fee waiver time unless  you will waive fees for a longer search period to meet our request.  For Penobscot Bay Watch meets full  waiver standards. We are all-volunteer.  All  FOAA results acquired over the past 25 years has been shared with the public,  the media and even other agencies, without charge, and without limitation  Your response to our request will contribute significantly to public  understanding and appreciation of the operations and  initiatives of Maine DMR's  Aquaculture Program, and is not of commercial value to our organization or its members.  

However, I expect that the public records  requested are easily locatable  within the first-two-hours waiver period, if not, very little more.  

Best wishes

Ron Huber

Ron Huber
Penobscot Bay Watch
POB 1871,  Rockland Maine 04841
www.penbay.org  207-691-4634

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

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 2:40 PM Mendelson
, Meredith <Meredith.Mendelson@maine.gov> wrote:

Mr. Huber,

In response to your FOAA request related to the Aquaculture Research Fund (ARF), please find the information requested below.

 

As you can see, the majority of revenues are from licensing fees.  Private sources income is from the University of Maine for a research project conducted by Aquaculture program staff.   The miscellaneous income you see are overpayments that were refunded.   

 Revenues Data: See revenue chart  attachment  Too wide for the email

 

On the expenditures side, most of the expenditures support staff salaries and benefits, as you can see, and the rest are fairly self-explanatory.  The pieces that may be less clear are Professional Services Not by State, which was for gear repair, and Rents, which are for a pool vehicle for the Aquaculture staff to use for field purposes.                              
Expenditures data see expenditure chart attachment  


 

We will consider this FOAA closed with this email.  

END 

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

No quite "done"  yet,   Deputy Commissioner...

From: Ron Huber <coastwatch@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Information responsive to Huber FOAA, 2 questions
To: Mendelson, Meredith <Meredith.Mendelson@maine.gov>, Macaluso, Melissa <melissa.macaluso@maine.gov>
Cc: Brenda Kielty <Brenda.Kielty@maine.gov>

Hi Ms Mendelson and Ms Macaluso

Thank you for your response. 
So the  aquaculture research fund portrayed  in your attachments  is  based on LPA  licensing fees over the fiscal year, with  those few exceptions

 Two  questions for clarification 
1 Are this  fund's  expenditures limited to oversight and management of LPA aquaculture sites? oversight needs?
2, Are there separate but similar  Aquaculture Research Funds for the standard and experimental aquaculture sectors?
Again thanks,
Sincerely

 Ron Huber 

Ron Huber
Penobscot Bay Watch
POB 1871,  Rockland Maine 
www.penbay.org  207-691-4634 

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

From: Mendelson, Meredith <Meredith.Mendelson@maine.gov>
to: Ron Huber <coastwatch@gmail.com>,
"Macaluso, Melissa" <Melissa.Macaluso@maine.gov>
cc: "Kielty, Brenda" <Brenda.Kielty@maine.gov>
date: Jan 6, 2022, 4:11 PM
subject: RE: Information responsive to Huber FOAA, 2 questions

Mr. Huber,

The answer to both of your follow up questions is no. There is only one Aquaculture Research Fund, and the expenditures are not limited exclusively to oversight and management of LPAs, but rather a broader range of aquaculture science and monitoring work across the program.

Meredith
-------------------------------------
end


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