AQ History in Maine 2003 minding the bay.
Apr 16, 2022
Wheeler Bay inlet WHAT IS A SCOPING SESSION ?
Aquaculture Public Scoping Session - Maude Robin McCoy and James W. Balano, III
Date: April 21, 2022
Time: 7:00 pm
Location: Town Office, 3 School Street
Town: St. George
The Department of Marine Resources has received a draft aquaculture lease application for the following:
Applicant: Maude Robin McCoy & James W. Balano, III
Culture Type: Suspended culture (gear on bottom and/or suspended)
Species: Shellfish
Town: St. George
Waterbody, General Description: Northwest of Harrington Cove, Wheeler Bay
Lease Size and Term: 1.98 acres, 20 years
If the scoping session listed above is cancelled, an alternate scoping session will be held on April 28, 2022, at the same time and location. Notice of a cancellation will be posted on the Department's website at https://www.maine.gov/dmr/index.html
What is a scoping session?
A scoping session is a meeting where the applicant explains their tentative proposal to members of the public. Its an opportunity for members of the public to provide feedback on the proposal, prior to the applicant submitting a final application and an eventual public hearing. This meeting does not determine whether the proposal will be granted.
How to participate:
You can attend the session or contact the applicant. A copy of the draft lease application, which includes the applicants contact information is available on DMRs website at: http://www.maine.gov/dmr/aquaculture/leases/draftstandardapps.html
If you have questions about the standard leasing process, please contact the Aquaculture Division at: DMRaquaculture@maine.gov or 624-6573
For disability accommodations, contact Melissa Macaluso at: (207) 624-6553 or Melissa.Macaluso@maine.gov; or 877-243-2823, TTY 711
Apr 9, 2022
uNDER STANDING Municipal Malfeasance
Links to municipal meetings due process issues
Municipal meetings and elections state law
Procedural Due Process explainesd
state law Conflicts of interest: Municipal Officials.
https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/30-A/title30-Ach123.pdf
current charter file:///C:/Users/Ron%20Huber/Downloads/City%20Charter%20(1).pdf
rockland board and commission vacancies list
Mar 31, 2022
FOAA! DEP emails regarding the proposed granite mine, granite crusher and export dock on Bowden Point in Prospect
On 3/21/22 Penobscot Bay Watch sent a FOAA letter to Maine DEP asking for "All emails and their attachments, sent or received by Jessica Damon of DEP's Eastern Maine Regional Office, directly or cc'd, pertaining to the Salmons Quarry Operations Project in Prospect, Maine, from March 7, 2022 through March 21, 2022"
On 3/29/22/ Kevin Martin, DEP FOAA coordinator, responded to the above request, and provided the below emails from February 20, 2022 to March 21,2022. Attachments provided at another link.
EMAILS (PDF)
2022-03-07_Jessica Damon_to Chip Haskell.
2022-03-07_Jessical Damon_to Chip Haskell *
2022-03-07_Madore to Damon, &Lavoie. Madore_to Caruso
2022-03-08_Damon to Todd Burrowes /Burrowes_Damon..2/14/22 & 1/8/22_Burrowes_Damon *
2022-03-08_Jessica Damon_Chip Haskell_HW (2 emails)
2022-03-08_Burroughs_to Haskell_Damon
2022-03-09_Damon to Kathleen Jenkins_oppo.
2022-03-09_Damon,Lavoie and Madore.pdf
2022-03-09_Jenkins to Damon
2022-03-09_Madore_Damon, and Damon_Madore, and Madore to Damon
2022-03-10_Beyer. to Lavoie and Damon Peter Shoults to Lavoie,
2022-03-11_Chelsea Getchell_atty
2022-03-11 Jessica Damon .to Haskell and Getchell.
2022-03-12-Brandy Bridge_oppo to Jessica Damon.
2022-03-14_Kathleen Jenkins_oppo to Damon.
2022-03-15_Chip Halkell_atty to DEP Jessica Damon
2022-03-15_Karin Sprague oppo_toDEP_Jim Beyer and Damon.
2022-03-17 Chip Haskell HW_Jessica_Damon
2022-03-17_Jessica Damon Letter Haskell on Deficiencies in BPP application
2022-03-17_Jessica Damon_to_Chip_Haskell Haley Ward
2022-03-17_Damon_to_DEP_nick_Livesay_dave_madore
2022-03-17_Peter Shoults oppo_Damon
2022-03-17_Michell_Jadis_oppo_ to Jessica Damon.
2022-03-18_Peter Shoults again
2022-03-21_Jenkins_oppo_Damon_re_brook
2022-03-21_Kim Kokernak_oppo to Damon.
2022-03-21_Damon to Shoults_Shoults to Damon.
2022-03-21_Damon_to William Billado_ Billado to Damon.
2022-03-11_Chelsea Getchell_atty
2022-03-11 Jessica Damon .to Haskell and Getchell.
2022-03-12-Brandy Bridge_oppo to Jessica Damon.
2022-03-14_Kathleen Jenkins_oppo to Damon.
2022-03-15_Chip Halkell_atty to DEP Jessica Damon
2022-03-15_Karin Sprague oppo_toDEP_Jim Beyer and Damon.
2022-03-17 Chip Haskell HW_Jessica_Damon
2022-03-17_Jessica Damon Letter Haskell on Deficiencies in BPP application
2022-03-17_Jessica Damon_to_Chip_Haskell Haley Ward
2022-03-17_Damon_to_DEP_nick_Livesay_dave_madore
2022-03-17_Peter Shoults oppo_Damon
2022-03-17_Michell_Jadis_oppo_ to Jessica Damon.
2022-03-18_Peter Shoults again
2022-03-21_Jenkins_oppo_Damon_re_brook
2022-03-21_Kim Kokernak_oppo to Damon.
2022-03-21_Damon to Shoults_Shoults to Damon.
2022-03-21_Damon_to William Billado_ Billado to Damon.
END
FOAA of DEP on 3/21/22 Part 2. Bowden Pt applicant's documents on its proposed rock crushing and barge export facility
March 29, 2022 DEP Responds to FOAA re Bowden Pt Mine Port
On 3/21/22 Penobscot Bay Watch sent a FOAA letter to Maine DEP asking for "All emails and their attachments, sent or received by Jessica Damon of DEP's Eastern Maine Regional Office, directly or cc'd, pertaining to the Salmons Quarry Operations Project in Prospect, Maine, from March 7, 2022 through March 21, 2022" . On 3/29/22/ Kevin Martin, DEP FOAA coordinator, responded with both emais and the below documents Includes the company's March 2022 version of NRPA application, federal and state agency responses and letters to tribes..
Pg 3 Agent, TRI, Certificate Good Standing, Public Notice
Pg 17 Secretary of State filing
Pg 19 Attachment 1Project Description 4pgs
Pg 23 Attachment2 Alternatives Analysis 4pgs
Pg 28 Attachment 3 Functional Assessment
Pg 29 Attachment 4 Compensation
Pg 31 Attachment 5 Site Location Map
Pg 33 Attachment 6 Site Photographs. 8pgs
Pg 41 Attachment 7 Drawings 4pgs
Pg 45 Attachment 8 Natural Resources Map
Pg 47 Attachment 9 Construction Plan 7pgs
Pg 54 Attachment 10 Erosion Control 8pgs
Pg 62 Attachment 11 Site Conditions
Pg 73 US Fish and Wildlife Service letter 6 pgs
Pg 79 Functional Assessment 4pgs
Pg 88. NOI, Abutters, cert mail list 4pgs
9pg 95 Attachment 14. Notice of Intent. Abutters List
9pg 99 Haley Ward_letters_to_Tribes_11pgs
1Pg 110 Appendix A. DEP Visual Evaluation Survey 2pgs
Pg 112 MDEP Coastal Wetlands Intertidal and Shallow Subtidal Checklist 2pgs
Pg 114 Appendix C DEP Dock Description Worksheet. 2pages
Pg 117 Piers, Maps and Blueprints 20pgs
Mar 24, 2022
The Maine Commons, Volumes 1 - 16. "Reclaiming our country, culture and consciousness from corporate rule" 2001-2004
The Maine Commons A Maine Independent Media Center Production. "Reclaiming our country, culture and consciousness from corporate rule" 2001-2004
The pdf files below are 16 editions of the Maine Media Commons, which focused on: "viewpoints and stories that have been ignored or distorted by the corporate media, and issues of effects of corporate control on the freedom of expression." (More editions as located) Editors/writers: Hillary Lister, Laura Childs, Carolyn Chute, Rob Fish, Rob Waite and many other contributors.
Listed headlines are randomly chosen from pg 1 stories of each edition
1 Autumn 2001.Open Letter to President Bush
2. Nov-Dec 2001. War or War? By Carolyn Chute
3. Jan-Feb 2002. Radioactive speaks with head of Bangor Central Labor Council
5. April May 2002. A Shoe, a Shirt and a 2x4 for Snowe and Collins.
6. June-July 2002. Fighting the Fed: American Liberty Dollars.
7. July-Aug 2002. The Widening Gap: Maine vs the DOT
8. Sept-Oct 2002. So Whatever Happened To Freedom Of Assembly?
9. Oct-Nov 2002. Who Owns Maine?
10. Dec 2002 Maine Lost History Project : Racism in Maine.
11. Mar-April 2003. Maine's antiwar movement heats up.
12. May 2003 Life After Layoff- A Woman's Perspective
13. July-Aug 2003. Maine DHS: Reporting on a Broken Bureaucracy
14. Late Fall 2003. Does Maine Need More Jailbirds?
15. Spring 2004. The Global Economy Hits Home
16.Fall 2004. The Theater of American Elections
Mar 17, 2022
Prospect , Penobscot River threatened by Virginia mining company plan
Below is the mining company's 156 page application (pdf) , broken into its component sections, and as a single pdf file
* Full application (165 pages)
* Application fee and checks 4pgs
* Index 2pg
* Quitclaim Deeds 10 pages
* Corporate filing Sec State 1pg
* Project Descrption Pt 2__ 1pg
LETTERS
US Fish & Wildife Service 12/28/21 6pgs
Maine Inland Fish & Wildlife 2/18/21
Ltr Archaeology Research Center 5/28/21 7pages *** Maps 22pages
Haley Ward to Micmac, Maliseet, Passmaquoddy Pleasant.Pt & Indian Township, Penobscots
*Attachment 6 Site Photographs 8pgs
* Attachments 7 Drawings 22pgs
* Attachment 8 Natural Resources Map 2pgs
* Attachment 9 Construction Plan *
* Attachment 10 Erosion Control Plan
* Attachment 11 Site Conditions
* Attachment 13 IFW & Historic Preservation Commission
* Appendix A MDEP Visual Evaluation
* Appendix B Coastal Wetlands Characterization
* Appendix C MDEP Project Description Worksheet and maps
*END
Mar 13, 2022
Maine DEP Enforcement Reports 2012
Maine DEP Enforcement Reports 2012
February 2016 (none)
October 2015 (None)
August 2015 (None)
June 2015 (None)
January 2015 (None)
December 2014 (None)
November 2014 (None)
file:///C:/Users/Ron%20Huber/Downloads/MER%2012-12%20(1).pdf
Mar 7, 2022
State Environmental Board to hear appeal of Rockland marina in June
Board of Environmental Protection to hear appeal by area residents.
BY STEPHEN BETTS REPORTER: COURIER-GAZETTE (BDN Story)
ROCKLAND — The Maine Board of Environmental Protection is expected to hear in June the appeal of Rockland area residents who oppose the expansion by Safe Harbor Marinas.
“Due to the board’s current work load, they are looking at sometime in June to hear the appeal. A specific date is to be determined,” a DEP spokesman said March 2.
The appeal was filed Jan. 7 by 16 area residents.
DEP Commissioner Melanie Loyzim signed in December an approval of a Natural Resources Protection Act permit for the expanded marina. The Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry’s submerged land division issued findings and gave preliminary approval for the expansion. Final approval of that awaited the end of the public response period on Jan. 7.
Filing the letter of appeal were: Steve Cartwright of Tenants Harbor, Nadine and Larry Bangerter of Rockland, Ken Wexler of Owls Head, Constance Hayes of Rockland, Rebecca Glaser of Rockport, Eileen Fitzgerald of Rockland, Kyle MacKenzie Swan of Rockland, Laurence Coe of Rockland, Ron Huber of Penobscot Bay Watch, Judy Pasqualge of Rockland, Virginia Noble of Rockland, Avis Turner of Rockland, Anne “Pinny” Beebe-Center of Rockland, Susan Beebe of Rockland, Isabella Feracci of Rockland, and Paul Rosen of Owls Head.
The appeal details each of the appellants concerns about the expansion. One concern listed is no approval should be granted until a signed agreement is reached to guarantee the public’s right to use the boardwalk that crosses Safe Harbor’s property.
Another concern was that the expansion would block the public’s view of the harbor with “large and mega yachts serving rich people.”
The project includes dredging an area of 138,000 square feet. The expansion of the float system includes four 150-foot long fingers to the east of the main pier; a 90-foot finger to the west; and a 115-foot long and a 172-foot string of floats to the west.
Safe Harbor agreed to pay for the cost of moving 16 moorings that have to be relocated by the proposed marina expansion. They will also help the city assign the moorings close to where they are currently located.
City officials said at their Nov. 1 meeting the city attorney and Safe Harbor have been working on coming up with an agreement to ensure public access to the boardwalk. The boardwalk was built by MBNA when they opened the waterfront office complex in 2001. Rockland Harbor Park LLC, led by local developer Stuart Smith, purchased the property in 2007.
Safe Harbor also agreed to allow limited access to the pier at the marina, improve public access to Sandy Beach and help with a public bathroom to replace the portable toilets at the city-owned beach.
The original, more expansive plan, was submitted back in 2018 by Yachting Solutions. Safe Harbors has yet to file any formal plans to the city for changes on the land side of its property, although it showed a few city officials a potential plan earlier this year.
BY STEPHEN BETTS REPORTER: COURIER-GAZETTE (BDN Story)
ROCKLAND — The Maine Board of Environmental Protection is expected to hear in June the appeal of Rockland area residents who oppose the expansion by Safe Harbor Marinas.
“Due to the board’s current work load, they are looking at sometime in June to hear the appeal. A specific date is to be determined,” a DEP spokesman said March 2.
The appeal was filed Jan. 7 by 16 area residents.
DEP Commissioner Melanie Loyzim signed in December an approval of a Natural Resources Protection Act permit for the expanded marina. The Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry’s submerged land division issued findings and gave preliminary approval for the expansion. Final approval of that awaited the end of the public response period on Jan. 7.
Filing the letter of appeal were: Steve Cartwright of Tenants Harbor, Nadine and Larry Bangerter of Rockland, Ken Wexler of Owls Head, Constance Hayes of Rockland, Rebecca Glaser of Rockport, Eileen Fitzgerald of Rockland, Kyle MacKenzie Swan of Rockland, Laurence Coe of Rockland, Ron Huber of Penobscot Bay Watch, Judy Pasqualge of Rockland, Virginia Noble of Rockland, Avis Turner of Rockland, Anne “Pinny” Beebe-Center of Rockland, Susan Beebe of Rockland, Isabella Feracci of Rockland, and Paul Rosen of Owls Head.
The appeal details each of the appellants concerns about the expansion. One concern listed is no approval should be granted until a signed agreement is reached to guarantee the public’s right to use the boardwalk that crosses Safe Harbor’s property.
Another concern was that the expansion would block the public’s view of the harbor with “large and mega yachts serving rich people.”
The project includes dredging an area of 138,000 square feet. The expansion of the float system includes four 150-foot long fingers to the east of the main pier; a 90-foot finger to the west; and a 115-foot long and a 172-foot string of floats to the west.
Safe Harbor agreed to pay for the cost of moving 16 moorings that have to be relocated by the proposed marina expansion. They will also help the city assign the moorings close to where they are currently located.
City officials said at their Nov. 1 meeting the city attorney and Safe Harbor have been working on coming up with an agreement to ensure public access to the boardwalk. The boardwalk was built by MBNA when they opened the waterfront office complex in 2001. Rockland Harbor Park LLC, led by local developer Stuart Smith, purchased the property in 2007.
Safe Harbor also agreed to allow limited access to the pier at the marina, improve public access to Sandy Beach and help with a public bathroom to replace the portable toilets at the city-owned beach.
The original, more expansive plan, was submitted back in 2018 by Yachting Solutions. Safe Harbors has yet to file any formal plans to the city for changes on the land side of its property, although it showed a few city officials a potential plan earlier this year.
Courtesy Courier Gazette
Feb 16, 2022
Marine Resources Committee considers, rejects LD 1844 Audio from worksession
On Feb 15th the Marine Resources Committee held an interesting worksession on LD 1844. An Act To Provide for Special Fees for Certain Aquaculture Lease Applications and To Amend Other Provisions in the Laws Governing Aquaculture Leases Listen to the vario9us speakers and the decision "Ought not to pass".. A heated discussion followed
2. Analyst reviews bill 6min47sec
5. Discuss amendment to bill 6min
6. Sebastian Bell, Me Aqua Asssoc 1min24sec
7. DMR responds to Bell 1min10sec
8. Vote Ought Not to Pass_discussion to end 6min19sec
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.
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 |
10 Nathan Saunders Maine Drinking Water Program 6 min 30sec
12 Dan Kusnierz Penobcot Nation_and QA_9min13sec
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
21 Dawn Neptune to end 2min 57sec
Jan 20, 2022
Legislature's ACF committee get mixed news January 3, 2022 from state hemp officials
Maine Legislature's Agriculture Conservation & Forestry Committee received a briefing January 8th from state hemp officials on challenges facing that industry Link to report reviewed by committee (pdf)
2. Gary Fish State Hemp Program 5min 6sec
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_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
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
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
9 Addendum D Addendum D—Preliminary Water Quality Work
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 PMTo: 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.
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
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>
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
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
---------------------------------------------
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
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
Jan 4, 2022
At Legislature's 1/4/22 EUT Committee hearing, nominee Andrew Butcher gets nod as 1st prez of new Maine Connectivity Authority - after 32 minutes of questioning. and after the People put in Their 33 minutes,
Part 1 EUT Committee introductions 3min21sec
Part 2 Hearing rules considered. 3min 41sec
Part 3 Maine OECD dir Heather Johnson speaks on nominee Andrew Butcher 4min2sec
Part 4 Andrew Butcher 3min 58sec
Part 5 Q&A Committee and Butcher 32min
The committee approved the nominations by all 11 legislators present (two were absent)
The Committee Approval next goes before the full Maine Legislature
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)