Latest news with #NaturalResourcesProtectionAct
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Maine's high court upholds Kingfish aquaculture permit for Jonesport
Apr. 11—A controversial plan to build a $110 million aquaculture facility in Jonesport can proceed, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled. The court on Thursday upheld a previous ruling by the Kennebec County Superior Court, which affirmed permits issued by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to Kingfish Maine in 2021. The company plans to build an aquaculture facility on 93 acres of land near Chandler Bay. The project was first brought to the community in 2019, the Kingfish Company's global headquarters said in a written statement. It has faced strong opposition from environmental groups in the years since. Vincent Erenst, Kingfish's chief executive, called the decision "a win for Maine and the United States with regard to seafood production" in a written statement Friday. Opponents of the Kingfish operation have charged that wastewater from the facility could pollute the nearby Chandler Bay and trigger algae blooms toxic to wildlife. They also challenged whether Kingfish could even use the land, which is permitted for aquaculture but not commercial and industrial uses. Petitioners who brought the appeal, including the Eastern Maine Conservation Initiative and Roque Island Gardner Homestead Corporation, argued that the Board of Environmental Protection did not consider the full scope of evidence before issuing permits based on the Natural Resources Protection Act. "We disagree and affirm the judgment," the high court wrote in its decision. The project is one of several high-profile aquaculture proposals to have faced pushback from Mainers in recent years. In January, the company behind a proposed $500 million development in Belfast dropped the project, citing legal challenges, and was later ordered to pay $125,000 to the advocacy group that fought the project. But the outlook for Kingfish appeared more secure than other proposals. Even as the appeals process ticked forward, the company received an additional $4 million from the state last year and expressed confidence that it would soon break ground. Kingfish estimates that once completed the new facility will be able to produce 8,500 metric tons of yellowtail, reducing U.S. reliance on foreign imports, the company said. Kingfish has previously stated that it will bring 70 to 100 jobs to the area. Last year, Kingfish said it planned to break ground in 2025. But in his statement Friday, Erenst did not offer an update on when that would take place. He said the project's timeline had been significantly delayed by the court battles, and it's no longer clear when the facility will open. "Now, with the appeals behind us, the project timeline will be determined by current economic and financial conditions, which we are assessing at this time," Erenst said. Copy the Story Link
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Committee rejects efforts to stymie development of Sears Island wind port
Sears Island in Searsport, the potential home of the new offshore wind port. (AnnMarie Hilton/Maine Morning Star) The Legislature's Environment and Natural Resources Committee voted down two bills that would have put up roadblocks to the state's effort to develop an offshore wind port on Sears Island. Outside of the debate around developing offshore wind, a bipartisan majority of the committee feared the bills would squash the potential for any future economic development on the island. Last year, the state made clear that Sears Island is its preferred location for a new port to support a budding offshore wind industry. Rep. Reagan Paul (R-Winterport) brought these bills forward after a reelection campaign that emphasized her desire to save the currently undeveloped island in her district. In 2009, the state placed two-thirds of Sears Island, about 600 acres, into a permanent easement. The state plans to leave that portion untouched by the port, which will be built on roughly 100 acres outside of the protected area. LD 226 proposed extending that conservation easement to cover more of Sears Island, including a portion that has been reserved for port development by the Maine Department of Transportation. The committee voted against this bill 10-2, with one member absent. The state-owned land on the island is protected under the Natural Resources Protection Act, which prohibits new or expanded structures on coastal sand dunes. A bill last year sought to authorize the Department of Environmental Protection to grant an exception for the site, so long as all other applicable permitting and licensing criteria are met. The proposal drew strong pushback from local conservation and Indigenous groups and initially divided lawmakers, but eventually prevailed and was ultimately included in the supplemental budget passed last session. Reagan's other bill, LD 735, would roll back those efforts from last session and impose limits on who could propose similar legislation in the future. The committee voted against that bill 9-3, with one member absent. In addition to concerns raised by the committee's legislative analyst that aspects of the legislation could conflict with the state constitution, committee co-chair Sen. Denise Tepler (D-Sagadahoc) said she opposed the bill because she was informed that Wabanaki leaders weren't consulted, despite the proposal including the establishment of an Indigenous lands protection committee. Despite the overwhelming vote recommending against passage of the bills, they still advance to the full Legislature, beginning with the House of Representatives. The state is in the preapplication phase for developing a wind port on the island, said Matthew Burns, deputy director of the Office of Freight and Business Logistics for the Department of Transportation. Design work is a little over halfway complete, but Burns said the state doesn't anticipate submitting permit applications until there is more clarity about how the project would be funded. After conversation digressed into details about what dredging would be necessary for port construction, Tepler reminded the committee that LD 226 is not actually about a port. 'This bill is about voiding the ability of the Department of Transportation to use a small piece of Sears Island — or a third of the island that they own — for any possible future development,' Tepler said. Given that, she asked the committee to refrain from further conversation about building a potential wind port when discussing that bill. Rep. William Bridgeo (D-Augusta) said it is 'vitally important' to preserve the island's potential for economic development given that the other major ports in the state are either built out or logistically challenging. 'It would not be prudent for the state to relinquish its ability…to utilize that piece of land for open-ended purposes,' he said. While she appreciates conservation concerns, Sen. Stacy Brenner (D-Cumberland) agreed that the land should be left open for economic development opportunities in the future. Shutting that off would 'close a lot of doors,' she added. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Maine lawmakers will once again consider whether to develop wind port on Sears Island
Signs on the approch road to Sears Island in upper Penobscot Bay opposing the proposed construction of an assembly and maintenance facility for floating wind turbines on the island. July 22, 2024. (Photo by Jim Neuger/ Maine Morning Star) Maine lawmakers will once again get the chance to consider whether an undeveloped island in Penobscot Bay should be transformed into a central hub for the state's budding offshore wind industry. The Legislature's Environment and Natural Resources Committee will hold a public hearing Wednesday for two bills that would protect Sears Island from being developed into an offshore wind port. Both are sponsored by Rep. Reagan Paul (R-Winterport), whose district includes the island located in the town of Searsport. Last year, Gov. Janet Mills announced that Sears Island is the preferred site for a designated port to support the state's goals to develop 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind in the Gulf of Maine by 2040. Mills said the island was chosen for its economic and environmental opportunities. A gust of hope in Searsport with promise of new jobs, economic boost from wind port Though the state already owns the land, it is protected under the Natural Resources Protection Act, which prohibits new or expanded structures on coastal sand dunes. This prompted the Legislature to pass a bill that authorized the Department of Environmental Protection to grant an exception for the site, allowing permitting for the port to proceed, so long as all other applicable permitting and licensing criteria are met. The proposal drew strong pushback from local conservation and Indigenous groups and initially divided the lawmakers, but eventually prevailed. However, one of Paul's bills, LD 735, wants to roll that back and add guardrails for any future attempts at such legislation. The bill also proposes that only lawmakers who represent that district can introduce legislation to develop the island in conflict with federal environmental regulations. It also stipulates that it would need the support of two-thirds of the Legislature for enactment. Additionally, the bill would prohibit the state from authorizing any development on Sears Island without first establishing an Indigenous lands protection committee and confirming that any area to be developed isn't a sacred site to native people in Maine. Maulian Bryant, executive director of the Wabanaki Alliance, said the group does not have a united stance on the bill but she said the idea of consultation is a great place to start. Rep. Aaron Dana of the Passamaquoddy Tribe is among the cosponsors of the bill. The state's plan to build an offshore wind port on Sears Island has been met with pushback since it was announced. Proponents see it as a blank canvas that will aid in the state's transition to clean energy. But opponents have argued against clearing more natural land, instead calling for the redevelopment of nearby Mack Point, which currently houses a terminal owned by Sprague Energy. An October analysis from the Maine Department of Transportation found that Sears Island and Mack Point are the two best options, but the latter would be more expensive and require dredging, which some have argued would risk contaminating the bay. In 2009, the state placed two-thirds of Sears Island, about 600 acres, into a permanent easement. The state has planned to leave that portion untouched by the port, which will be built on roughly 100 acres outside of the protected area. However, LD 226 seeks to extend that conservation easement to cover more of Sears Island, including a portion that has been reserved for port development by the Maine Department of Transportation. As Maine has set clean energy and climate goals, developing offshore wind as a power source has been at the crux of meeting those ambitions. The Governor's Energy Office recently released a technical report showing that while it is possible to meet the state's goal of 100% clean energy by 2040, wind and solar are key components of meeting increased electrification demands from plug-in cars and heating options. But Republicans have pushed back with concerns that offshore wind will harm Maine's fishing industry. They have also said they would like to see the state explore other energy sources such as nuclear and hydropower. In January, Paul wrote a letter on behalf of her GOP colleagues to President Donald Trump thanking him for his actions temporarily halting new or renewed offshore wind leases in all areas of the outer continental shelf. The letter also asked him to take it a step further by revoking the existing leases and permits in the Gulf of Maine. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Questions about how updated definition of ‘coastal wetland' would impact landowners, developers
Wells Beach, Maine. (Photo by AnnMarie Hilton/ Maine Morning Star) The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is looking to update the definition of coastal wetlands in some areas of statute, but lawmakers have questions about how much it could affect landowners and developers along the state's 3,500 miles of shoreline. Rep. Vicki Doudera (D-Camden) presented a bill (LD 65) on behalf of the department to the Legislature's Environment and Natural Resources Committee Monday with the proposed definition change in the Natural Resources Protection Act. Rather than reference the highest annual tide to define the area of a coastal wetland, the department is proposing a switch to the highest astronomical tide. As its name suggests, the highest annual tide is the highest predicted tide in a given calendar year. Whereas the highest astronomical tide predicts the highest tide for a 40 year period, but is updated every 20 years, explained Naomi Kirk-Lawlor, who represented the DEP. Because it is stable over a 20-year period, Kirk-Lawlor said the highest astronomical tide would be a 'more consistent delineator.' She pointed out that the Maine Geological Survey has an interactive graphic that the public can access online to see the highest astronomical tide line along the state's coast. Development projects along Maine's coast have been top of mind recently as many communities have had to rebuild after a series of severe storms and flooding events last winter. While Gov. Janet Mills earmarked more than $21 million in her supplemental budget last year to rebuild working waterfronts, there have also been multi-million dollar federal investments to make Maine's infrastructure more resilient to the effects of climate change, especially along the coast. As it reads, the bill only proposes the language change for the Natural Resources Protection Act, but Kirk-Lawlor said the department would like to see the same definition change in the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act. This would align those statutes with the Land Use Planning Commission, which made this proposed change in 2018. Although the department told the committee in written testimony that this change would provide more consistency and stability for long-term planning, members of the committee raised questions about how the change would affect landowners and any pending coastal development projects. Kirk-Lawlor said the difference between the highest annual and the highest astronomical tides is normally no greater than six inches, so it would not be a significant change. Even with that, multiple committee members asked to see maps and other details outlining how the change may impact people living and working on the coast. Sen. Joseph Martin (R-Oxford) also questioned whether coastal landowners have been notified of this potential change and if it would cause any loss of property value. Denise Tepler (D-Sagadahoc), Senate co-chair of the committee, said she doesn't see potential property value loss from this bill, but asked for more information about what happened after the Land Use Planning Commission made this definition change and how it affected planning for development. Rep. Laurie Osher (D-Orono), who has a PhD in soil science and currently works for Eastern Maine Development Corporation assisting communities to be more resilient to climate change, said she believes the new definition would benefit businesses, homeowners and the department by creating more consistency — 'even with the concern that some people will be unnerved or caught feeling like they didn't have all the information they needed.' 'Instead of having to worry about whether the calendar year changes and the definition of where something is a wetland changes, it would be much more stable,' Osher said. 'For future planning and permit pulling, you would know what area of the land that you're looking at is a wetland.' Environmental organizations including Maine Audubon and Sierra Club Maine also testified in support of the bill, again emphasizing the stability an updated definition could provide, especially as more extreme weather patterns have shaped Maine's coast in recent years. Bill Ferdinand, an attorney with Eaton Peabody in Augusta who spoke on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies of Maine, said the organization had similar questions as some of the legislators regarding impact. While he didn't speak for or against the bill, Ferdinand suggested there could be alternatives that may have less of an impact such as using the average tide. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
