Home » Baykeeping » Advocacy » Testimony

Category: Testimony

Three decades of success – the impact of Friends of Casco Bay

Friends of Casco Bay has a long history of success. Since our founding in 1989, our work-with, science-based approach has moved the needle toward a healthier, more protected Bay.

  • We championed a halt to cruise ship pollution and won a No Discharge Area designation for Casco Bay, the first in Maine.
  • We have secured better long-term protection through Clean Water Act classification upgrades for three areas of Casco Bay, ensuring stricter, permanent pollution restrictions.
  • Our water quality data are sent to Congress every two years; the Maine Department of Environmental Protection uses our data in its Clean Water Act biennial reporting to Congress and would not be in compliance without it.
  • We advocated for Portland to get back on track—and we continue to push to keep efforts on track— to fulfill its court-ordered agreement to clean up and eliminate dozens of combined sewer overflows, reducing the amount of raw sewage flowing into the Bay.
  • We are leading the call to reduce nitrogen discharges into our coastal waters. We forged an agreement with Portland Water District, which set a goal of reducing nitrogen coming out of the East End Wastewater Treatment Facility. During the summer of 2018, they reduced nitrogen levels by 70%, on average.
  • Our data and advocacy inspired South Portland and Portland to pass the strictest ordinances in the state to reduce pollution from pesticides. Harpswell also passed a pesticide ordinance with our input, and other communities are considering similar restrictions.
  • We convinced the legislature to form an Ocean Acidification Commission to investigate and make policy recommendations to address our acidifying waters.
  • We helped form the Maine Ocean and Coastal Acidification Partnership (MOCA) to coordinate the work of researchers, government officials, and advocates to reduce acidification and address climate change. Our Casco Baykeeper currently serves as the coordinator of MOCA.
  • We successfully advocated for Portland to pass an ordinance designed to discourage single-use bags in favor of reusable ones. The bag ordinance, in turn, inspired Brunswick, Cape Elizabeth, Falmouth, Freeport, South Portland, and eight other towns in the state to pass similar laws. We also won a polystyrene (e.g. Styrofoam) ban in Portland.
  • Our BayScaping Program is teaching thousands of residents and landscaping professionals to grow green lawns that keep Casco Bay blue; this is the model for the state of Maine’s YardScaping Program.
  • Our Casco Bay Curriculum has reached an estimated 17,500 students. We help teachers incorporate our monitoring data into their classroom activities. We have provided professional development courses for more than 700 teachers.
  • We fought to improve the S.D.Warren (now SAPPI) paper mill’s Clean Water Act discharge permit, significantly cutting the pollution released into our waters.
  • We helped lead the response to the largest oil spill in Maine history, the Julie N, and assisted responders in recovering an unprecedented 78% of the spilled oil (a 15-20% recovery is considered a success).
  • We were a founding member of Waterkeeper Alliance in 1999, a network that has grown to include over 300 Baykeepers, Riverkeepers, and other Waterkeepers

Testimony in support (with amendments) of LD 1679: An Act To Establish the Maine Climate Change Council To Assist Maine To Mitigate, Prepare for and Adapt to Climate Change (Governor’s bill)

May 17, 2019

Senator Carson
Representative Tucker
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
c/o Legislative Information Office
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333

Re: Friends of Casco Bay and Maine Ocean and Coastal Acidification (MOCA) Steering Committee testimony in support (with amendments) of LD 1679: An Act To Establish the Maine Climate Change Council To Assist Maine To Mitigate, Prepare for and Adapt to Climate Change (Governor’s bill)

Dear Senator Carson, Representative Tucker, and Distinguished Members of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee,

Introduction to Support for Bill with Amendments:
Friends of Casco Bay and the Steering Committee of the Maine Ocean and Coastal Acidification (MOCA) partnership submit the below testimony in support of LD 1679, An Act To Establish the Maine Climate Change Council To Assist Maine To Mitigate, Prepare for and Adapt to Climate Change (Governor’s bill). We support the bill but recommend four amendments to better address the impacts of climate change to Maine’s marine species and habitats. These amendments are set forth in the attached track-changes document and below:

  • Amend Section 11 (38 MRSA § 578) – which requires the Council or Department to provide evaluation reports to this Committee and the Energy, Utilities and Technology (EUT) Committee – to also require reports to the Marine Resources Committee (MRC) and to authorize the MRC to make recommendations to this Committee.
  • Amend Section 10 (38 MRSA §577-A) (8) to include recommendations for scientific monitoring and research to fill data gaps needed to spur action or evaluate remediation and adaptation strategies.
  • Amend Section 10 (38 MRSA §577-A) (6) to specify that the Scientific Subcommittee should provide technical support to the working groups and should contemplate creating subgroups of experts to support the working groups.
  • Amend Section 10 (38 MRSA §577-A) (1) to include representation by a fisherman and by an aquaculturist.

Who We are:
Friends of Casco Bay is a nonprofit marine stewardship organization dedicated to improving and protecting the environmental health of Casco Bay. We scientifically monitor and assess water quality, including parameters indicative of climate change and ocean acidification. We employ a Casco Baykeeper, who serves as the lead advocate, or eyes, ears and voice of the Bay. We engage in significant public outreach including citizen science and other actions to engage our members and volunteers in our work to improve the health of the Bay.1

Maine Ocean and Coastal Acidification (MOCA) is a voluntary partnership formed to implement recommendations of the Ocean Acidification Study Commission authorized by the 126th Legislature (see study commission’s report).2
Friends of Casco Bay, the Island Institute, and Maine Sea Grant convened MOCA when the State failed to establish an on-going council to implement the Study Commission’s recommendations. Friends of Casco Bay has served on the MOCA Steering Committee since its inception and as its Coordinator for the last two years. MOCA has been most effective as an interim forum for coordinating and sharing research among public and private entities and as an information exchange.

Testimony on the Marine Aspects of LD 1679:
We support the overall concept of working across sectors to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Because our expertise is with respect to the health of marine waters, we will confine our testimony to those aspects of the bill.

To paraphrase Governor Mills’ inaugural address, we must act now. Climate change is already impacting Maine’s fisheries and habitats:

  • About a third of all carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean, where it mixes with sea water to form carbonic acid and lower pH. This process is known as ocean acidification. In Casco Bay, pH has dropped from 8 to almost 7.8 from 2000-2012. The pH scale is logarithmic, meaning that a decrease of an integer value changes the concentration by tenfold. Lower pH (more acidic water) can cause mollusk shells—including clams, oysters, and mussels—to pit and dissolve.
  • Annual precipitation in Maine has increased six inches since 1895, and we are experiencing more intense storms that deliver excess nitrogen to marine waters. The nitrogen fuels algal and phytoplankton blooms. The blooms have immediate negative impacts on marine species. For example, we have seen thick mats of nuisance algae smother clams. In addition, as blooms die, they release carbon dioxide which mixes with sea water to form carbonic acid. This process is known as coastal acidification and also lowers the pH of our coastal waters.
  • The temperature of Casco Bay rose about 1 degree Celsius (2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) from 1993 to 2018. Warmer ocean temperatures mean that green crabs are not dying back over the winter. The higher populations of green crabs prey on soft-shelled clams and other mollusks. They also demolish eelgrass beds, a critical marine habitat. Rising ocean temperatures also cause shifts in species and can contribute to an increase in lobster shell disease.
  • In 2016, we began measuring the amount of calcium carbonate available for mollusks and other organisms to build their shells. We learned that for most of the year, there is not enough calcium carbonate in the water for shell-building.

Prior to news that Governor Mills would introduce her comprehensive Climate Change Council bill, Representative Lydia Blume worked with MOCA to draft LD 1284: An Act To Create the Science and Policy Advisory Council on the Impact of Climate Change on Maine’s Marine Species. The MRC held a hearing on that bill on April 2, about a month before the Governor’s bill was printed.

135 people from Friends of Casco Bay, MOCA, and other entities submitted testimony in support of LD 1284. No one testified against the bill. The Environmental Priorities Coalition selected the bill as a priority; industry leaders such as Mook Sea Farm and the Maine Aquaculture Association supported the bill; and leading marine research institutes, including Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Island Institute, Downeast Institute, and University of Maine, offered their support. The Ocean Conservancy‘s CEO sent a letter of support and separately authorized retired Congressman Tom Allen to appear and testify on their behalf.3

Commissioner Keliher testified and asked the MRC to delay further consideration of LD 1284 because the Governor intended to incorporate it into her bill. The MRC honored that request. We have reviewed and support LD 1679; it incorporates most of the intent of LD 1284 but fails to require progress reports to the MRC and afford opportunities for the MRC to make recommendations to this Committee.

We respectfully request that you amend the bill in that respect, and consider and address the other suggested amendments and comments on the attached track-changes document. Thank you for your attention to our testimony.

Sincerely,
Ivy Frignoca
Casco Baykeeper
Friends of Casco Bay

A PDF of this testimony and the attachments can be found here.

1 For more information about Friends of Casco Bay, please refer to our website: https://www.cascobay.org/.
2 For more information about MOCA, please refer to: https://www.seagrant.umaine.edu/extension/maine-ocean-andcoastal-acidification-partnership.
3 This link directs you to the testimony submitted in support of LD 1284:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=1284&PID=1456&snum=129&sec3#.

Friends of Casco Bay Testimony in Opposition to LD 1505: An Act To Create Consistency in the Regulation of Pesticides

May 1, 2017

Senator Paul Davis
Representative Danny Martin
State and Local Government Committee
c/o Legislative Information Office
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333

Re: Friends of Casco Bay Testimony in Opposition to LD 1505: An Act To Create Consistency in the Regulation of Pesticides

Dear Senator Davis, Representative Martin, and Distinguished Members of the State and Local Government Committee:

Please accept this letter as the testimony of Friends of Casco Bay in opposition to LD 1505: An Act To Create Consistency in the Regulation of Pesticides. We ask this Committee to vote that LD 1505 ought not to pass because: (1) under existing state law, pesticide use has escalated and threatens human and environmental health; and (2) it voids existing lawful municipal ordinances that seek to limit harmful pesticide use and eliminates municipal “home rule” authority to pass any future pesticide-related ordinances.

Friends of Casco Bay is a marine stewardship organization formed over a quarter century ago to protect and improve the health of Casco Bay. Our work involves education, advocacy, water quality monitoring programs, and collaborative partnerships. We test ambient water quality conditions and for the presence or absence of specific pollutants.

1. Concern that pesticides already are present in our coastal waters

Both by definition and by their very nature, pesticides are products which kill, control or repel living things. Pesticides are toxic by design; they are the only chemicals we release purposely into our environment to kill living things. Federal and state laws permit the use of pesticides only with strict adherence to the label directions which accompany every pesticide product.

No label cites marine habitat as a permissible site for lawn care/ornamental plant care pesticide use. Meanwhile, Friends of Casco Bay detects routine trespass of lawn care/ornamental plant care pesticides into Casco Bay.

Between 2001 and 2009, we collected rain water flowing into the Bay and analyzed the samples for a suite of pesticides. Our goal for this project, in collaboration with the Maine Board of Pesticide Control, was simply to determine “presence” or “absence” of pesticides. Lab results identified 10 different pesticides in 14 locations all around the Bay.

Pesticides Detection around the Bay
Friends of Casco Bay, working in conjunction with the Maine Board of Pesticide Control, has detected pesticides in stormwater running into Casco Bay from fourteen neighborhoods. Chemicals we found are shown on this map.

With this information we were able to state with confidence that pesticides were getting into our coastal waters. Determining the impacts of pesticides on our marine ecosystems has been beyond the scope of our work, but clearly, especially in regard to our iconic Maine lobster, more research needs to be done.

Consider these six toxic pesticides detected in our waters:

  • 2, 4-D: banned in five countries, this herbicide is toxic to aquatic invertebrates and may be linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma in humans
  • Clopyralid: this herbicide has been linked to birth defects in animals
  • Diazinon: banned from being sold to U.S. consumers but still legal for use, this insecticide has a high aquatic toxicity and is linked to reproductive problems
  • Dicamba: found in groundwater throughout the U.S., this herbicide is toxic to fish and zooplankton
  • MCPP: along with 2, 4-D, this herbicide is in the same family of chemicals as Agent Orange and is highly toxic to bay shrimp
  • Propiconazole: this fungicide is a possible carcinogen

Overall, 9 of the 12 most dangerous and persistent chemicals in existence are pesticides. <sup>1</sup> Children exposed to pesticides in homes, schools, lawns, and gardens can develop lower IQs, birth defects, developmental delays, and higher risks of autism, ADHD, and cancer.<sup>2</sup>

Pesticides also harm wildlife. For example, neonicotinoid pesticides have gained notoriety lately for leading to the demise of bees, causing them to forage less and produce fewer offspring.<sup>3</sup> Neonicotinoids that reach surface waters, including marine waters, adversely affect survival, growth, emergence, mobility, and behavior of many sensitive aquatic invertebrates, even at low concentrations.<sup>4</sup> Other pesticides may sicken shellfish and possibly harm lobster larvae. Our understanding of the impacts of pesticides on marine life is still evolving and is compounded by other threats to marine health. For example, scientists have found that larval oysters and hard clams can withstand low levels of pesticide use, but become more sensitive to the toxic effects of pesticides if their ecosystem is suffering from local climate stressors such as hypoxia and acidification-conditions, which occur on occasion in Casco Bay.<sup>5</sup> The impacts of pesticides on lobsters still require further study, but Pyrethroids have been implicated in lobster die-offs in Long Island Sound.<sup>6</sup>

Current state law does little to restrict the use of pesticides, and as a result, pesticide use has surged. Lawns are where families play, picnic and relax. Unfortunately, the desire for the perfect lawn is leading residents in our communities to use toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers to make their yards green. In 1962, Rachel Carson sounded the alarm about pesticide pollution in her landmark book, Silent Spring. While some pesticides have been banned since then, household use of pesticides has increased dramatically. According to the Maine Board of Pesticides Control, more than 6 million pounds of lawn care pesticides were used in 2007 alone, nearly an eight-fold increase over 1995 (see chart). This exceeds the amount of pesticides used by all agribusinesses in Maine, including farmers and foresters.

Pesticide Purchases Graph
Source: http://maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/yardscaping/lawn/index.htm

2. Maine municipalities take steps to ban or limit pesticides

In 1987, this legislature passed 22 MRS § 1471-U requiring the Maine Board of Pesticide Control to maintain a centralized listing of municipal ordinances that apply to pesticide storage, distribution or use. Section 1471-U does not affect or limit the ability of municipalities to enact ordinances.

The Maine Board of Pesticide Control web site contains links to 27 municipal ordinances. A review of these ordinances shows the thoughtful process each city or town employed to study its need and illustrates how the municipality tailored its ordinance to address a specific local health concern. The cities and towns that have passed ordinances range from Allagash to Wells, and include both rural and urban regions. Some ordinances apply to agricultural uses, others to forestry, and others to sensitive environmental areas.

Along Casco Bay, Harpswell has passed a pesticide ordinance that bans the use of neonicotinoids (blamed for bee die-offs) and insect growth regulators (used to kill browntail moths and linked to harming lobsters). The ordinance bans use of pesticides or fertilizers within 25 feet of the shoreline. South Portland has passed an ordinance that phases in a pesticide ban on public property after one year, on private property after two years, and requires a comprehensive review of the ordinance in year three. Education will be emphasized over enforcement. More recently, the Portland Pesticides Task Force came out in support of an ordinance that bans the use of pesticides on lawns, patios and driveways, and within 75 feet of water. The draft ordinance would also have Portland form an advisory committee to develop data on pesticide use. Most recently, Falmouth has begun its work to study and develop a pesticides ordinance.

LD 1505 would void all 27 ordinances and revoke the authority of towns – like Portland and Falmouth – to pass future ordinances related to pesticides. This Committee should not sanction this infringement on the broad “home rule” powers granted to cities and towns by the Maine Constitution.

In light of the alarming increase in pesticide use, Maine cities and towns are leading the way by passing ordinances that limit pesticide use, in ways that safeguard public health, safety and welfare, and protect natural resources.<sup>7</sup> There are no state or federal laws in place that provide comparable protections.

Please keep these municipal ordinances in place. Please encourage continued protections for our children and for our environment. Please vote that LD 1505 ought not to pass. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Ivy Frignoca
Casco Baykeeper, Friends of Casco Bay

CC: Rebecca Harvey, Clerk

<sup>1</sup> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_pesticides (citing scientific studies at notes 5 and 6).
<sup>2</sup> http://www.panna.org/human-health-harms/children.
<sup>3</sup> www.hiveandhoneyapiary.com/Honeybeesandpesticides.html.
<sup>4</sup> https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/WillapaBay.pdf.
<sup>5</sup> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140609_mosquitoinsecticide.html.
<sup>6</sup> https://ctmirror.org/2012/07/10/pesticides-found-li-sound-lobsters-first-time-more-study-planned/.
<sup>7</sup> 22 MRS § 1471-A (stating intent of law to ensure pesticides are applied safely to protect public and
environmental health)

Friends of Casco Bay testimony opposing LD 1518 to the extent it seeks to enact 22 MRSA § 1471-CC

April 22, 2019

Senator Jim Dill
Representative Craig Hickman
Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry
c/o Legislative Information Office
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333

Re: Friends of Casco Bay testimony opposing LD 1518 to the extent it seeks to enact 22 MRSA § 1471-CC

Dear Senator Dill, Representative Hickman and Distinguished Members of the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry,

Please accept the following as the testimony of Friends of Casco Bay opposing LD 1518 to the extent it seeks to enact 22 MRSA § 1471-CC. Friends of Casco Bay is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving and protecting marine water quality.

We regret being unable to appear in person and respectfully request that you consider our written testimony in your deliberations regarding LD 1518: An Act to Establish a Fund for Portions of the Operations and Outreach Activities of the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Diagnostic and Research Laboratory and To Increase Statewide Enforcement of Pesticide Use.

Embedded in this bill about the UME Cooperative Extension Lab is an unrelated rider intended to restrict or eliminate municipal home rule. That rider is Section 3, which would enact 22 MRSA § 1471-CC:

A political subdivision of the State that wants to eliminate use in the political subdivision of a pesticide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency shall submit a request to eliminate use of the pesticide to the board. The board shall determine whether the pesticide should be further regulated based upon the board’s expertise in toxicology and available scientific information relating to the adverse environmental, health and other effects of the pesticide under Title 7, section 610, subsection 1. The board’s review must include participation of the officers of the political subdivision and board staff
and may include experts and other interested parties as the board determines appropriate.

We strongly oppose this unrelated rider and request that LD 1518 be amended to strike Section 3.

In support of our testimony opposing Section 3 of LD 1518, we have attached testimony that we submitted to the State and Local Government Committee in 2017 and 2018 opposing similar attempts to limit or eliminate municipal home rule to regulate pesticide use. Our prior testimony highlights research we conducted between 2001 and 2009. We collected rainwater flowing into Casco Bay and analyzed it for a suite of pesticides to determine “presence” or “absence” of pesticides. Lab results identified 10 different pesticides in 14 locations around Casco Bay. We detected the following six toxic pesticides:

  • 2, 4-D: banned in five countries, this herbicide is toxic to aquatic invertebrates and may be linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma in humans
  • Clopyralid: this herbicide has been linked to birth defects in animals
  • Diazinon: banned from being sold to U.S. consumers but still legal for use, this insecticide has a high aquatic toxicity and is linked to reproductive problems
  • Dicamba: found in groundwater throughout the U.S., this herbicide is toxic to fish and zooplankton
  • MCPP: along with 2, 4-D, this herbicide is in the same family of chemicals as Agent Orange and is highly toxic to bay shrimp
  • Propiconazole: this fungicide is a possible carcinogen

Current state law does little to restrict the use of pesticides, and as a result, pesticide use has surged.

Fortunately, Maine’s Constitution grants Home Rule to municipalities.1 Home Rule allows municipalities to exercise any power or function that the Legislature confers upon them, and that is not denied expressly or by clear implication.2 With respect to pesticide ordinances, the Legislature requires a municipality to notify the Maine Board of Pesticides Control (BPC) when it intends to adopt an ordinance. The law also requires municipalities to conduct considerable public process before adopting ordinances.3 Of Maine’s nearly 500 municipalities, only 29 have enacted pesticide ordinances, and all are carefully crafted to improve localized public health and safety.4 None of the ordinances out-right ban the use of pesticides.

For example:

  • Brunswick prohibits use or storage of most pesticides other than for households and agriculture within the aquifer protection zone. The town also prohibits aerial applications other than public health applications performed under the auspices of the Town or State. Exceptions may be approved by Codes Enforcement Officer.
  • Harpswell prohibits the use of the insect growth regulators (IGRs) diflubenzuron and tebufenozide and the aerial application of all IGRs and any insecticide whose product label indicates that it is harmful to aquatic invertebrates [for example, lobsters]. The town also restricts the use of neonicotinoid insecticides.
  • South Portland curtails the use of pesticides for turf, landscape and outdoor pest management.

These examples highlight that existing law works well to ensure municipalities engage in a thoughtful process and tailor pesticide ordinances to meet local needs. Section 3 of LD 1518 usurps municipal home rule and should not be enacted.

Friends of Casco Bay respectfully requests that this Committee recommend that LD 1581 ought not to pass as written. If the Committee does decide to consider the remainder of this bill, we respectfully request that LD 1518 be amended to strike Section 3.

Thank you for considering our testimony.

Sincerely,
Ivy Frignoca, Casco Baykeeper
Friends of Casco Bay

1 Maine Constitution, Art. VIII, pt. 2, § 1.
2 CMP v. Town of Lebanon, 571 A.2d 1189, 1192 (ME 1990); 30-A MRSA § 3001.
3 See e.g. 30-A MRSA §§ 3001 et seq.
4 https://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/public/municipal_ordinances.shtml.

Friends of Casco Bay Testimony in Support of LD 1284: An Act to Create the Science and Policy Advisory Council on the Impact of Climate Change on Maine’s Marine Species

April 2, 2019

Senator Miramant
Representative McCreight
Marine Resources Committee
c/o Legislative Information Office
100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333
MAR [at] legislature [dot] maine [dot] gov

Re: Friends of Casco Bay testimony in support of LD 1284: An Act To Create the Science and Policy Advisory Council on the Impact of Climate Change on Maine’s Marine Species

Dear Senator Miramant, Representative McCreight, and Distinguished Members of the Marine Resources Committee,

Friends of Casco Bay submits this letter in full support of LD 1284: An Act To Create the Science and Policy Advisory Council on the Impact of Climate Change on Maine’s Marine Species. Friends of Casco Bay is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving and protecting the health of Casco Bay. We have been monitoring the health of the Bay for nearly 30 years. We also have played a leadership role in Maine’s efforts to address the impacts climate change on the marine environment.

Based on our data and the data of colleagues, we know Maine’s marine waters are changing fast due to climate change. Those changes are harming our marine species. We must act now to slow the rate of change, understand what we can save through adaptation, and prepare for some inevitable losses. LD 1284 provides a comprehensive framework to achieve these goals.

LD 1284 was born out of a meeting last November hosted by the Maine Ocean and Coastal Acidification (MOCA) partnership1 and attended by many of Maine’s top marine researchers, DEP and DMR staff, members of the original ocean acidification study commission formed by the legislature in 2014,2 about 20 members of Maine’s coastal caucus, commercial fishermen and sea farmers, and others. Friends of Casco Bay helped organize the meeting. The group discussed what we had learned since 2014 and what actions we need to take now. Their two recommendations were to: (1) create an advisory council on the impacts of climate change on Maine’s marine species and (2) create an action plan to bridge the gap between the 2014 study commission and now. MOCA is working on a proposed action plan that we hope will inform the work of the marine advisory council.

It is up to this Legislature to create the recommended advisory council. It may do so with this Marine Resources Committee’s recommendation that LD 1284 ought to pass as written or ought to be incorporated into the Governor’s climate change council structure. The text of LD 1284 was developed by Representative Blume with the aid of MOCA. Its scope and format flow from work since 2014 and recommendations of some of the state’s top marine scientists. Governor Mills’s proposed climate change council is intended to include subcommittees on marine and coastal environments and on science. We have been told that many elements of LD 1284 have been incorporated into the Governor’s proposed council bill, but have not yet seen it.

The most important consideration for this Committee is to ensure that the intent of LD 1284 is not diluted or ignored. The impacts of climate change on our iconic marine waters and species are here and must be addressed now. The necessary science must be done by researchers with expertise in monitoring marine environments. Policies must be designed by marine experts that contemplate impacts on our fisheries and those who depend upon them.

By way of example, here are some ways climate change is impacting Maine’s marine waters and fisheries:

  • About a third of all carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is absorbed by the ocean where it mixes with sea water to form carbonic acid, lowering the pH of the ocean. This is ocean acidification and is evident in Casco Bay where pH dropped from 8 to almost 7.8 from 2000-2012. The pH scale is logarithmic, meaning that a decrease of an integer value changes the concentration by a tenfold. Lower pH can cause mollusk shells—including clams, oysters, and mussels—to pit and dissolve.
  • Precipitation in Maine has increased six inches since 1895, and we have more intense storms that deliver excess nitrogen to our waters. The nitrogen fuels algal and phytoplankton blooms. The blooms have immediate negative impacts on marine species. For example, we have seen thick mats of nuisance algae smother clams. In addition, as blooms die, they release carbon dioxide which mixes with sea water to create carbonic acid. This is coastal acidification and also lowers the pH of our coastal waters.
  • The temperature of Casco Bay rose about 1 degree Celsius (2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) from 1993 to 2018. Warmer ocean temperatures mean that green crabs are not dying back over winter. The higher populations of green crabs prey on soft-shelled clams and other mollusks. They also demolish eelgrass beds, a critical marine habitat. Rising ocean temperatures also cause shifts in species and can contribute to an increase in lobster shell disease
  • In 2016, we began measuring the amount of calcium carbonate available for mollusks and other organisms to build their shells. We learned that for most of the year, there is not enough calcium carbonate in the water for shell-building.

We have attached our Bay Paper on Climate Change to provide more information on why we must act now.

Given that climate change already is harming marine species, we must create a climate change marine advisory council as a means to act now in a concerted and coordinated manner.

For the above reasons, we respectfully request that the Committee unanimously recommend that LD 1284 ought to pass. In the alternative, the Committee should ensure that LD 1284 is meaningfully incorporated into the Governor’s climate change council structure in a manner that does not dilute the intent of LD 1284.

Thank you for considering our testimony.

Sincerely,

Ivy L. Frignoca

Casco Baykeeper

Friends of Casco Bay

 

To see this testimony attached as a PDF, click here. 

Friends of Casco Bay Testimony in Support of LD 559: Ac Act to Restore Regular Mapping of Eelgrass Beds in the State

March 1, 2019

Senator Carson
Representative Tucker
c/o Legislative Information Office
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333

Re: LD 559: An Act To Restore Regular Mapping of Eelgrass Beds in the State

Dear Senator Carson, Representative Tucker, and Esteemed Members of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee,

Please accept this letter as the testimony of Friends of Casco Bay in support of LD 559: An Act To Restore Regular Mapping of Eelgrass Beds in the State. Friends of Casco Bay is a marine stewardship organization formed in 1989 to improve and protect the environmental health of Casco Bay. Our work involves science, advocacy, and engaging the community in efforts to protect our coastal waters.

We support LD 559 because eelgrass: (1) provides critical habitat for marine life; (2) is an indicator of clean, healthy marine water which is used to set limits in pollution discharge permits; and (3) mapping is relied upon by oil spill responders to make decisions about habitats to protect and/or restore after a spill.

Because of the importance of eelgrass, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) used oil spill response funds to hire an oil spill response coordinator who mapped each segment of the coast twice, once from 1992-1997, and again from 2001-2010. That position and funding no longer exist. Since then, only Casco Bay has been mapped, in 2013 and 2018. To fund this mapping, DEP took funds away from other monitoring efforts and solicited money from outside organizations. Such a model is not sustainable. Without funding for mapping, Maine is missing critical information needed to protect its valuable marine resources.

Eelgrass as Habitat:

Eelgrass grows in shallow marine environments with clear water and plenty of light. It forms a base of food production, provides shelter for juvenile fish, invertebrates and mollusks, and stabilizes unconsolidated sediments and shorelines.

Eelgrass as Indicator of Clean Water:

Eelgrass needs clean, clear marine water. If water is clouded with suspended solids or other pollutants, eelgrass dies off. If too much nitrogen from land sources, such as effluent pipes and stormwater pipes regulated under the Clean Water Act, flows into water near eelgrass, it grows less densely and looks slimy, as it will be covered with epiphytes (plants that grow on other plants). This growth impedes the ability of eelgrass to photosynthesize.

Nitrogen pollution is a serious issue in nearshore environments. In addition to harming eelgrass, it fertilizes blooms of large mats of green algae on clam flats. We have seen this in coves of Casco Bay and in the Fore River which flows into the Bay. We have found that some of these blooms smother clams and other marine organisms, lower the pH of the sediments, and kill juvenile clams that get entangled in the algae when they try to settle onto the flats. Further, as these algal blooms die, carbon dioxide is released, which contributes to acidification of marine waters in the very areas relied upon as habitat by our valuable shellfish species.

DEP uses the health of eelgrass as an indicator of nitrogen pollution. If the receiving water near a wastewater discharge pipe has a concentration of .32 mg/l of nitrogen, then DEP examines nearby eelgrass beds to see if they are healthy. If the beds are thin and slimy in appearance, DEP determines whether the effluent from the discharge pipe could be contributing to the ill health. DEP can then limit the allowance for the amount of nitrogen that can be discharged from the pipe to restore water quality.

DEP cannot properly analyze and protect the health of our marine waters without the funds and staff to routinely map eelgrass beds.

Oil Spill Response:

In the event of an oil spill, the US Coast Guard, in coordination with other federal and state officials, sets up a command center and brings in trained experts to aid response. DEP’s maps are critical to these efforts. Eelgrass maps are used to make decisions regarding where to set out booms and can be used to make habitat restoration decisions.

Ought to Pass:

DEP should not have to cobble together resources for sporadic and incomplete mapping of eelgrass. DEP should be funded and staffed to provide on-going mapping of the entire coast in 5 years cycles. In this manner, DEP can best meet its regulatory obligations and protect our valuable marine waters. Friends of Casco Bay respectfully requests that this committee unanimously recommend that LD 559 pass.

Thank you for considering our testimony.

Sincerely,

Ivy Frignoca,

Casco Baykeeper

Friends of Casco Bay

Cc: Caleb Roebuck

 

To see this testimony as a PDF, click here.

Friends of Casco Bay Testimony in Support of LD 430: An Act To Establish and Promote a System of Safe Disposal of Expired Marine Flares

February 25, 2019

Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety
c/o Legislative Information Office
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333

Re: Friends of Casco Bay Testimony in Support of LD 430: An Act To Establish and Promote a System of Safe Disposal of Expired Marine Flares

Dear Senator Deschambault and Representative Warren

Please accept this letter as the testimony of Friends of Casco Bay in support of LD 430: An Act To Establish and Promote a System of Safe Disposal of Expired Marine Flares. Friends of Casco Bay supports the legislation because, in addition to enhancing public safety, this solves an environmental problem that protects the health of our marine waters.

Friends of Casco Bay is a marine stewardship organization founded in 1989 to improve and protect the environmental health of Casco Bay. Our work includes science, advocacy, and community outreach. One issue that we, our members, and other commercial and recreational users of the Bay face is how to safely and properly dispose of expired marine flares.

Expired flares cannot be thrown out. They are a hazard class 1.4 explosive. They also contain toxic chemicals, including potassium perchlorate which can leach into ground water and cause health problems, especially to citizens with thyroid conditions. The only way to neutralize the perchlorate is to incinerate it at high temperatures. When subjected to high levels of heat, the potassium and chlorine in the perchlorate – KClO2 – remain bonded to become potassium chloride, an essentially harmless compound. The O2 separates from the potassium and chlorine and is released into the air as oxygen

Maine has no protocol for the disposal of expired flares. Some Mainers store boxes of expired flares in their garages and barns because they know they cannot discharge them or throw them out. Others, contrary to law, light them off over the ocean or throw them in the garbage where they create an explosive fire hazard.

LD 430 presents a common sense solution to these problems. It sets up targeted weeks for collection of expired marine flares and a safe system for collection with key collection points. It establishes education and messaging to inform the public of the need to properly dispose of flares and how to do so. We strongly believe that this common sense solution will solve an environmental problem in a costeffective and efficient manner.

In 2017, we supported LD 252, An Act To Improve Safety in the Disposal of Expired Marine Flares. The legislature passed the bill, but the Governor vetoed it. Since then, the State Fire Marshal has voluntarily directed his staff to collect, transport, and incinerate expired marine flares in its EPA-approved mobile incinerator. Under this system, each individual calls the Fire Marshal’s Office and that office dispatches trained staff to pick up the flares. While we remain deeply appreciative of these efforts, our volunteers have reported that this is not working well. The system appears to be overwhelmed by both the number of requests and the number of flares. LD 430 will address part of this problem by setting up targeted times and locations for collection.

The remainder of the problem requires additional resources – a second incinerator. We have been told that the Fire Marshal has a backlog of flares and would like another incinerator to keep up with demand. We support any fiscal note associated with this bill that will finance that purchase in whole or in part. Maine has 3,478 miles of coastline, and over 5,000 miles of coast if all of the island coastlines are included. Having two mobile incinerators to cover 5000 miles of coast is not excessive. This will allow the Fire Marshal to protect public safety as well as the health of our marine waters for years to come.

We urge you to vote that LD 430 ought to pass. Thank you for considering our testimony.

Sincerely,

Ivy Frignoca

Casco Baykeeper

Friends of Casco Bay

CC: Cynthia Fortier, Clerk

 

To see this testimony as a PDF, click here. 

Friends of Casco Bay Testimony in Opposition to LD 1853: An Act To Ensure the Safe and Consistent Regulation of Pesticides throughout the State by Providing Exemptions to Municipal Ordinances That Regulate Pesticides

March 21, 2018

Senator Paul Davis
Representative Danny Martin
State and Local Government Committee
c/o Legislative Information Office 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333

Re: Friends of Casco Bay Testimony in Opposition to LD 1853: An Act To Ensure the Safe and Consistent Regulation of Pesticides throughout the State by Providing Exemptions to Municipal Ordinances That Regulate Pesticides

Dear Senator Davis, Representative Martin, and Distinguished Members of the State and Local Government Committee:

Please accept this letter as the testimony of Friends of Casco Bay in opposition to LD 1853: An Act To Ensure the Safe and Consistent Regulation of Pesticides throughout the State by Providing Exemptions to Municipal Ordinances That Regulate Pesticides. Friends of Casco Bay is a marine stewardship organization formed over a quarter century ago to improve and protect the environmental health of Casco Bay. Our work involves education, advocacy, water quality monitoring, and collaborative partnerships.

A year ago we submitted testimony similar to today’s testimony, opposing LD 1505: An Act To Create Consistency in the Regulation of Pesticides[1], a bill that would have eliminated municipal Home Rule to pass or implement pesticide-related ordinances. Although LD 1853 differs from LD 1505 by not explicitly referring to Home Rule, it implicitly guts it. LD 1853 provides that municipal pesticide ordinances cannot apply: (1) to commercial applicators and spray contracting firms or (2) to private applicators when the private applicators are producing agricultural or horticultural commodities. Horticulture means “the science and art of growing fruits, vegetables, flowers, or ornamental plants.”[2] Horticulture is: “[t]hat branch of agriculture concerned with growing plants that are used by people for food, for medicinal purposes, and for aesthetic gratification.”[3]

LD 1853 in essence removes the right of municipalities to pass pesticide ordinances for virtually any purpose. No ordinance can apply to commercial applicators. Nor can an ordinance apply to home applicators for basically any conceivable purpose, including weed-free lawns maintained for “aesthetic gratification.” For this reason, we respectfully request that this Committee unanimously recommend that LD 1853 ought not to pass, the same recommendation that it made for LD 1505.

PESTICIDES IN CASCO BAY

Our previous testimony, attached as Exhibit A, details the sampling Friends of Casco Bay conducted to detect the presence or absence of pesticides in stormwater that flows into Casco Bay. In summary, over 8 years, our research identified 10 different pesticides at 14 locations around the Bay. None of the pesticides are listed as safe for use in marine environments. For example, these six toxic pesticides were detected:

2, 4-D: banned in five countries, this herbicide is toxic to aquatic invertebrates and may be linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma in humans.

Clopyralid: this herbicide has been linked to birth defects in animals.

Diazinon: banned from being sold to U.S. consumers but still legal for use, this insecticide has a high aquatic toxicity and is linked to reproductive problems.

Dicamba: found in groundwater throughout the U.S., this herbicide is toxic to fish and zooplankton.

MCPP: along with 2, 4-D, this herbicide is in the same family of chemicals as Agent Orange and is highly toxic to bay shrimp.

Propiconazole: this fungicide is a possible carcinogen.

Consistent with our mission to improve and protect the environmental health of Casco Bay, we strongly believe these substances should not be discharged into our marine waters.

MAINE MUNCIPAL PESTICIDES ORDINANCES

The Maine Constitution grants Home Rule to municipalities.[4] Home Rule allows municipalities to exercise any power or function that the Legislature confers upon them, and that is not denied expressly or by clear implication.[5] With respect to pesticide ordinances, the Legislature requires a municipality to notify the Maine Board of Pesticide Control (BPC) when it intends to adopt an ordinance. In turn, the BPC must maintain a list of all municipal ordinances that specifically apply to pesticide storage, distribution or use.[6] Municipalities adopt ordinances through considerable public process.[7] For example, Friends of Casco Bay’s Executive Director, Cathy Ramsdell, served for nearly a year on a task force that helped Portland shape its recently enacted pesticide ordinance.[8]

As a result of this very thoughtful process, 29 of Maine’s nearly 500 municipalities have enacted ordinances that narrowly restrict pesticide use to meet local needs.[9] It should be noted that none of these municipal ordinances out-right ban the use of pesticides. Here are some examples relevant to Casco Bay:

Brunswick prohibits use or storage of most pesticides other than for households and agriculture within the aquifer protection zone. The town also prohibits aerial applications other than public health applications performed under the auspices of the Town or State.  Exceptions may be approved by Codes Enforcement Officer.

Harpswell prohibits the use of the insect growth regulators (IGRs) diflubenzuron and tebufenozide and the aerial application of all IGRs and any insecticide whose product label indicates that it is harmful to aquatic invertebrates. The town also restricts the use of neonicotinoid insecticides.

New Gloucester requires application to be consistent with DCAF standards.

Portland’s recently enacted ordinance will restrict the use of synthetic pesticides for all public and private turf, landscape, and outdoor pest management activities. The ordinance takes effect for City property on July 1, 2018 and for private property on January 1, 2019. There are provisions for emergency exemptions.

South Portland curtails the use of pesticides for turf, landscape and outdoor pest management.[10]

Research revealed no legal challenges to these ordinances. They stand as a proper application of Home Rule and as excellent examples of municipalities crafting more protective regulation than federal and state law to protect the health of local residents, natural resources, and environmental concerns. LD 1853 should not be allowed to eviscerate this proper and necessary exercise of Home Rule.

For the reasons set forth above and in our prior testimony, we reiterate our request that this Committee unanimously recommend that LD 1853 ought not to pass.

Respectfully,

Ivy L. Frignoca
Casco Baykeeper
Friends of Casco Bay

CC: Jennifer Hall, Clerk

 

[1] See Friends of Casco Bay Testimony Oppose LD 1505, https://www.cascobay.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/05012017-FOCB-Testimony-Oppose-LD-1505-Final.pdf

[2] Merriam Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horticulture.

[3] https://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/definition_of_specialty_crops.pdf.

[4] Maine Constitution, Art. VIII, pt. 2, § 1.

[5] CMP v. Town of Lebanon, 571 A.2d 1189, 1192 (ME 1990); 30-A MRSA § 3001.

[6] 22 MRSA § 1471-U.

[7] See e.g. 30-A MRSA §§ 3001 et seq.

[8] https://www.cascobay.org/2018/02/06/protecting-bay-pesticides/.

[9] http://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/public/municipal_ordinances.shtml.

[10] Id.

To see this testimony as a downloadable PDF, click here.

Ivy Frignoca, Casco Baykeeper

Opposing the 2019-2024 Draft Proposed National Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Ms. Kelly Hammerle, Chief
National Oil and Gas Leasing Program Development and Coordination Branch
Leasing Division, Office of Strategic Resources,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
45600 Woodland Road
Sterling, VA 20166-9216

February 26, 2018

Re: Docket ID: BOEM-2017-0074: Comments opposing the 2019-2024 Draft Proposed National Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Dear Ms. Hammerle,

Friends of Casco Bay respectfully submits these comments in opposition to any opening of the Gulf of Maine and New England coastal waters to offshore drilling.

Friends of Casco Bay is a nonprofit organization with several thousand members and volunteers who live, work, and recreate on Casco Bay, Maine. Our mission is to improve and protect the environmental health of the Bay. For over 25 years, we have monitored the water quality of Casco Bay and worked with business owners and regulators to find solutions to problems threatening the health of our coastal waters. Of particular relevance to the Draft Proposed National Oil and Gas Leasing Program (DPP), our Casco Baykeeper® sits on the Maine and New Hampshire Area Committee[1] where she works closely with government officials to prevent oil spills and to respond in the event of a spill. This work is relevant because Portland Harbor is a busy port situated in Casco Bay, which receives oil tankers at several terminals and at an oil pipeline. Our harbor has had oil spills in the past and works hard to prevent future spills.

We understand that our country remains dependent, in part, on fossil fuels for the short term, until such time as we can reduce energy consumption and expand use of renewable, cleaner energy sources. Nonetheless, we strongly oppose any opening of the Gulf of Maine to offshore drilling for the reasons set forth below.

Introduction

As the Northeast Ocean Plan opens:

New England was born of the ocean. The region’s identity and its vitality are inextricably intertwined with the sea. As with its past, New England’s future is equally bound to the fate of the great waters that roll ceaselessly from the northern reaches of the Gulf of Maine to Long Island Sound and the New York Bight far to the south. Sound management of these public resources, and of the regional economy that depends on them, is of paramount importance.” [2]

From its bold rocky outcroppings, sandy beaches, and verdant salt marshes, to its offshore kelp forests, canyons and deep basins, New England’s waters teem with thousands of animal and plant species, comprising one of the most spectacular and productive ecosystems in the world. The region includes many geologically diverse but intricately interdependent areas, including the Gulf of Maine.[3] Because of this significance, New England’s waters have been protected from offshore drilling.

The DPP proposes to repeal that protection and offer 9 leases in the Atlantic, as close as 3 miles offshore. This proposal is meeting with resounding opposition. Regionally, New England’s Senators swiftly and collectively introduced bi-partisan legislation to bar oil and gas drilling off the region’s coast.[4] Congressman Cicilline (D-RI), supported by Congressman Poliquin (R-ME) and Congresswoman Pingree (D-ME),  introduced similar legislation in the House.[5]

“I am opposed to oil drilling off the coast of our state of Maine,” said Republican Congressman Poliquin. “So much of our state’s economy and tens of thousands of Maine jobs along our coast depend on our marine and tourism industries. I am committed to protecting Maine’s unique natural resources.”[6] Congresswoman Pingree vowed to fight the president’s policy: “President Trump’s offshore drilling plan is unprecedented and will face major opposition from Mainers.”[7] Senators Collins and King issued a joint statement: “The waters off Maine’s coast provide a healthy ecosystem for our state’s fisheries and support a vigorous tourism industry, both of which support thousands of jobs and generate billions of dollars in revenue for Maine each year.  With our environment so closely tied to the vitality of Maine’s economy, we cannot risk the health of our ocean on a shortsighted proposal that could impact Maine people for generations. We are proud to join our colleagues from New England to underscore the need to protect our waters from offshore drilling.”[8]

At a more local level, Maine’s legislature has taken up an emergency resolve opposing the DPP, and the state’s largest port city, Portland, has passed a resolution opposing the DPP.

Friends of Casco Bay joins the resounding opposition to oil drilling off the Maine coast. In addition to agreeing with the eloquent language from the New England Ocean Plan and the impassioned words of our Congressional delegation, we find the reasoning behind the DPP to be flawed and incomplete. First, the DPP’s stated purpose—to reduce our dependence on imported fuel—is belied by information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which shows that on-shore oil and gas production has greatly reduced our dependence on foreign fuel and led to an increase in US exports of oil and gas. Second, the DPP contains no analysis or consideration of the impacts of climate change. Third, the DPP ignores the Northeast Ocean Plan and the considerable analysis in the 2017–2022 Program, which removed the Atlantic from offshore leasing. Finally, the DPP ignores the tenuous legal underpinning of opening any potential lease sites in locations that President Obama withdrew from consideration pursuant to his authority under Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. § 1341(a).

The DPP’s stated purpose- to reduce our dependence on imported fuel- is belied by information from the EIA

Existing data from the EIA which informed consideration of our nation’s energy needs under the 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (the 2017-2022 Program) undercuts the stated purpose for the DPP—the need to open almost all of our coast to drilling to secure energy independence.

According to EIA data, over the past decade, the significant increase in oil and natural gas production from shale and tight formations has resulted in a significant decline in U.S. dependence on imported petroleum (EIA 2016a).[9] As a result, both net and gross imports of crude oil have been declining[10] and, beginning in 2011, U.S. exports of refined petroleum products exceeded imports.[11] Moreover, EIA analysis reveals that the actual amount of oil needed to meet the United States’ energy needs will continue to grow only until 2020, and will then stabilize and eventually decline.[12]

Based on this EIA analysis, there is no justification for opening the coast of New England to offshore drilling over the next 50 years. There is simply no need for the oil or gas that could potentially be extracted. The 2017-2022 Program more appropriately contemplates our nation’s energy needs by limiting the amount and location of potential lease sites.

The DPP fails to consider climate change, environmental threats, and social costs

As the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is fully aware, the Gulf of Maine is changing faster than almost any other marine area as a result of carbon emissions. It is warming faster and experiencing ocean acidification, changes in species, more harmful algal blooms, and a myriad of other problems associated with climate change.

The 2017-2022 Program acknowledges that we must consider the impacts of climate change when committing ourselves to continued reliance on fossil fuels. In fact, BOEM found it to be in “the public interest to disclose the potential climate impacts of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing decisions as part of its planning processes.”[13] The Bureau therefore prepared a report which estimates the social and environmental costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions from the Proposed Program and No Sale Option, as well as impacts from current and prior leasing programs. [14] BOEM felt that by completing this analysis, it was taking an important step toward a more complete disclosure to the public of the contribution of BOEM‐permitted OCS oil and gas exploration, development and production activities to national greenhouse gas emissions.[15]

The DPP, despite the overwhelming scientific certainty of climate change, completely fails to contemplate the impacts of climate change. If these factors are taken into consideration, BOEM would have to acknowledge that no drilling should occur in the Gulf of Maine.

The DPP ignores the Northeast Ocean Plan and the Overwhelming Evidence that Excluded the Atlantic from leasing under the 2017-2022 Program

BOEM should refer to the detailed Northeast Ocean Plan and the record of evidence that so recently led it to exclude New England from offshore drilling in the 2017-2022 Plan. On that evidence, BOEM should reverse its decision to consider lease sites off the coast of New England.

The DPP, in part, ignores the tenuous legal underpinning of opening any potential lease sites in locations that President Obama withdrew from consideration

President Obama withdrew 31 major Atlantic canyons that were not already protected by the National Monument from oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development. The canyons run along the Atlantic continental shelf break, from offshore New England to offshore Chesapeake Bay.[16] President Obama made these withdrawals pursuant to his authority under Section 12(a) of the OCSLA. Section 12(a) provides that a President, may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf. Neither OCSLA nor any other provision of law authorizes a subsequent President to undo such a withdrawal. Therefore, President Trump’s Executive Order, to the extent it seeks to open these areas to drilling, is unlawful. BOEM must remove the Atlantic canyons from consideration.

Conclusion

For all of the above reasons, Friends of Casco Bay respectfully requests that BOEM remove the Gulf of Maine and the coast of New England from its offshore oil and gas leasing program.

Sincerely,

Ivy L. Frignoca
Casco Baykeeper
Friends of Casco Bay

 

[1] http://www.maine.gov/dep/spills/emergspillresp/areacommittee.html.

[2] https://neoceanplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Northeast-Ocean-Plan-Chapter-1.pdf at 7.

[3] Id. at 8.

[4] https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/-senators-introduce-bipartisan-new-england-offshore-drilling-ban.

[5] https://bangordailynews.com/2018/01/11/politics/pingree-poliquin-join-push-to-prevent-drilling-off-new-england-coast/.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/-senators-introduce-bipartisan-new-england-offshore-drilling-ban.

[9]   2017-2022 Program at 6-1.

[10] 2017-2022 Program at 6-2.

[11] 2017-2022 Program at 6-3.

[12] 2017-2022 Program at 6-5.

[13] 2017-2022 Program at 5-23-24.

[14] OCS Oil and Natural Gas: Potential Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions USDOI 2017–2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program BOEM Valuation of Program Areas 5-24 November 2016 and Social Cost of Carbon (BOEM 2016c).

[15] 2017-2022 Program at 5-24.

[16] Fact Sheet: Unique Atlantic Canyons Protected from Oil and Gas Activity

Support of LD 1657: An Act To Update the Allowance Budget for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

January 10, 2018

Senator Thomas Saviello
Representative Ralph Tucker
Environment and Natural Resources Committee
c/o Legislative Information Office
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333

Re: Friends of Casco Bay Comments in Support of LD 1657: An Act To Update the Allowance Budget for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

Dear Senator Saviello, Representative Tucker and Esteemed Members of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee,

Friends of Casco Bay submits this letter in support of LD 1657: An Act To Update the Allowance Budget for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). We respectfully request that the committee unanimously recommend LD 1657 “Ought to Pass.” LD 1657 asks little from Maine (we have six facilities that fall within RGGI), and yields significant benefits including funding for efficiency, improved air and water quality, health benefits, and more. It continues Maine’s participation in the bi-partisan RGGI and sets targets to lower carbon emissions from Virginia through Maine. As a recipient of carbon emissions transported here from out the state, Maine will see much greater benefit than any action it could take on its own.

Friends of Casco Bay supports RGGI because reducing carbon emissions will improve marine water quality and positively impact the future of Maine’s valuable shellfisheries. Friends of Casco Bay is a nonprofit organization committed to protecting and improving the water quality of Casco Bay. We have several thousand members and volunteers who rely upon Casco Bay for their livelihoods, recreation, and solace. We have monitored the water quality of the Bay for over 25 years. We conduct our research by land (taking surface samples at 14-36 sites around Casco Bay), by sea (using our research vessel as a platform to collect top to bottom water column profiles in areas representative of the Bay and in areas identified as having water quality problems), and through our continuous monitoring station which collects measurements every hour of every day. In relevant part, we use the data we collect to track chemical and biological indicators of ocean acidification, a negative byproduct of excess carbon emissions.

Ocean acidification occurs when carbon emissions from the atmosphere are absorbed into the ocean. Scientists estimate that oceans absorb 22 million tons of carbon dioxide every day.[1] The carbon dioxide reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid and lower pH. This chemical change is called ocean acidification. Ocean acidification interferes with the ability of certain marine animals, such as clams and oysters, to make their shells. It also negatively impacts other marine species, including juvenile lobsters, in ways we do not yet fully understand. Friends of Casco Bay’s research data, particularly from our continuous monitoring station, show negative and troubling changes indicative of ocean acidification. For example, our data show periods of time with a lower calcium carbonate saturation state than expected. When the calcium carbonate saturation state is low, shell-forming organisms such as clams, mussels, and oysters have difficulty forming shells.

Carbon emissions also contribute to global warming, which in turn causes sea level rise from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of sea water as it warms. Our 25 years of data and observations show a trend of rising ocean temperatures (despite variations in temperature from year-to-year) and warmer water temperatures longer into the fall. Our members talk about the rise in sea level they have observed over the years, and we have observed greater King Tides and storm surges.

The most important policy change we can make to slow these negative changes is to reduce carbon emissions. In the context of the participating RGGI states, Maine is primarily a tailpipe state; it receives atmospheric carbon dioxide from other states that worsen air quality. Maine will benefit greatly from remaining part of RGGI.

For the above reasons, we urge the Committee to unanimously recommend that LD 1657 “Ought to Pass.” Thank you for considering our comments.

Sincerely,
Ivy L. Frignoca
Casco Baykeeper
Friends of Casco Bay

[1] NOAA, “Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy” (2006).