Officials question LePage plan to relax permit process near waterfowl habitat

Posted Dec. 15, 2011, at 8:20 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this     
 State wildlife officials expressed cautious concerns Thursday about how ducks and other waterfowl could be affected by a proposal to relax permitting requirements for development near wetlands.
Courtesy of Bob Duchesne
State wildlife officials expressed cautious concerns Thursday about how ducks and other waterfowl could be affected by a proposal to relax permitting requirements for development near wetlands.

AUGUSTA, Maine — State wildlife officials expressed cautious concerns Thursday about how ducks and other waterfowl could be affected by a proposal to relax permitting requirements for development near wetlands, but stopped well short of opposing the LePage administration plan.

Some members of the regulatory board reviewing the proposal, however, suggested that the administration’s plan was overly broad and could make it too easy for landowners to build subdivisions and commercial projects near sensitive bird populations.

“As written, I don’t think it passes the straight-face test as far as no significant impacts” on bird habitat, said Wing Goodale, a member of the Maine Board of Environmental Protection who also works as a research biologist.

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is proposing to streamline the permitting process for landowners who wish to build near “moderate value” habitat used by ducks, herons and other inland waterfowl or wading birds for feeding and nesting.

Under current law, any new development near moderate or high value habitat — as identified by state maps — first must receive an individual permit from the DEP. That means landowners must go through a sometimes lengthy and costly process involving reviews by other state agencies, including the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, as well as scrutiny from abutters and outside groups.

Critics contend the rules are discouraging business growth and needlessly preventing some landowners from fully using their property.

The DEP proposal would allow landowners looking to develop near moderate-value habitat to skip the full review and instead use the state’s permit-by-rule process in which projects receive an expedited review typically by department staff alone. Many permits are issued within 14 days and do not require public notice or consultation with other agencies.

The board is accepting written comments on the proposed changes through Dec. 27. In January, the board will vote on what to recommend to state lawmakers for consideration in next year’s legislative session.

Mike Mullen, who heads the DEP’s Bureau of Land and Water Quality, has described the proposal as offering “balanced, workable regulations that protect wetlands and wildlife without overly limiting landowners.”

But some conservation groups have said the proposal goes too far because it does not distinguish between a request to build a single-family house or small business from a larger commercial development or a residential subdivision. They also contend that the 100-foot buffer in the proposal is too small, especially during the breeding season when some species are sensitive to disturbance.

On Thursday, wildlife officials with DIF&W appeared to be walking a delicate line as they answered board members’ questions about potential effects on birds from development without speaking harshly against a regulatory reform measure strongly supported by the administration. Although he did not address the board, DIF&W Commissioner Chandler Woodcock watched the discussion from the audience gathered for the BEP meeting held in the Department of Public Safety building.

Under the department’s current guidelines, DIF&W works to minimize impacts from houses that are within 100 feet of the buffer zone near wildlife habitat and generally discourages subdivisions or commercial development within 250 feet. The department also generally discourages activity between April 15 and July 31 in buffer zones because that is the breeding and fledging period for birds.

But Steve Walker, DIF&W’s acting environmental review coordinator, acknowledged that “there are other forces at play here” and said the board must balance habitat concerns with private property rights and other policy issues.

“Yes, we have concerns about impacts to significant wildlife habitat,” Walker said after board members repeatedly pressed him on the department’s stance. “But, again … you, as the public policy board, have to weigh where is that balance.”

Critics of the proposed rules point out that internal communications between staff at DIF&W and DEP suggest that biologists are concerned about the changes.

In November, Walker wrote to Mullen that he would like to see a timing restriction between April 15 and July 31 built into the rules. And former DIF&W wildlife group leader Mark Stadler, who recently retired, wrote to Mullen in July that he found the proposals to change the waterfowl and wading bird habitat protections “deeply disturbing.”

Speaking after Thursday’s meeting, Stadler said DIF&W staff are concerned that the department will not be consulted under the permit-by-rule process. In his eyes, those consultations make sense economically and logistically because they help landowners carry out their projects in a way that minimizes the effect on wildlife, thereby avoiding potential problems in the future.

But Nick Bennett, staff scientist at the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said it was clear from the documentation that DIF&W staff have concerns but are being compelled to tread carefully with the board.

“I’m very shocked at how hard the DEP is pushing to gut their own regulations,” Bennett said.

It was clear during Thursday’s discussion of the proposal that board members are still undecided on the proposal. Several said they wanted to read all of the testimony before discussing the issue further.

Goodale and several other members expressed concerns about allowing commercial development proposals as well as subdivisions to use the permit-by-rule process. At the same time, other board members pointed out that a 4,500-square-foot, single-family house would arguably have a bigger impact on waterfowl than a small business. Additionally, there was some discussion about lengthening the 100-foot buffer in the proposed rules to 150 feet.

The board is expected to continue deliberating on the issue at its Jan. 5 meeting and likely will hold a second meeting in January to finish deciding the language before submitting it to the Legislature for consideration.

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    In the last two hundred years, humanity has radically diminished the majesty and abundance of the environment.  It happens in stages, each generation adds a little more damage, always claiming it means nothing–but it all adds up.

    If you keep adding small cuts to a large beautiful gift from the Divine, thousands and thousands of continuous attacks, eventually the entire System collapses in ugliness and tragedy.

  • Anonymous

    Lie Page never rests, whats next, condos on Mt. Sawyer in Hampden ? 

  • Anonymous

    Are State wildlife officials allowed to act responsibly and speak out against Penguin administration demands, or are the under threat of losing their jobs?  If so, then they can’t actually do their jobs, it seems to me.

  • Anonymous

    Can we differentiate between a mud puddle and actual wildlife habitat?  Doesn’t seem like either side likes to use common sense.

  • Anonymous

    Lepage doesn’t care at all about humans, why in heck would he care about wildlife or the environment.  He should be treated like the snake that he is.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7T3YNF6MG3FPEAVTFIJC44VQUI Dlbrt

    As in the doors song.

    When the Musics Over.

    They want the world and they want it KNOW!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7T3YNF6MG3FPEAVTFIJC44VQUI Dlbrt

    Hes a Mean One,

    “”"  Mr Grinch  “”"

  • Anonymous

    Ducks Unlimited has been one of the organizations that have prevented a lot of development near these sites.Hunters have contributed  millions if not billions of dollars,hunters please stand up and block this from happening.

  • Anonymous

    Biologist E.O. Wilson once wondered whether many of our fellow beings were doomed once evolution gave rise to an intelligent, technological creature that also happened to be a rapacious carnivore, fiercely territorial and prone to short-term thinking.

    In my estimation, arguing that human affairs necessarily trump the survival needs of wildlife more than puts that view right on the money.  

  • Anonymous

    laplague and his gang are a prime example of government for the corporate, not government for the people.

  • Anonymous

    They already do. You make yourself sound stupid. 

  • Anonymous

    Exactly; great post.  A spokesman states that the DIF&W must balance habitat concerns with property rights. Do they really see that as their charge? Property rights rightfully belong to the creatures who have inhabitated that land for millions of years……property rights should be the concern of other agencies, not this one……except perhaps for this Administration who again pushes here for closed doors and non-public hearings.

  • Anonymous

    If hunters want to protect land from development, they should pony up the cash and do it themselves.  Don’t restrict my liberties and take my private property without due process or just compensation simply so hunters can enjoy MY land!

  • Anonymous

    LOL…who sounds stupid?

    You sound like you’ve never experienced the pleasure of indoctrinated liberal “scientists” gathered around a skidder rut, claiming what a valuable resource the newly discovered ”Vernal Pool” is and how we should spend tens of thousands to avoid it.  There is nothing scientific about an arbitrary set-back distance.  This is government overreach at its finest.

  • Anonymous

    Go figure just another stupid proposal by LePage administration…..Impeach Him and get him out of here…..Get him out of Maine for that matter….

  • Anonymous

    Private property rights are the foundation of liberty, hence they are protected in the 5th amendment “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.  Claiming that any agency should ignore the constitution is just plain ignorant and completely out of touch with our form of government.  The agency most certainly has to balance private property rights, otherwise they are open to challenges in court for violating the constitution.  Unless the state (i.e. taxpayers) are willing to pony up the funds to purchase these lands from those who current own them, these regulations should be scrubbed entirely.

  • Anonymous

    Many governments are corporations…ever read a town charter?

  • Anonymous

    Infernal Vernal Pool
     
    Infernal vernal little pool
    Please just dry up and go away
    Don’t need no frogs here anyway
    Pave it over and make it gone
    Who needs to hear the peeper’s song?
     
    Infernal vernal froggy hole
    Who knew the woods has soul?
    Salamander slimy blue thing
    Daphnia water fleas bring
    And fairy shrimp do tell
    Shallow tiny brief spring well

    Just one more story of who we are
    So when progress fills you in
    Please understand politics sell
    To the ones with money
    And you have none
     
    You infernal vernal little pools
    In the way of all them greedy fools
    Who only care about just one thing
    It’s the money stupid sin
    The money filling everything in
    Them little holes will bring

    Goodbye toads
    Goodbye frogs
    Goodbye all you little things
    Who needs you anyway?

  • Anonymous

    “Former DIF&W wildlife group leader Mark Stadler, who recently retired, wrote to Mullen in July that he found the proposals to change the waterfowl and wading bird habitat protections “deeply disturbing.”  Yet Mike Mullen, who heads the DEP’s Bureau of Land and Water Quality, has described the proposal as offering “balanced, workable regulations that protect wetlands and wildlife without overly limiting landowners.” 

    Who do you believe?  Mullen has a relative on LePage’s staff and was appointed to this position just two months ago.  He will follow the LePage agenda without regard for the science or public interest.  

  • Anonymous

    So F..k a Duck for Truth, Justice and the American Way.  My hero!

  • Briney

    How true.

  • Briney

    Look out Vernal, here comes the infernal.

  • Anonymous

     ”Private Property Rights” are a creation of the human mind. They have no basis in natural law. Haven’t we extirpated enough species already under our so-called rights? 

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business

Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business