On February 15 the “Blog Your Way to the North Pole” contest ends.  Once again we urge you to take a second to vote for CLF friend Leslie Harroun as she surges to the top of the polling.

The ice is melting and the climate is changing and we need folks to do some on-the-scene reporting as Leslie will do if enough folks vote for her !

In an ongoing battle between the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and the Administration of Governor Paul LePage over the release of public documents related to his regulatory reform proposals and “red tape audits,” the LePage Administration Thursday relented and agreed with CLF’s legal conclusion that Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) requires the Governor’s office to disclose documents related to the development of his regulatory agenda and staffing that were generated during his post-election transition.

Naturally, I am pleased that the Governor’s office has agreed to comply with the law that allows citizens access to their government’s records; however, I remain concerned that the Administration’s first reaction was to fight disclosure, and that even this agreement to adhere to the law comes with strings attached.

The Governor’s Office takes the position that “the Transition Team was under no obligation to preserve such documents” and says that it will not turn over documents in the possession of Transition Team members. So what shade of transparency is this? Well, I construe this statement to mean that documents that formed the basis for the Governor’s sweeping regulatory reform proposal were either destroyed or are in the possession of the Transition Team, and though those documents are accessible to the Governor’s Office, they will be withheld from the public.

That’s right, it seems that when Governor LePage declared the “most transparent transition in Maine history,”  he forgot to mention that he wasn’t beyond secreting policy documents using legal technicalities. So why doesn’t the Governor want the people of Maine to know who was really behind this effort to reverse Maine’s progress in protecting natural resources that are vital to our economy and our way of life? Is it possible that we might learn that it was lobbyists, out-of-state corporations and some of those special interests by which the Governor claims he cannot be taken hostage?

To borrow your words, Governor–“the Maine people deserve to know.”

The LePage Administration appears to be failing its first formal test of what it claimed would be the most transparent administration in Maine’s history.

In response to a request we filed at the end of January under the Freedom of Access Act for documents related to Governor LePage’s so-called Regulatory “Reform” Proposals, the LePage Administration has stated that it would not provide any documents generated during the transition period for the new Administration, but only those documents generated after the January 5 inauguration. The announcement is in direct conflict with Maine’s Freedom of Access Act and relevant court decisions.

CLF seeks documents related not only to the proposals which threaten to eviscerate four decades of laws and regulations that benefit both the environment and economy of Maine, but also documents related to the “red tape” meetings organized by the Administration and business interest groups in December and January and the nomination of DEP Commissioner Darryl Brown.

“If they didn’t consult with Mr. Brown on these proposals, the vast majority of which are directed at the department he was to lead, then who did they consult with?” asked Sean Mahoney, director of CLF Maine. “It appears to us by the nature of many of these proposals and the document itself, that many of the proposals represent the wish list not from Maine residents or businesses, but out-of-state corporations and trade organizations.”

The Administration’s position is not only counter to its professed goals of transparency and putting people before politics but is legally unsupportable under the clear language of Maine’s Freedom of Access Act and as interpreted by the courts.  If they fail to change their position, CLF will take the fight for transparency and full disclosure to the courts. More >

By now, you’ve heard about Governor LePage’s regulatory “reform” proposals that threaten to dismantle four decades of sound environmental regulations and put Maine’s environment and economy at risk.

CLF is already hard at work evaluating these “reform” proposals and their sources, and has submitted a formal request under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act for the documents, communications and other materials that served as the basis for this proposal.  CLF is ready to work with the new administration to create proposals that make existing regulations and institutions more efficient; however, we are also prepared to hold the LePage administration legally accountable for the changes they propose to implement.

Here’s how you can help:

1. Attend a Hearing

The LePage administration is moving quickly to codify the proposals with a public hearing on LD 1, the vehicle for making these concepts law.  Come stand with CLF and our allies to support Maine’s environment and voice your opposition to these “reforms” by attending the public hearing on LD 1 on Monday, February 14 at 9 a.m. at the State House in Augusta, at which the Joint Standing Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform will take testimony on the Governor’s proposals.

Public Hearing on Governor LePage’s Regulatory Reform Proposals
Monday, February 14 at 9 a.m.
Maine State House
100 State House Station
Cross Building, Room 208
Augusta, ME 04333

Stand with CLF and tell the Governor that his proposals will:

• Threaten Maine’s economy by endangering the natural resources that bring businesses and tourists to Maine from all over the globe and $10 billion annually;
• Eliminate environmental safeguards that have been in place for decades to ensure clean air, clean water and a clean food supply;
• Endanger the health of all Maine residents;
• Perpetuate our dependence on oil; and
• Tear down the solid regulatory foundation that benefits every family and business in Maine.

2. Send a message to the LePage Administration

If you are unable to attend the hearing, you can submit your comments online to Governor LePage and the committee chairs for the Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform.

Protect Maine. Tell Governor LePage and the committee chairs, Senator Jonathan Courtney and Representative Jonathan McCain, that these proposed “reforms” will threaten the future of the Maine we know and love.

Want to learn more? Check out what CLF Maine director Sean Mahoney had to say on the subject in this Solve Climate News article.

There are many things about Governor LePage regulatory “reform” proposals that could impact the quality of my family’s life here in Maine, from developing the North Woods to loosening restrictions on dirty air emissions.  But a couple of proposals in particular really frustrated me as a parent.  LePage’s proposal to repeal the BPA ban and the toxic flame retardant ban. The BPA ban phased out the toxic chemical in consumer products such as baby bottles and sippy cups.  The bill had strong support and there wasn’t a single Maine based business that testified against the bill.  But it received plenty of opposition from deep pocketed chemical industries, such as Dow Chemical.

While Washington based groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Chemistry Council have supported a repeal of the ban, local grocers, including the Maine Grocers Association have not taken an active role and have not taken a stance on the ban.

I am the mother of two young boys, ages 17 months and 2 and a half.

My boys on the shore of Moosehead Lake

I spend a considerable amount of time combing through labels on baby products to make sure that the materials aren’t toxic.  It is time consuming to ground truth the harmful effects of chemicals.  What are the hormone disrupting effects of Bispehnol-A (BPA)?  Will that stain resistant/flame resistant perfluorinated synthetic chemical (PFC) on that couch give my boys bladder cancer?  So my attitude is to err on the side of being safe by buying products with as few chemicals as possible.  You would be surprised at how challenging  it is to achieve even that tepid goal.  But last year, Maine lawmakers took considerable strides towards making my decision making easier and safer by enacting bans on known toxic chemicals in kids products, through the Kids Safe Products Law.

Why are we trying so hard to appease out-of-state chemical companies?  Dan Demeritt, LePage’s communication director, dryly pointed out that BPA-free products are available on the market, parents don’t have to choose to buy products that contain the chemical.  This is the “people before politics” response?  As a parent that is constantly pressed for time (aren’t we all?) who frequently does shopping with 2 kids piled into a shopping cart where 5 minutes too long can spell “melt-down”, I don’t have time to read through all the product disclaimers.  Why should any parent have to take that extra step to protect their children when a simple solution is already in place?

I was pleased to see that Republican Senator Dana Dow took a stand on this issue.  He works in the furniture industry and relayed a story of a simple blood test revealed soaring high toxicity levels for PFCs.  Take a look at the link, Senator Dow testifies at around 8 minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlc5urnzB50

This issue impacts all of us.  Will Maine choose to protect our children over out of state chemical companies?  Next time you are barreling down a grocery aisle trying to read the label, remember to call your representative and help them figure this one out.

Any doubts that Maine’s new Governor Paul LePage is intent on rolling back decades of environmental protections were put to rest this week with the release of Phase 1 of the governor’s regulatory “reform” (rollback) proposals. The proposals are sweeping in nature, including:

• Requiring at least  3 million acres in the North Woods be zoned for development without any of the current protections against sprawl;
• Weakening the legal standard for reviewing decisions by agency professionals;
• Repealing the requirement that used hypodermic needles be shredded before disposal.

CLF has decried the proposals, as have the Natural Resources Council of Maine, Environment Maine and the Maine League of Conservation Voters, who called them “reckless and appalling.” The Bangor Daily News summed it up well in the title of its January 25 editorial, “Moving Maine Backward.”

The proposals focus extensively on the Department of Environmental Protection and the laws and regulations it is responsible for implementing. For instance, the governor proposes to abolish sound recycling policies, reverse a ban on the toxic, cancer-causing chemical BPA, remove a minimum penalty amount for violators of environmental laws, allow construction in sensitive sand dunes, and weaken water quality measures.

As the Environmental Roundtable should have made clear to the governor last week, a healthy environment protected by science-based rules and regulation is treasured by the people of Maine and essential to the state’s economic future.  But apparently this governor has not yet figured out that he governs for all the people of Maine (and not just the 38% of the voting population who supported him) and that he certainly has not been given a mandate to dismantle four decades  of sound environmental regulations.  The proposals are clearly the wish list of a few select special interest groups that have dominated  this new administration.

The proposals will be the foundation for the series of public meetings being held by the Legislature’s Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform, the first of which was held earlier this week in Presque Isle, and will be the basis for the first bill of the session, LD1, “An Act to Ensure Regulatory Fairness and Reform.”

People who care about Maine’s environment, who understand that a strong and healthy environment is necessary for a strong and healthy economy, need to stand up and make their voices heard by the governor.  Phone calls, letters, emails to the governor’s office and to legislative leaders are critical, as is a strong turnout at the remainder of the regulatory reform hearings.  Before this train leaves the station, we need to do all we can to try and keep it from going off the rails.

The Maine Alliance for Sustainable Transportation (MAST), the statewide coalition of which CLF is a steering committee member, has submitted a proposal to increase commuter transit options, reduce household expenditures on gasoline and diesel, increase employment opportunities and productivity and reduce government expenditures by expanding the routes of the highly-successful ZOOM Turnpike Express bus services along the Maine Turnpike corridor. The program would also establish a fund for the improved maintenance of Maine’s roadways.

“Financially, this bill just makes a lot of sense for a fiscally-strapped state like Maine,” said CLF Maine Staff Attorney Jane West. “Instead of spending $56 million on a tollbooth or $150 million to widen a couple of miles of highway, this bill will serve thousands of commuters, reduce traffic congestion and provide a much-needed alternative to paying three dollars and more per gallon at the pump, for a fraction of the cost of any other solution.” More >

Let’s say you are a state agency tasked with making a tough choice on how to spend your money.  Your options are:

a.      Spend $150 million on widening 9 miles of highway despite the fact that volume has waned;

b.      Spend $56 million on building another toll booth;

c.       Spend $3.8 million on expanding an existing, highly successful bus service that will benefit thousands of commuters.

Did I mention that you have to do this all while complying with a state law that requires you to give preference to existing systems and other transportation modes (such as bus transit) prior to increasing highway capacity through road building activities?   The obvious answer here is (c), expanding bus service, specifically the ZOOM bus service that is operated by the Maine Turnpike Authority.

Currently, the ZOOM bus runs a limited service between Portland, Biddeford and Saco.  The primary hubs are Park & Ride lots, if you’ve driven by those lots, you will see they are chock full.  Those crammed lots are a glowing testament to the resounding success of the ZOOM.

In an effort to build on that success, last year the Maine Alliance for Sustainable Transportation approached the Authority to see if it would consider expanding the bus service up to Lewiston and Augusta.  Along the way, West Falmouth, Gray, Sabbatus and Auburn would finally get much needed access to public transit.  But the Authority remained convinced that answers (a) and (b) were right.   After all, highway widening remains a popular solution to just about any transportation problem, despite the fact that, time after time, massive multi-million dollar widening projects only result in more traffic and more congestion. [the fact is, these roads never pay for themselves via tolls or otherwise.]

Does Portland really need another highway widening?

No, and the numbers prove it:

But transit advocates, CLF among them, were not dissuaded.   We found a savvy supporter in Representative Bradley Moulton, a newly elected Republican, who decided to sponsor the ZOOM bus bill, known formally as “An Act to Expand Fiscally Responsible Transportation Through Increased ZOOM Bus Service.”

And fiscally responsible it is.  Not only for the average commuter struggling with rising gas prices, but in the broader context of how Maine decides to spend money on transportation.  The days of subsidized highway widening projects are over.  With the fiscal belt tightening, now is a good time to make some smart decisions on transit.  The ZOOM bus goes a long way towards accomplishing that goal.

The following op-ed was written by CLF Maine Director Sean Mahoney and published on Saturday, December 18 in the Portsmouth Herald.

On Monday, Dec. 20, a committee of the New England Fishery Management Council will meet in Portsmouth to continue the effort to develop a new management plan for Atlantic herring.

Atlantic herring are not only valuable as bait for lobstermen, but are a key forage fish for bigger fish and marine mammals such as striped bass, cod, tuna, dolphins and whales. The work of the council’s Herring Committee is critically important not just for the sustainability of Atlantic herring but for the continued viability of these other fisheries and tourism-related industries such as whale watching.

The Atlantic herring fishery is currently dominated by midwater trawling vessels. These vessels are large (up to 150 feet) and often fish in pairs, where their small-mesh nets the size of a football field, can be stretched between two boats. These small-mesh nets are efficient killing machines. The problem is they are also indiscriminate killing machines — any fish or marine mammal that is ensnared by the small-mesh nets is unlikely to survive, even if they are thrown back into the water after the nets are hauled on deck. These dead fish — referred to as bycatch or discards — include not just the fish that prey on Atlantic herring, such as stripers or haddock, but also the Atlantic herring’s cousins — alewives and blueback herring.

Alewives and blueback herring (collectively referred to as river herring) are anadramous fish — they are born in freshwater, spend most of their lives in the ocean, and then return to freshwater to spawn. The rivers of New England were teeming with river herring up to the 1980s. But in the last 20 years, their numbers have dropped precipitously. For example, until 1986 the number of river herring returning to spawn in the Taylor River averaged between 100,000 to 400,000 a year. But by 2000, that number had declined to 10,000 to 40,000 a year, and in 2006, only 147 river herring returned to the Taylor River. This is a tragedy for New Hampshire’s wildlife conservation.

The causes of the dramatic decline in the numbers of river herring include the fishing practices of the midwater trawl vessels. While at sea, river herring can often be found in the same waters as Atlantic herring and fall victim to the indiscriminate fishing practices of the midwater trawlers. In 2007, bycatch documentation showed that three times the amount of river herring was taken in one tow of one of these industrial vessels as returned that year to the Lamprey River, which boasts New Hampshire’s largest remaining population of river herring.

The meeting of the council’s Herring Committee will focus on management steps to curb this wasteful practice. Central to the success of any management effort must be a robust monitoring program, catch caps on river herring to serve as a strong incentive to avoid areas where river herring are known to aggregate and strong accountability measures to be applied when those catch caps are exceeded.

If river herring are to avoid the fate of Atlantic salmon — another anadramous species all but extirpated from New England’s rivers where they once teemed — a critical step is putting an end to the indiscriminate fishing practices of the midwater trawl boats pursuing Atlantic herring. All other efforts to improve the access to and water quality of the waters river herring spawn in are of little value if they are killed before they get there.

> Read more about CLF’s regional ocean conservation work