Fwd: Op Ed in the Republican Journal (Belfast salmon factory)

The following piece applies to our neighbors down the coast rather than to Hancock County proper, but if the process continues despite the facts and failures clearly laid out here, any place in Maine can fairly be considered at risk from regulatory malfeasance.
——– Forwarded Message ——– Subject: Op Ed in the Republican Journal Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:09:49 -0500 From: AMY GRANT <learn@upstreamwatch.org>
This week we submitted this op ed to the Republican Journal:
Yes, “Science, Facts and Credibility _Matter_”
Nordic Aquafarms’ recent ad included a headline that stated “Science, Facts and Credibility matter”. Why is the word “matter” lower case? Is it because the ad was filled with blatant misinformation and disparaging remarks? Nordic Aquafarms claimed that the Maine Department of Marine Resources and Department of Environmental Protection have “endorsed” them. The State of Maine does not endorse projects, nor do their departments. This is a false statement when the truth matters more than ever.
Upstream Watch has relied on expert scientific testimony including a highly-regarded Professor of Oceanography at the University of Maine who conducted four years of study in Penobscot Bay.  His data suggests that Nordic’s wastewater discharge could result in a continuous plume of effluent that would slowly flow past Bayside, circle around Islesboro, and move back into Belfast Bay.
Nordic’s own testimony states: “The information presented here is based entirely upon numerical modeling … any predictions presented here should be considered only as estimates of the proposed dilution and plume behavior…it is recommended that a field data collection program be designed and implemented … to validate the accuracy of model results.”
Where’s the site-specific data? Are we supposed to wait until 7.7 million gallons of daily effluent are circling the bay before there’s a clear understanding of where and how it would flow?
Nordic failed to meet the Clean Water Act and Maine’s DEP requirements for nitrogen levels in their sworn testimony. They changed these numbers after the record was closed, with no outside review. The new numbers are at the limit of what is permissible, and leave no room for system failures, warmer water temperatures, or human error. The DEP expects all of this to happen, as they wrote in the draft permit: Where a discharge will result in lowering the existing water quality the Department has made the finding that this action is necessary to achieve important economic or social benefits to the state.
No one on either side asked for water quality to be lowered! Why is the DEP overriding its own laws?
A number of people chose to believe Eric Heim when he said, “our water will be cleaner when it goes out then when it comes in.” Upstream waited to actually review the science and technology proposed. One of our witnesses, a past Chief of Regulatory Analysis for the U.S. EPA noted existing “red flag” concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in samples collected near the discharge site. Nordic’s limited sampling suggests problems and is inadequate to determine annual median nutrient levels.
There are alternatives to this massive factory – alternatives that would support our local fishing communities, provide tax relief, purchase reasonable quantities of water, and help with climate change. We have the choice of gambling on unproven industrialization or working to improve the health of the Bay and restore this ecosystem.  We ask you to take a hard look at Nordic’s proposal, and to do what is right for the Bay, for our communities, and especially for the generations to come.
Other experts Upstream has consulted with include a Past Director of Licensing and Enforcement at Maine DEP, a professor who is an expert in mercury contamination and who served on the Penobscot Mercury Study, and the president of a locally-based environmental engineering firm with 30 years of experience. If disparaging these professionals is Nordic’s best strategy, is that because they don’t have the answers? (A list of our experts and their qualifications is available at: upstreamwatch.org <upstreamwatch.org>).
At present the Belfast Planning Board has 80 unanswered questions for Nordic. Why isn’t Nordic spending time and money answering those questions instead of trying to discredit those who have provided credible data? Last week the BEP expressed disbelief at the complete lack of due diligence shown by Nordic, especially concerning wildlife impacts. They stated again that Nordic has not given them data on the Goose River. Upstream has been calling for those studies from the beginning. Please join us in asking for answers.

_______________________________________________ HCCN mailing list HCCN@mainetalk.org mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/hccn_mainetalk.org

This entry was posted in HCCN. Bookmark the permalink.