STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PINE TREE WASTE, INC.)
WESTBROOK, CUMBERLAND CO. ) TESTIMONY OF PETER TISCHBEIN
Project No. 1052) CERTIFIED WETLAND SCIENTIST
) REPRESENTING THE TOWN OF
) SCARBOROUGH IN OPPOSITION
My name is Peter Tischbein. I reside at 36 Colpitt Road, Alna in Lincoln County Maine.
I am employed as a Wetland Scientist with E/PRO Engineering and Environmental Consulting, LLC., 41 Anthony Ave., Augusta, Maine. I am a Certified Wetland Scientist
(Cert. No. 000637) through the national professional society: Society of Wetland Scientists and am a certified wetland scientist (Cert. No. 027) in the State of New Hampshire. A summary of my professional qualifications is provided as an exhibit to this testimony.
My professional work is primarily located in Maine serving private and public clients including state departments, municipalities, private landowners, and developers. Periodically, the Town of Scarborough has retained my services to assist in land use issues, which involve federal, state, and locally regulated natural resources. My work for the Town is mostly wetland related. Assistance to the town includes conducting fieldwork to identify the presence of regulated natural resources such as wetlands, streams, sensitive wildlife habitat, and threatened and endangered species. Complimenting the fieldwork, I prepare federal and state environmental permit submittals including project need statements, alternative analyses, and compensation plans. Specific projects have included permitting town-owned school, industrial, and recreational projects. As well, the Town has retained me to peer review local Shoreland Zone, property acquisition, and development project issues as they develop.
I am providing this testimony on the behalf of the Town of Scarborough, in regards to Pine Tree Waste, Inc.’s. proposal to construct a regional waste transfer facility on the County Road (Route 25) in Westbrook, Maine. The facility boundary includes lands in the Town of Scarborough and the City of South Portland.
Given my familiarity with preparing permit applications, the Town of Scarborough has retained me to review the Pine Tree Waste, Inc. project documentation and regulatory submittals. The purpose of my review was to: 1) determine the accuracy of the wetland conditions on the site and the extent to which they have bearing on the permitting review process, and 2) determine the effect of the project on the overall wetland system as it extends offsite and into the Town of Scarborough.
To date, my technical review of the site has been limited by both an inability to gain access to the site, and general winter conditions obscuring site characteristics essential for technical evaluation. I have been able to review to adequacy of the permit applications.
Review of project permit application documentation provided to the MDEP and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has revealed a deficiency which involves “Project Purpose and Need.” Both federal and state wetland permits are issued on the premise that the “Project Need” warrants the project size and the resultant wetland impacts. As part of the MDEP Tier 2 Freshwater Wetland Application, the applicant must provide an Alternatives Analysis (Wetland Protection Rules-Chapter 310 Section 9(A). This Analysis needs to demonstrate “whether a less environmentally damaging practicable alternative to the proposed alteration, which meets the project purpose exists”. As part of the application, the applicant must consider “Reducing the size, configuration or density of the project as proposed, thereby avoiding or reducing the wetland impact”. As well, the applicant’s analysis must demonstrate “the need, whether public or private, for the proposed alteration”.
The applicant has provided narratives for the Project Need and the Alternative Analysis, but the information is merely conclusory. It does not provide the factual background that would allow one to agree or disagree with the applicant’s conclusion. The applicant states that the Project Need is based on the need to service the City of Westbrook and the need to consolidate office and maintenance facilities from elsewhere. The applicant fails, however, to address the relationship between the planned size of the facility (i.e. stated as having a design capacity of 1,000 tons/day in other project documentation) and the resultant need to alter the protected wetlands. After a full review of the facts, it is possible that one might conclude the project is needed but that it could be smaller thus minimizing the wetland impact.
Section 9(A)(1) of the Wetland Protection Rules requires that the Alternatives Analysis consider “utilizing, managing or expanding one or more sites that would avoid the wetland impacts”. The applicant’s Alternatives Analysis indicates that two other development sites were considered but were discarded because they were of insufficient size and came under contract to others. There was no discussion of whether or not there are other sites which may have contained sufficient size for the project and which would have offered less intrusion into wetlands or streams.
It is my professional conclusion that although the proposed project has undertaken a commendable effort to minimize and avoid impacting the onsite regulated natural resources of wetlands and streams, this effort and subsequent permit issuance by the MDEP was premised on a project plan which in accordance with the Wetland Protection Rules of the NRPA did not: a) demonstrate the true market demand (‘Need”) justifying the sizing of the facility, or b) demonstrate why the project could not utilize other single or multiple sites to meet the project needs thereby avoiding wetland impacts.
From my review of the application and related documents, it also appears that the wetlands in question may be downgradient from a former landfill. While the extent of the contamination emanating from the landfill is unknown due to lack of testing, it is likely that any contamination would be directed to portions of the wetlands scheduled for alteration.
It is also my understanding and belief that the soil composition and water retention of these wetlands is uniquely suited to deter contamination spread.
If, as we suspect, the wetlands are serving to attenuate existing contamination, the alteration of these wetland areas could have damaging influences on downgradient property and wells. These benefits would not be afforded by upgradient wetland compensation.
I have spoken to Barry Timson, geologist who has reiterated similar concerns of contamination plum alteration by elimination of existing, beneficial wetlands.
It is my opinion as a wetlands scientist that the prudent course of action is to conduct a more thorough Analysis of Alternatives, existing contamination movement, the beneficial effects of wetlands in attenuating such contamination and more thoroughly examining wetland compensation.
______
Peter Tischbein
STATE OF MAINEJanuary 23, 2000
Cumberland, ss.
Personally appeared the above-named Peter Tischbein, and made oath that the foregoing testimony is true to his own personal knowledge or upon information and belief, and as to those matters based upon information and belief, he believes such information to be true.
Before me,
______
Notary Public/Attorney-at-law
Printed Name:
Commission Expires:
1