17 April 2013: Petitioner’s Comments on Clary Lake Procedural Order #5: Bathymetric Survey

This afternoon I completed and emailed my comments on the bathymetric survey to the Service List. My response consists of 2 files, a 6 page letter and an appendix with 18 photographs. Because the appendix is large (2.3 megabytes) I’ve added it to Google Drive and have provided links below. At this point I doubt anyone else is going to submit comments on the survey but I remain prepared to be surprised. I’ve posted the documents at these links:

The photographs included in the appendix are also available for viewing and download (with descriptions somewhat truncated for online formatting) here:

Photos Accompanying Bathymetric Survey Comments

It pained me to take issue with the Department’s survey results.

Google Drive Links if the above give you trouble:

17 April 2013: Tentative date set for Town of Whitefield Public Meeting

town-meeting-custom The Whitefield Selectmen at their regularly scheduled meeting last night tentatively scheduled a public meeting for 22 May 2013 at 7 PM at the Whitefield Fire and Rescue building next to the town office on Town House Road. The meeting is to comply with statutory requirements of the recently filed Petition for release from dam ownership, filed by Pleasant Pond Mill on 02 April. The town of Jefferson will be scheduling a similar public meeting, for the same reason. According to the statute (MRSA 38 §§ 901-908) the towns must hold a public meeting to “consider and act” on the issue of owning the dam. Note, this does not necessarily mean the towns have to vote Yea or Nae on owning the dam at this upcoming meeting, the warrant could just call for the formation of a committee to study the issue or to conduct a feasibility study, etc. The statute gives Pleasant Pond Mill LLC (PPM) up to 180 days to consult with various parties on taking over ownership of the dam at which time PPM has to report on the results of their activities. At that time they can if they wish apply for another 180 day extension to continue their search…

Ellis Percy, president of the Clary Lake Association and I attended the meeting last night. The Whitefield Selectmen meet every Tuesday night at the Whitefield Fire and Rescue building from 6 to 8 PM. The Jefferson Selectmen meet every other Monday at the Jefferson Town Office from 6 to 8 PM. Their next meeting is this coming Monday night. These and other important dates are included on the Clary Lake Association’s Events and Activities Calendar.

15 April 2013: Site Upgrade: Changes to log in and user registration system

I’ve implemented a new user log in/registration system in the hopes of resolving or eliminating the issues with the previous log in/registration system. I’ve tried to test “everything” and “everything” seems to be working as advertised but as you know, or may not know, software always has bugs. So don’t be surprised to encounter glitches. If you have any trouble getting onto or using the system, email me.

The obvious changes are to the look and feel of the log in, log out, register, and profile pages. They now look like they’re part of the site. If you’re an existing user:

If you forget your user name, you can now log in with your email address.
If you forget your password, we’ll send you and email with a link so you can reset it.
When you login, you’ll be returned to the News page rather than being dumped into the Dashboard “admin” screen.
There’s now just a “Log In” or “Log Out” link on the side bar. Use the “admin” bar at the top of the page to get to the Dashboard or your profile page.
Stop by your Profile page and if you haven’t already, please add your name.
If you’re logged in but don’t have a black bar across top of the page with “Howdy <your name> on the right side and a Clary Lake Association menu on the left side, email me.

For new users registering for the first time:

We’ve implemented the hated “Captcha” security road block. This is to thwart the bots and automated spammers that attempt to automate the log in process. Only carbon-based life forms please.
There is now an email confirmation sent. You have to click on the link in that email to “activate” your account. Until you do, you won’t be able to log in. This is pretty much standard now days. I’m hoping it will discourage the people signing up with bogus email addresses. If not, there are some additional security hoops I can put up for new users to jump through.
You can now pick your own password rather than having a temporary one emailed to you. Make it a good one please.

Again, if anyone has any problems, email me.

14 April 2013: Webcam Update

The java-based webcam software that runs the camera and uploads the pictures to the web server is fantastic software, well written, rock solid for the most part, and best of all, totally free. However, it sucks up a healthy amount of computer memory and adds a punishing 35% load factor to my computer (this has more to do with my computer being 15 years old than anything else). When I’m not trying to work, it isn’t a problem but when I’m competing with the webcam for slices of processor time, it’s a drag. Therefore until I upgrade my computer system (which upgrade is long over due) I’ll be running the webcam only when I’m not sitting in front of my computer… which lately, sadly, has been most of the time.

You’ll know when the webcam is operating by the picture that shows up in the sidebar. If the picture is like the one above, the webcam is offline.

13 April 2013: Fergusson’s Letter to the Editor in response to the Duncan article

Things have been so busy around here that I never bothered to look at the letter to the editor I wrote in regard the article about Frederick Duncan and his water level wishes. I sent my letter in back on the 1st of April. It appeared in the 04 April 2013 edition of the Lincoln County News. From the For What It’s Worth department, here it is:

Fergusson’s Letter to the Editor

13 April 2013: Low Water having an impact on wetland vegetation

Imagine my surprise the other day when I went down to the lake to measure the water level and saw what looked like a foot floating in the water… well it turned out not to be a foot thank goodness. It is some kind of water lily rhizome, most likely that of the Yellow Pond Lily (Nuphar Lutea) though I’ve never seen

one that looks quite like this; then again, the other Yellow Pond Lily rhizomes I’ve seen were more mature, much larger and long, several feet or more in length. Perhaps this is what they look like when they’re young and just getting a foot-hold (pun intended) in the marsh. I’ll bet that’s it. Here’s a picture of the underside of the root.

It’s about the size of a child’s foot.

There have been quite a few of the Yellow Pond Lily rhizomes getting washing up on the shore, more evidence of the impact the low water conditions are having on the sensitive wetland habitat around Clary Lake. The low water conditions exposes the roots to the elements and ice and rain erodes the soil holding them in place. Then they wash into the stream and float away. I’ve posted pictures here before of these rhizomes. Here’s a picture of some that floated down stream to collect at the dam. I’m half inclined to see if these can be collected and replanted. Seriously.

11 April 2013: LCN Article: Clary Lake Dam owner seeks ability to sell

A Lincoln County News article on the Pleasant Pond Mill LLC Petition for release from dam ownership has appeared in this weeks paper. It does not appear to be online yet so I’ve scanned and posted it here:

Clary Lake Dam owner seeks ability to sell

It covers a lot of ground other than the petition for release from dam ownership including the recent release of the Division of Environmental Assessment’s minimum flows recommendation and the FOA request that as it turns out was filed by the mystery people behind Aquafortis Associates LLC.

Filing this under categories News, Petition News, and That Other Petition, a new category for… that other petition.

10 April 2013: Site News- New Comment System

I was checking my web stats dashboard the other day and realized that a good deal of traffic on this site comes from people seeing posts on facebook and clicking on them to read more. In technical website parlance, facebook is therefore our biggest referrer. The only other referrer with any traffic to speak of is not surprisingly, Google search.

So I’m trying out a new comment system that allows people to use their facebook, twitter, or WordPress accounts to login to comment. If it turns out to be popular (or at the very least, not a problem) then we’ll keep it. If however it results in nuisance comments and other irrelevant garbage being posted and ends up wasting my time, it’s outa here. This option has been available to me for a while but I never really considered setting it up until I saw the referrer report. I am just now taking a look at it.

There are a few caveats: It seems to work with most browsers (I’ve tried it with 3 different ones) but you need to have your browser set to accept 3rd party cookies. C’est la vis. I don’t like it but that’s how it works.

Another downside (from my point of view) is that as long as you leave an email address and a name, you can leave a comment. This increases the opportunities for comments (which is good) but increases the likelihood that I’ll be dealing with bogus users posting bogus comments. New user comments won’t appear until approved so I’m not really worried inappropriate content appearing on the site, but as I mentioned above, if I find myself wasting time dealing with garbage comments, we’ll go back to the original system.

<– So here’s what the new comment screen looks like. If you’re already logged into this site, nothing changes, comment as normal. If you’re not logged in, you can click on the WordPress, Twitter, or Facebook buttons to log in using those account credentials. If you’re logged in through Facebook say and you want to post from a different account (some of us have more than one…) there are Logout and Change links. From a security and privacy point of view, I’ve looked into this system and it appears satisfactorily secure and private. I also figure if you have a facebook or twitter account you’re probably not paranoid over privacy and security anyways 🙂 This is the same type of authentication mechanism used by news papers and other sites that encourage comments.

If anyone has any questions or encounters any problems with the new comment system, send me an email.

11 April 2013: A little more about inter-local agreements and a few samples

Back in 2007 when I became president of the Clary Lake Association and first got involved in trying to resolve the Clary Lake dam issue, Dana Murch of the DEP sent me 3 inter-local agreements from towns around Maine to look at. I dug them out of the file they were in yesterday, scanned them, and have posted them to Google Drive:

They vary in complexity from the Belgrade Lakes 4 page inter-local agreement between the towns of Belgrade and Rome to the Gardiner New Mills Dam 14 page inter-local agreement between the City of Gardiner and the towns of Litchfield and Richmond. None of them happen to involve a non-municipal 3rd party such as a lake association but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen.

I remember reading about the flap surrounding Sabattus Pond back in 1999-2000, it caused quite a bit of controversy. Here’s an article from the Lewiston Sun Journal from October 13, 1999:

State: Agree on Sabattus Pond Costs or dam will be opened

I suspect that if the towns of Whitefield and Jefferson decide to look into this kind of arrangement that they could get assistance from the State in preparing an inter-local agreement and of course, the Clary Lake Association would be happy to participate.

10 April 2013: Pleasant Pond Mill LLC petition for release from dam ownership UPDATE

I went to the Whitefield Selectman’s meeting last night to listen to what they had to say about the Clary Lake dam issue. They discussed among other things the need for the town to hold a public meeting to “consider and act” on the issue of dam ownership within 60 days of being notified of the filing of the petition (April 1st). Per the statute, both the town of Whitefield and the town of Jefferson have to hold these public meetings. Tentative dates were discussed as was the fact that 60 days (now 50) isn’t a lot of time.

At issue is whether or not the town (or towns, with an interlocal agreement) should own the dam, with or without a maintenance and operations agreement with the Clary Lake Association. The Selectmen agreed that they’d be contacting their counterparts in Jefferson to discuss this.

The DEP will also further define what constitutes the “costs of transfer” which at a minimum need to be borne by or at least shared by the new dam owner. The actual wording of the statute is:

38 §906. PROPERTY TRANSFER PROVISIONS

1. Compensation. A dam owner is not prohibited from requesting compensation for the transfer of a dam pursuant to this article. The department may not issue a water release order pursuant to section 905 to a dam owner who has refused to transfer the dam to a person willing to assume ownership of the dam because that person refused to compensate the dam owner for the property. The department may not refuse to issue the order if the dam owner requested only payment or a share in payment of the costs of transfer.

“Costs of transfer” to me means the fees to have a title search done, a deed prepared, and the cost of recording it. That’s the beauty of this statute: Anybody can afford to buy a dam 🙂

It was also mentioned that the DEP has determined that the PPM petition is NOT complete as filed. Apparently DEP has questions about who owns what and wants supporting documentation of dam ownership and title. No doubt this has something to do with questions the DEP has over the ability of Pleasant Pond Mill LLC has to meet the provisions of the Statute regarding what property and property rights are to be transferred to a new owner. This should be interesting.

09 April 2013: Thoughts on the new Minimum Flows Recommendation

The new Minimum Flows Recommendation (see Clary Lake Assessment 3-Apr-13) gives me pause for thought.

First, I’m not quite sure how they came up with this- it appears to be based in large part upon section 6 of Chapter 587, the Standard Allowable Alteration method of determining required water levels in Class GPA (Great Pond Act) waters which however discriminates between a 1′ draw down from April 1st through July 31st and another 1′ draw down (for a total of 2′) between August 1st and March 31st as opposed to a total maximum draw down of 2′.

Second, the document quotes some numbers from the bathymetric survey (the figures 17% of the total lake volume and 14% of the total lake surface area come directly from the data table) but does not arrive at a draw down corresponding to the 25% volume reduction or the 25% area reduction. I’m not complaining, but why? Are they perhaps aware of problems with the modeling of the wetland area?

Third, and I’ve already mentioned this in response to David Hodsdon’s comment on another post, they suggest that the figures they’ve come up with are ONLY intended to protect the main basin of the lake:

Recommended within basin water levels are protective for the maintenance of suitable Water quality, resident fish and Wildlife habitat, and prevention of shoreline erosion. However, it is quite apparent that significant dewatering of valuable Wetland habitat will result in the vicinity of the outlet stream, above the dam.

What’s up with that? One can’t lower the water level in the basin without also lowering the water level in the marsh. How can a 2′ draw down be protective of water quality, resident fish and Wildlife habitat, etc., and yet contribute to “significant dewatering of valuable wetland habitat”?

This sentence is a new addition to the minimum flows recommendation they prepared a year ago.

Fourth and finally, they list minimum outflows which must be met unless inflows are less. How are we supposed to measure inflows? I assume if you’re letting water out and the lake is not falling, then inflows equal outflows. If you’re letting water out and the lake is falling, then outflows are greater than inflows. Finally, if you’re letting water out and the lake is rising, you’re not letting out enough water. This hit-or-miss approach seems amateurish and error prone. Surely there is a better way!

There is: We install a top weir in the dam with stop logs at some level such as 12″ below the top of the dam and walk away and let mother nature take care of it. I wonder what they’ll think of such a plan.

It is also interesting to note that the minimum flow figures are identical to those published a year ago.

Filed under Petition News and Technical Lake Stuff with a hint of Editorial.

09 April 2013: DEP Procedural Order #5 Bathymetric Data – ADDENDUM

Just received this email from Beth Callahan:

Per the directive of the Presiding Officer, the attached documents are being sent to you for your review and comment. Parties may submit written questions or comments on the documents no later than May 9, 2013. Questions and comments must be copied to all parties on the Service List. If additional time is needed to review the documentation, please send your request for additional review time along with a reasonable alternative submittal date to me no later than May 6, 2013, and copy all parties on the Service List. Subsequently, the attached documents and all comments received will be added to the administrative record of the Clary Lake Water Level Petition, #L-22585-36-B-N.

The first document contains comments from the Maine Emergency Management Agency regarding the Clary Lake Dam’s current hazard classification. The second document is a revised minimum flow recommendation submitted by the Department’s Division of Environmental Assessment. This recommendation is based upon the regulations outlined in the Department’s Chapter 587 for Instream Flow and Lake and Pond Water Levels and also the data gathered from the Department’s September 2012 bathymetric survey of Clary Lake.

The Attached documents:

I’ll comment as soon as I’ve had a chance to review the material.

08 April 2013: Yet Another KJ Article: “Clary Lake dam’s owner wants out, forcing towns’ hands in dispute”

Paul Koenig of the Kennebec Journal has written another article about the Clary Lake dam:

Clary Lake dam’s owner wants out, forcing towns’ hands in dispute

Paul Koenig called me last week to talk about the latest petition. “He wants to get rid of it, and we want it,” Fergusson said. “What can go wrong?”

Hehehe… great quote 🙂

I’ve posted a copy on the web site:

08-April-2013-Kennebec_Journal_article

08 April 2013: Photo Gallery Bugs, Uploads

The software that creates and manages the photo galleries has included a bug that usually, but not always, incorrectly handles photo meta information- picture date, camera model, exposure, etc. As a result, the image date is often set to 01 January 1970 regardless of when the actual picture was taken. This makes it a little hard to sort galleries by date, the preferred method. I’ve implemented a fix of sorts that now gives newly added pictures the correct date but it didn’t fix the dates of the existing images. I could just upload all the pictures again but that’s a lot like work. I think I’ll just wait for a real bug fix from the developers that also retroactively fixes existing image dates. Should be soon. In the mean time, you’ll have to put up with oddly-organized photo galleries.

The floating bog, picture by Steve Viti.

Steve Viti incidentally uploaded a lovely picture taken over by the floating bog.

The “Recent Pictures” box over on the side bar should show you the most recently added pictures.

07 April 2013: Preparing Petitioner’s Response to DEP’s Bathymetric Survey

I’ve finished my assessment of the bathymetric survey and have begun preparing my comments. I wish I could tell you that that survey is fantastic and I love it. I cannot. I feel that it is deeply flawed. As a (retired) Maine Professional Land Surveyor I am perhaps uniquely qualified to evaluate the survey, having made (and checked) numerous contour maps over the years both directly from data collection to finish drafting and indirectly by establishing horizontal and vertical control for large mapping projects involving aerial photography. I know what to look for and I know what I’m talking about.

I’ll leave it there for now. I’d like the Department to read about my allegations directly before I post anything publicly. Theoretically I have until the 17th of April to submit comments on the survey but I’d really like to get them in the mail tomorrow. I’ll upload it here as soon as I’ve sent it out.

On another note, David Hodsdon combined the Clary Lake depth points document with the bathymetric survey in one convenient and easy-to-view jpeg image which I’ve uploaded to Google Drive. Thanks David. I’ll post it to the Maps Charts & Graphs page later.

04 April 2013: Bathymetric Survey Data update

It turns out the Clary Lake Sensor Data spreadsheet that we received yesterday wasn’t corrupt, I just couldn’t open an Excel 2007 (.xlsx) file. David Hodsdon was kind enough to convert it to an older more generic Excel file (.xls) and send it to me, and I can open it fine. Before you click on the link, keep in mind that the spreadsheet consists of 3265 rows of data consisting of 21 columns each. Not what you call exciting reading. This is the actual data collected- depth, latitude, longitude, etc.

Clary Lake Sensor Data from bathymetric survey converted to Google Docs format

I’ve posted this document on Google Docs. I’m trying it out as a way of providing fast document access. Let me know what you think. All 3 documents are posted on the Maps Charts & Graphs page, under the Charts and Data main menu heading.

03 April 2013: FOA Request, Preliminary Survey Reaction, odds and ends and end of the day wrap up.

Well it’s been quite a day- a couple of days actually, a lot of activity all of a sudden. Of course, it’s not quite 3pm so it’s entirely likely that something else will land in my lap before dark. Anyways, there are a few things I want to pass on before I forget. First, I received an email from DEP this morning about a FOA request:

The Department of Environmental Protection has received a Freedom of Access Request regarding communications between Department staff and individuals associated with the Clary Lake Level Petition. The records responsive to this request will be available by the end of this week. If you are interested in reviewing the documents, you may make an appointment with the Department’s File Room by calling 207-287-7843.

One has to wonder why, if Pleasant Pond Mill LLC is committed to being relieved of dam ownership, why are they bothering with an FOA request? Perhaps they are just hedging their bets, looking for ways to shoot down our petition. This doesn’t mean they’re not seriously pursuing their own petition for release from dam ownership, does it?

Bathymetric Survey

I have not really had the time to go over the bathymetric survey in detail but my initial reaction is that it is somewhat flawed. More about this when I’ve had a chance to go over the survey and data in detail and have been able to discuss it with some other people.

Ice Out?

On a lighter note, the ice shelf hugging my shoreline this afternoon finally succumbed to wind and wave action, breaking up and floating away a little over an hour ago. And then just a bit ago a long thin slab of ice drifted in from some place and settled in against my shoreline. It has already broken up and floated away as I type. The only ice left is a bunch of slush that has washed up down at the far east end of the lake. From other reports I’ve gotten from others around the lake and what I’m seeing out side my window now, David Hodsdon will be hard pressed not to call ice out today, 03 April, 2013.

User Picture Submissions

Finally to wrap up this post, Trudi Hodgkins sent along a couple of recent pictures which I have posted in the User Uploads- Clary Images gallery. They should be showing up auto-magically in the “Recent Pictures” box in the side bar as the gallery default sort is by date, descending i.e., newest pictures at the front (or top?) of the gallery. And here, to the left and the right, are the thumbnails. So you don’t have to hunt around for them. Thanks Trudi!

I’m done.

03 April 2013: DEP Releases Bathymetric Survey Results

True to their word, DEP, in accordance with Procedural Order #5 of Department File #L-22585-36-B-N, Clary Lake Water Level Petition, have released the data and results from a bathymetric survey conducted by the Department in September 2012. I’ve barely had a chance to look at this myself. Of the files sent, the main document you’re going to want to download the depth/contour map:

Bathymetric Survey Contour Map

I’ve barely had a chance to look at it myself. They also sent along 2 other files including a spread sheet which appears to be corrupt (I’ve been unable to open it) and another aerial photo of the lake showing the point coverage of their data collection; it’s a very large (4+ megabytes) file so I won’t try to display it. I suggest you right click on the link and select “Save as”:

Clary-Lake-Depth-Points.pdf

I’ll post the spreadsheet for download when they send me a viable copy. They also sent along a revised Service List which you’re welcome to download if you wish. I wouldn’t bother, unless you’re on it 🙂

Pursuant to Procedural Order #5, parties may submit written questions or comments on the data no later than April 17, 2013. Questions or comments must be copied to all parties on the Service List.

03 April 2013: Update on the Petition for release from dam ownership

I spoke with Kathy Howatt this morning, she’s the DEP staff person in charge of the Pleasant Pond Mill LLC Petition for release from dam ownership. She said the petition was filed yesterday. This appears to conflict with state law which states that public notice of the intent to file a petition must be published in a paper (and provided to various people including lake shore owners) not more than 30 days before filing the petition. Such notice of intent has not be provided. So much for procedure.

Ms. Howatt said the Department has 15 days to determine if the petition is complete. She also said that the petition for release from dam ownership is completely separate and distinct from the water level petition and that at least for the time being both petitions would both be processed concurrently. However, she said the Department may at some point stay the water level petition proceedings for some specific period of time to provide the Department time to address the petition for release from dam ownership, and for the dam owner to find potential new owners of the dam. She did stress the fact that ultimately the outcome of the water level petition is independent of the outcome of the petition for release from dam ownership. For example, if Pleasant Pond Mill LLC were to find a new owner and transfer the dam to them, they would be off the hook but the new owner would be facing a pending water level order.

02 April 2013: Pleasant Pond Mill LLC Notifies DEP of their Intent to Petition for Release from Dam Ownership

On behalf of Pleasant Pond Mill LLC, Paul Kelley has filed a notice with the DEP stating his intent to file a Petition for Release from Dam Ownership or Water Level Maintenance. This is a statutory process described in MRSA 38 Chapter 5, Sub-Chapter 1, Article 6, §§ 901-908. Earlier this evening I attended the Whitefield Selectmen’s regular meeting and listened to them discuss the situation. Paul Kelley was there representing Pleasant Pond Mill LLC. Discussion mostly centered around the role the town would be playing in the petition process regarding public hearings, public notices, and notifying affected parties. Aaron Miller, town clerk had spoken with someone at the DEP about this petition and was led to believe that for the time being anyways, processing of the Clary Lake Water Level Petition would continue while this new petition is addressed. I will be making inquiries of my own later this week to confirm what to expect.

Here are copies of the certified letters that Pleasant Pond Mill has sent to the Selectmen, and the Town Clerk:

After the meeting Paul and I talked briefly and have agreed to maintain open lines of communication as we move forward in the hopes that a mutually agreeable solution to the problem can be found. I am cautiously optimistic.

About the Law

There are many privately owned dams in the State of Maine that belong to people who for various reasons don’t want to continue owning them. Usually the dams are in poor repair making them an expensive liability to own, and they may have water level orders on them (or pending water level orders) making the dams particularly unsavory to own and difficult if not impossible to sell, let alone give away. State law prevents dam owners from simply removing the dams, or abandoning them. Additional provisions in the law provide this petition process to help these unwilling dam owners find new owners for their unwanted property or, if no new owner can be found, allows them to be relieved of the burden of ownership. If a new owner for a dam cannot be found, the dam is removed.

Now clearly, the existence of this law with all it’s provisions suggests that dam owners are more often than not alienated from the various parties that might reasonably be expected to want to own the dam and that furthermore, guidance, rules, and rigid structure are often necessary to find the interested parties, get everyone together, and help them work out a mutually agreeable solution. Pleasant Pond Mill LLC clearly feels they are alienated and sees this petition process as the only way forward for them. They are certainly within their rights to take advantage of the provisions of the law to address the Clary lake dam problem.

Here’s a copy of the Petition application which lists the general information and procedures involved in the petition, the required information in the petition, and a copy of the notice of intent to file the petition:

Petition for Release from Dam Ownership or Water Level Maintenance