Originally published in Saco Bay News, May 30, 2024
By RANDY SEAVER
Although the University of New England earlier this month formally submitted its plan to build a new pier on the Saco River, that plan still remains mired in controversy.
Both the university (UNE) and Biddeford’s harbormaster seem to have their heels dug in regarding how the pier should be built.
Before the pier can be built, the plan must first be approved by the city of Biddeford’s harbormaster. The plan will then also require review and approval by several other agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Saco River Corridor Commission.
As of press time, it remains unclear how the city will be able to review the proposal because City Manager James Bennett removed both the city’s harbormaster and assistant harbormaster from the review process in May.
Bennett said he removed the harbormasters because he felt they were biased and would not be able to objectively review the application.
In May, Bennett said he would appoint a harbormaster “Pro-Tem,” specifically for reviewing the university’s plan. Last week, Bennett told Saco Bay News he has not yet been able to find a temporary harbormaster to review UNE’s proposal.
“It is taking a bit longer than I anticipated, but we are going to continue our search in order to ensure that the university’s proposal is handled fairly and objectively,” Bennett said. “There are not a lot of people with that kind of experience. So, we need to go back to the drawing board.”
According to documents obtained by Saco Bay News, Bennett reached out to and was then rebuffed by the Maine Harbormasters’ Association when he asked that agency for guidance and suggestions about someone who could review the university’s proposal.
In a June 4 email response to Bennett’s inquiry, Daryen Granata of the Maine Harbormasters’ Association, said Bennett’s desire to appoint a temporary harbormaster was “unprecedented” and would likely be a violation of state law.
“Our board is unaware of any precedent for such a position,” Granata wrote. “Review of the relevant state law contains no provision regarding such a position. To do so would be inconsistent with the explicit state law.”
“The Maine Harbormasters Association discourages you from pursuing a ‘protem’ harbormaster as it is inconsistent with the prevailing law. Instead, we recommend that you work within the review hierarchy laid out in your harbor ordinance.”
Bennett said both he and city attorney Harry Center disagree with the legal opinion given by the association.
Bennett would not say whether he contacted Saco’s harbormaster to help review the application.
Dan Chadbourne, Saco’s harbormaster, said he was told that he should not comment on the controversy surrounding UNE’s proposed pier.
“All I can say is that channel is a joint jurisdiction between the cities of Biddeford and Saco,” Chadbourne said. “At some point, the city of Saco will be involved.”
Why the controversy?
UNE wants to build a pier jutting away from the shore in a perpendicular design and into the channel with a T-shaped configuration. The new pier will be used to dock the university’s marine research vessel in close proximity to their Marine Sciences building on the Biddeford campus.
Biddeford Harbormaster Paul Lariviere said the university’s plan would have a significant impact on existing moorings, navigation and public access. Last year, he shared an alternative proposal with UNE officials.
Lariviere’s alternate design runs parallel to the shore, without jutting into the channel. The university has dismissed the alternate plan, raising concerns about water depth during low tide.
But Lariviere says water depth at low tide is actually deeper closer to the shore in that specific location.
Lariviere says he has nothing personal against the University of New England, and is not attempting to block their attempts to build a new pier for their research vessel.
“They [UNE] have been talking publicly about their plan to construct a new pier for a few years now,” Lariviere said. “My concern has always been about following existing laws, regulations and city ordinances. I took the time to do some research in order to offer them a plan that would better meet their needs and have fewer impacts on public access, navigation, existing moorings and water depth.”
While university representatives maintain that their design is the only one that will give them adequate water depth for docking their research vessel, Lariviere and others say that’s simply not true, pointing to recent data they collected.
“The way the river runs, they (UNE) would be much better off with the alternative I provided them,” Lariviere said. “At mean low tide, there is actually better depth closer to the shoreline than further out in the channel.
“Frankly I don’t understand their adamant objection to the alternative plan we developed,” Lariviere said. “It would probably cost them less money to build, meet all of their stated needs and offer better depth for their vessel. The alternative plan I showed them would have no impacts on existing moorings and would remove concerns about public access and navigation.”
Lariviere said that over the past several months, many people have asked him his thoughts about the university’s plans for a new pier.
“I have just been answering questions people asked me,” Lariviere said. “Of course, I told people that their plan – as presented – would never fly. It’s simply because their plan does not meet existing standards and regulations. It’s not bias. It’s common sense.”
What UNE Says
According to Sarah Delage, a spokesperson for the university, the university’s proposal was rigorously reviewed and designed by engineering and environmental consultants.
Delage said the location of the proposed pier was chosen after expert marine engineers looked at nine potential locations and considered potential impacts to mooring, navigation and environmental concerns.
In their application, the university altered the harbormaster’s proposal. Their design adopts a starting point at a shore location almost identical to what the harbormaster suggested. But the university presented a T-shaped perpendicular design that juts out from that starting point on shore well more than 150 feet into the river, at odds with the harbormaster’s recommendation.
Delage said the alteration was designed to point out the necessary depth that would be required for docking their research vessel.
Although Delage said “there is no physical map or design to represent” the harbormaster’s alternative, the university’s application does include a reconfigured drawing of the harbormaster’s alternative.
Delage says the university was first made aware of the harbormaster’s alternative during an informal meeting at City Hall in October 2023.
That meeting was attended by City Manager James Bennett, Harbormaster Paul Lariviere, UNE President James Hebert and John Schafer, chair of the Biddeford Harbor Commission.
“This was a verbal conversation,” Delage said. “The harbormaster never provided us with a physical alternative design.”
Based on the verbal feedback, Delage says the university then created a diagram of a pier in the location suggested by the Harbormaster to show what a pier would look like if it were designed to reach sufficiently deep water.
“With the assistance of the marine engineers, UNE understood that a pier hugging the shoreline would not reach deep enough water,” Delage said.
Lariviere disputes the claim regarding low tide depth, pointing out that he and several others conducted rigorous depth surveys in that location.
Furthermore, If the university were to adopt the harbormaster’s alternative, Delage said such a pier would have “to be about twice the size” of the alternate design that Schafer shared with the media.
Delage said the alternative plan would be more disruptive to the harbor and unable to accommodate both the university’s research vessel and the city’s fireboat.
“The bathymetric survey information relied on by the engineers to establish water depths comes from work done by Statewide Surveys in 2015,” Delage said.
Delage added that the shoreline elevations are further “corroborated by low-tide aerial imagery available from Maine Office of GIS and an additional imagery service used by GEI (Nearmap), which depict an intertidal zone along the shore, and the low-water location in close agreement with the location identified by on-the-ground land survey.”
Delage said the university’s research was summarily rejected by the harbormaster during another informal meeting at City Hall in January. She said that UNE’s design team and other staff, the city manager, City Councilor William Emhiser and Lariviere and Schafer all attended that meeting.
The cart before the horse?
Even before the regulatory review process has started, the university sought and received commitments of federal funding to help pay for the construction costs.
The university and city manager say that both Lariviere and Schaeffer should not have been making public comments about the proposed pier before the plan was even formally submitted.
Delage said there was a joint meeting of the Harbor Commission and the Shellfish Conservation Commission in February that was not publicly noticed.
“There was no agenda published, and no minutes are obtainable from the city’s website,” Delage said.
In addition to the lack of public notice, Delage says the university did not receive any notice of this meeting, despite the fact that their pier proposal would be discussed.
“Again, UNE has never received a drawing of any kind from the harbormaster specifying his preferred design and location,” Delage said.
Delage says that Schafer, chair of the city’s Harbor Commission, sent email messages to multiple people, including city councilors, indicating that he agreed with the harbor master.
Those actions are the basis of why Lariviere was removed from the review process, according to City Manager James Bennett and City Attorney Harry Center.
The Harbor Commission is the body to whom an applicant must appeal any adverse decision by the harbormaster, Center explained. “You simply cannot present yourself as able to review an application if you have already publicly stated an opinion about that application,” Center added.
“It is my professional opinion that the city would be unable to defend itself in a court hearing if the applicant decides to appeal a decision that was pre-determined before the application was submitted,” Center said.
Schafer said all meetings of the Harbor Commission are open to the public. He also said he rigorously prepares meeting agendas before each meeting and also provides minutes of every meeting to a long list of people at City Hall, including City Clerk Robin Patterson, the designated staff liaison for the Harbor Commission.
Schafer provided Saco Bay News with copies of emails he distributed before and after the joint Feb. 21 meeting with the Shellfish Commission.
“I specifically sent the detailed minutes of that meeting to a whole bunch of people,” Schafer said. “I am a strong supporter of open and transparent government. When I heard that UNE might be considering litigation against the city, I made it my mission to relay what our commission heard from the harbormaster at the Feb. 21 meeting.”
Schafer said every monthly meeting of the Biddeford Harbor Commission includes a standing agenda item entitled “Harbormaster Summary.”
“I had no idea what Paul [Lariviere] was going to say ahead of time,” Schafer said. “But I sure as heck made sure that everyone knew what he said during that meeting. We have never had a meeting without an agenda or detailed minutes.”
According to the meeting minutes that Schafer shared with Mayor Marty Grohman, all members of the city council, Police Chief JoAnn Fisk and the city clerk, Lariviere said he would not be able to approve UNE’s proposal simply because it did not conform to existing regulations.
“Yes, people have asked me questions and my opinion about the university’s plan,” Lariviere said. “There has been a lot of talk about this pier dating back to 2008. People have questions. I have been consistent with my response.”
During a prior interview with Saco Bay News, Alan Thibault, vice president of operations at UNE, said the university’s pier design was included in a master plan that was approved by the Biddeford Planning Board several years ago.
Delage says the university is only asking to have its proposal reviewed fairly and objectively, like any other applicant that goes to the city for an approval.
“No member of the community should have to be concerned that their applications would be rejected in advance,” Delage said.
If the harbor commission has already stated a position, any appeals by the university could be considered futile acts, Delage said.
“In my opinion, a lot of errors have been made,” Schafer said. “But I think it is absolutely critical to remind everyone that no one – – no one – has said that UNE cannot or should not have a new pier. This entire conversation is about where that new pier should be located. That’s it.”
# # #
LESSONS IN MEDIOCRITY 