Landfill expansion plan raises alarms for Leominster State Forest
By
Paula J. Owen
Correspondent
Correspondent
Posted Aug 6, 2018 at 6:45 PM
Updated at 6:05 AM
LEOMINSTER – Legislation this year that did not make its way to the
governor’s desk signaled to environmentalists a troubling prospect that
could have resulted in the largest landfill expansion in New England.
And equally troubling to conservationists was that the proposed expansion was on land in a state forest.
The proposal was from Waste Management to expand the Fitchburg-Westminster landfill into the Leominster State Forest. Leominster State Forest was acquired by the state for conservation in the 1920s.
If it were approved, the bill would have allowed Waste Management to buy 85 acres of protected land in the state forest to expand the Fitchburg/Westminster landfill, with Leominster shouldering all of the negative impacts of the project without any positives, environmental groups say, while Westminster and Fitchburg would see most of the benefits.
The Westminster-Fitchburg landfill is projected to reach capacity in 2024 and expansion of the site would add another 10 years of solid waste capacity for the state.
But land in the state forest is protected by Article 97 of the state constitution, according to a spokesperson for the state Department of Conservation and Recreation, and removal of any land from that protection requires a two-thirds vote of the Massachusetts Legislature. The measure was also subject to review through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and the Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs’ “no net loss” policy that requires all replacement land and other potential mitigation be considered prior to any legislative decision.
According to state Rep. Kimberly N. Ferguson of the 1st Worcester District, in a letter to legislators, the land exchange was to be for 174 acres of forest adjacent to or within Leominster State Forest. The state park would grow by 89 acres, she said.
But the DCR’s Stewardship Council, the Nature Conservancy, the Trustees of Reservations, the Conservation Law Foundation and numerous other groups were against the measure. They sent letters of opposition to the Legislature.
In a July 26 letter to the House Committee on Ways and Means signed by heads of multiple environmental and conservation groups, the bill was called “dangerous” and was said to jeopardize area residents’ health.
The letter said, “According to monitoring by the landfill operators,
releases of chemicals that are probable carcinogens have been detected
in the groundwater around the landfill already,” the letter says. “This,
coupled with toxic emissions into the air, will have a negative impact
on the health and environment of Westminster, Fitchburg, and
Leominster.”
It continued: “Not only would this diminish the Commonwealth’s Article 97 protected land by a whopping 85 acres and jeopardize the health of area residents, but it would be the largest footprint expansion of a landfill currently proposed in New England.”
Kirstie Pecci, senior fellow at the Conservation Law Foundation in Boston, said the organization feels the proposal happened “quickly and quietly” to allow it to move forward without proper vetting.
“It is my understanding the bill was introduced a couple of months ago after a recent DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) meeting with Waste Management during a panel talking about landfill capacity in Massachusetts,” Ms. Pecci said. “There was no mention of the proposal. Pushing a large-scale project so quickly and quietly has all the hallmarks of a backroom deal.”
Waste Management sought approval for Westminster to buy the land first and then the waste collection and environmental services company would purchase it from the town, she said.
“This is nuts,” Ms. Pecci said. “It is so difficult to conserve land. There is a gorgeous trail on this property abutting the Leominster town line. While most of the benefits will go to Westminster and Fitchburg, Leominster will take on all the impact without any positives, and it will hurt the forest.”
Another issue is that “not all open space is created equal,” she said.
“We don’t have enough information if replacement land is comparable,”
she explained. “We’re not sure if the replacement land is open space,
so there may be a net loss. No assessment was completed to compare the
before-and-after, and DCR’s information is incomplete. That’s a
problem.”
Usually land taken out of Article 97 is measured in square feet, she said, not acres.
Moreover, expanding the landfill is detrimental to implementing the DEP’s zero waste policy under its Solid Waste Master Plan, she said, which focuses on reducing, reusing, recycling, composting and redesigning all materials to conserve and recover resources.
“If you have the capacity to bury and burn landfill waste, you will use it,” she said. “If these 85 acres are added, this will be the largest proposed landfill expansion in New England or that I have ever heard of. It is a huge expansion and it is difficult to stop once the train starts rolling.”
Ms. Ferguson noted that DCR would receive about $2 million annually for the 10 years of additional facility operations. DCR was allotted $4,687,378 in the fiscal 2018 budget and is expected to receive a similar amount in fiscal 2019.
“So this additional $2 million per year would provide DCR with a nearly 50 percent increase to its annual budget. DCR could use this revenue for a multitude of conservation initiatives and would surely enhance conservation land throughout the state. This additional revenue will be used to allow DCR to benefit communities throughout the Commonwealth,” she said in her letter to lawmakers.
Garrett Trierweiler, senior manager of public affairs for Waste Management of New England & Upstate New York, based in Foxboro, argues that expanding the landfill will give the state a “10-year bridge” for potential development of new, reliable solid waste disposal technologies that do not exist today. He said public hearings on the bill were held before the Legislature’s Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight, where Fitchburg Mayor Stephen DiNatale spoke in favor of it.
Additionally, Westminster voters overwhelming approved the bill at
town meeting, he explained, and the Fitchburg City Council unanimously
approved a resolution in support of the project.
Mr. Trierweiler noted, “When the bill was filed with the Legislature, it was filed as a Home Rule petition at the request of the town of Westminster (it did not remain a home rule). As I think I noted earlier, the town supported the legislation at town meeting and the city of Fitchburg passed a resolution in support as well. During the drafting of the bill, we did work with both the town of Westminster and city of Fitchburg. ”
As the state relies more heavily on exporting material to other states, Massachusetts is more vulnerable to fees or surcharges that other states may impose on imported waste, Mr. Trierweiler said.
Massachusetts is losing its ability to manage the waste material generated by residents and businesses every day, he said.
The Chicopee and Southbridge landfills, with a combined capacity of 770,000 tons per year, are closing and will no longer accept waste beyond 2018, he said, and the Taunton and Carver landfills with a combined capacity of 221,000 tons per year are closing and will no longer accept waste beyond 2019.
As of 2020, the Westminster-Fitchburg, Crapo Hill and Middleboro landfills will be the only three sites left in the state with capacity to accept municipal solid waste, he said.
“Those landfills will be insufficient to meet demand no matter how much solid waste is recycled,” he said. “Continued access to local, in-state disposal options provides important economic and environmental benefits.”
A lack of in-state options leads to increased reliance on the
exportation of waste to other states, a practice that is growing and
will continue to grow in the state, he added.
“Exportation policy is risky as other states grow weary of receiving Massachusetts waste,” he said.
“Economically - unless the life of the Westminster-Fitchburg landfill is prolonged, the Commonwealth will be at the mercy of the solid waste management policy of other states.”
The Waste Management official said, “Environmentally, the Commonwealth should take responsibility for solid waste generated within Massachusetts.”
State Rep. Jonathan Zlotnik, Second Worcester District, said, “It is the delegation’s intention to work through the questions that were raised about this transfer. However because this is essentially a home rule petition, it will ultimately be the decision of Westminster-Fitchburg on how to proceed.”
And equally troubling to conservationists was that the proposed expansion was on land in a state forest.
The proposal was from Waste Management to expand the Fitchburg-Westminster landfill into the Leominster State Forest. Leominster State Forest was acquired by the state for conservation in the 1920s.
If it were approved, the bill would have allowed Waste Management to buy 85 acres of protected land in the state forest to expand the Fitchburg/Westminster landfill, with Leominster shouldering all of the negative impacts of the project without any positives, environmental groups say, while Westminster and Fitchburg would see most of the benefits.
The Westminster-Fitchburg landfill is projected to reach capacity in 2024 and expansion of the site would add another 10 years of solid waste capacity for the state.
But land in the state forest is protected by Article 97 of the state constitution, according to a spokesperson for the state Department of Conservation and Recreation, and removal of any land from that protection requires a two-thirds vote of the Massachusetts Legislature. The measure was also subject to review through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and the Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs’ “no net loss” policy that requires all replacement land and other potential mitigation be considered prior to any legislative decision.
According to state Rep. Kimberly N. Ferguson of the 1st Worcester District, in a letter to legislators, the land exchange was to be for 174 acres of forest adjacent to or within Leominster State Forest. The state park would grow by 89 acres, she said.
But the DCR’s Stewardship Council, the Nature Conservancy, the Trustees of Reservations, the Conservation Law Foundation and numerous other groups were against the measure. They sent letters of opposition to the Legislature.
In a July 26 letter to the House Committee on Ways and Means signed by heads of multiple environmental and conservation groups, the bill was called “dangerous” and was said to jeopardize area residents’ health.
It continued: “Not only would this diminish the Commonwealth’s Article 97 protected land by a whopping 85 acres and jeopardize the health of area residents, but it would be the largest footprint expansion of a landfill currently proposed in New England.”
Kirstie Pecci, senior fellow at the Conservation Law Foundation in Boston, said the organization feels the proposal happened “quickly and quietly” to allow it to move forward without proper vetting.
“It is my understanding the bill was introduced a couple of months ago after a recent DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) meeting with Waste Management during a panel talking about landfill capacity in Massachusetts,” Ms. Pecci said. “There was no mention of the proposal. Pushing a large-scale project so quickly and quietly has all the hallmarks of a backroom deal.”
Waste Management sought approval for Westminster to buy the land first and then the waste collection and environmental services company would purchase it from the town, she said.
“This is nuts,” Ms. Pecci said. “It is so difficult to conserve land. There is a gorgeous trail on this property abutting the Leominster town line. While most of the benefits will go to Westminster and Fitchburg, Leominster will take on all the impact without any positives, and it will hurt the forest.”
Another issue is that “not all open space is created equal,” she said.
Usually land taken out of Article 97 is measured in square feet, she said, not acres.
Moreover, expanding the landfill is detrimental to implementing the DEP’s zero waste policy under its Solid Waste Master Plan, she said, which focuses on reducing, reusing, recycling, composting and redesigning all materials to conserve and recover resources.
“If you have the capacity to bury and burn landfill waste, you will use it,” she said. “If these 85 acres are added, this will be the largest proposed landfill expansion in New England or that I have ever heard of. It is a huge expansion and it is difficult to stop once the train starts rolling.”
Ms. Ferguson noted that DCR would receive about $2 million annually for the 10 years of additional facility operations. DCR was allotted $4,687,378 in the fiscal 2018 budget and is expected to receive a similar amount in fiscal 2019.
“So this additional $2 million per year would provide DCR with a nearly 50 percent increase to its annual budget. DCR could use this revenue for a multitude of conservation initiatives and would surely enhance conservation land throughout the state. This additional revenue will be used to allow DCR to benefit communities throughout the Commonwealth,” she said in her letter to lawmakers.
Garrett Trierweiler, senior manager of public affairs for Waste Management of New England & Upstate New York, based in Foxboro, argues that expanding the landfill will give the state a “10-year bridge” for potential development of new, reliable solid waste disposal technologies that do not exist today. He said public hearings on the bill were held before the Legislature’s Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight, where Fitchburg Mayor Stephen DiNatale spoke in favor of it.
Mr. Trierweiler noted, “When the bill was filed with the Legislature, it was filed as a Home Rule petition at the request of the town of Westminster (it did not remain a home rule). As I think I noted earlier, the town supported the legislation at town meeting and the city of Fitchburg passed a resolution in support as well. During the drafting of the bill, we did work with both the town of Westminster and city of Fitchburg. ”
As the state relies more heavily on exporting material to other states, Massachusetts is more vulnerable to fees or surcharges that other states may impose on imported waste, Mr. Trierweiler said.
Massachusetts is losing its ability to manage the waste material generated by residents and businesses every day, he said.
The Chicopee and Southbridge landfills, with a combined capacity of 770,000 tons per year, are closing and will no longer accept waste beyond 2018, he said, and the Taunton and Carver landfills with a combined capacity of 221,000 tons per year are closing and will no longer accept waste beyond 2019.
As of 2020, the Westminster-Fitchburg, Crapo Hill and Middleboro landfills will be the only three sites left in the state with capacity to accept municipal solid waste, he said.
“Those landfills will be insufficient to meet demand no matter how much solid waste is recycled,” he said. “Continued access to local, in-state disposal options provides important economic and environmental benefits.”
“Exportation policy is risky as other states grow weary of receiving Massachusetts waste,” he said.
“Economically - unless the life of the Westminster-Fitchburg landfill is prolonged, the Commonwealth will be at the mercy of the solid waste management policy of other states.”
The Waste Management official said, “Environmentally, the Commonwealth should take responsibility for solid waste generated within Massachusetts.”
State Rep. Jonathan Zlotnik, Second Worcester District, said, “It is the delegation’s intention to work through the questions that were raised about this transfer. However because this is essentially a home rule petition, it will ultimately be the decision of Westminster-Fitchburg on how to proceed.”
No comments:
Post a Comment