AUGUSTA — In a vote of 5 to 1, the Maine Board of Pesticides Control denied a proposed consent agreement concerning a stand of trees on private harborfront property in Rockport that had been injected with chemicals.

The BPC discussed the case at its regularly scheduled March 14 meeting in Augusta, probing staff about the details of the investigation that had been underway since 2021. That was when a son of Ruth Graham first noticed the trees behind a home next door on Mechanic Street were dying. Ruth Graham died last year, and her trust now owns the property.

"My brother noticed trees dying in an unusual location and unusual pattern several years ago," wrote Stephen Graham, in a letter to the BPC last week, prior to the  BPC meeting. "He asked our mother about it, and she was quite distressed. Apparently, she then followed up by contacting a few people to make an assessment."

The proposed agreement between Maine and Stephen Antonson, of Rockport, concerns alleged unauthorized applications of pesticides Imazapic and Triclopyr.

"While Antonson denies any involvement in the herbicide applications to the trees at 11 Mechanic Street in Rockport, the Board finds that the positioning of the affected trees in addition to prior correspondence from the Antonson’s to the Graham’s requesting tree removal indicate that Antonson would have been the only one to benefit from the application of herbicides to the affected area," the BPC wrote, in its case summary.

The consent agreement proposed a $3,000 fine, and had stipulations attached to it.

In addition to not accepting the consent agreement on March 14, BPC members directed that it return to staff to strike a line concerning admission of guilt.

The line in questions reads: "25) That while Antonson does not admit the alleged violations, and while he disputes the facts and conclusions alleged by the Board in Paragraphs 1 through 24 above, he agrees to enter into this Consent Agreement for the purpose of resolving the alleged violations."

At the March 14 meeting of the board, members cited "heartburn" about the case, and listened to testimony about the investigation from Alex Peacock, who is Director of the Board of Pesticides Control's Division of Animal and Plant Health.

Peacock and the initial investigator from the Maine Dept. of Forestry described the testing of the trees and soils. They said it was unlikely that runoff from the two chemicals had made their way to Rockport Harbor.

Board members asked if the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Town of Rockport had any jurisdiction powers to take also action in the case.

Shoreland zone ordinances are enforced by municipalities, if they exist, said Peacock.

"We had reached out to town during this investigation process, and there was no interest in involvement," he said. 

He added that state DEP involvement was unclear.

"We had approached the town," Peacock repeated, "and did not get much response."

He said infractions in the shoreland zone can often reflect the volume of what is cut.

This was a small pocket of trees and surrounded still by thriving cedars on the shoreline, said Peacock, "a very defined pocket of destruction."

"If we table this today and we ask staff and the Attorney General's office to come back to us in 30 days and give us any indication that there is is something different that can happen, we have no problem with that, correct?" said the Board Chair Philip Fanning. "But you are basically saying that there isn't anything that could happen, short of us demanding that the line be stricken from the consent agreement and see if it still gets signed. That is about the extent of what we can do."

Enforcement by the state is limited to statute, said Fanning.

"So it will be a $3,000 fine, regardless," he said. "So the only difference will be that lawyers will be doing this, not the staff."

The board discussed additional enforcement measures that could be taken, though not by statutes governing its agency.

Damaged property was cited, as well as the misuse of pesticides on someone else's property without permission, and application of nonregistered products.

The case of Camden's tree poisoning was referenced mutiple times, as well as the chemical properties of the various herbicides that have been applied illegally in both towns.

"Here it is," said Fanning. "For the purposes of the board and moving forward, there is only one thing we can do: We could tell the staff to take this back and strike the statement that omits guilt and ask for it to be signed again before we accept. That is all we can do. If we just table it and say go find another penalty, it is not going to be found. So if our heartburn is because that statement is in there then our only option today would be that we are going to vote to accept this, we are going to send this back and tell them to get this statement out of there, if they can. If they cannot, then we turn it over to the Attorney Generals' office, if that is what you decide to do."

A motion was subsequently made, crafted as a motion to not accept the consent agreement, with the resulting 5 to 1 vote.

Reach Editorial Director Lynda Clancy at lyndaclancy@penbaypilot.com; 207-706-6657