Sears Island port proposal fundamentally misguided
By Jody Spear
A passing reference to wetlands mitigation banking was omitted from the Bangor Daily News’ coverage of the Legislature’s Transportation Committee meeting on Sears Island, “Sears Island compromise tabled” (BDN, Oct. 16). It is unfortunate that the reporter, Walter Griffin, failed to note Transportation Commissioner David Cole’s comment because mitigation banking is integral to the Sears Island joint-use plan: it would facilitate destruction of wetlands not only on and around the island but anywhere in the state where transportation projects result in damage to sensitive ecological areas.
Some relevant history: In August, the Maine Department of Transportation was given a green light from the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a federal Umbrella Mitigation Bank for Transportation in accordance with the new federal wetlands Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Sec. 332) — one of many environmental rollbacks from the Bush-Cheney administration. Any day now, according to the Army Corps, Maine DOT will file a proposal for the first deposit in the bank, which paves the way for construction of a container port on Sears Island, a project that would come under the UMBT now under review.
The mitigation rule is full of references to “streamlining” (read circumventing) the Clean Water Act, giving discretion to the District Engineer and Interagency Review Team to decide mitigation options, and outlining a blueprint for creating easements to be held by natural-resource agencies and land trusts — all of which enables the Maine DOT to secure permits it could not get in 1996 to establish a cargo port on Sears Island.
At that time the DOT port proposal was rejected by the Environmental Protection Agency because of the devastating destruction it would cause to marine ecosystems. Now, acting under the new mitigation rule, transportation officials intend (as stated in internal documents) that “600 acres of Sears Island [the part not needed for a port facility] become the foundation for a federal mitigation bank via execution of a conservation easement.” The enablers lined up to make this joint-use maneuver possible include Maine Coast Heritage Trust, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Mountains Land Trust, Islesboro Island Trust, Friends of Sears Island and Maine Sierra Club. Their participation will make the project exempt from a critical public-oversight protection under the Clean Water Act known as a 4F review.
Investigations by the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (www.peer.org) show clearly that the mitigation-banking shell game undermines land-protection efforts. Their monitoring of Army Corps mitigation projects reveals an abysmal record of compliance with federal laws to assure that there be no net loss of the shrinking base of wetlands remaining in the U.S.
Apart from environmental concerns, there are economic reasons against what is arguably a port to nowhere, as a deepening recession slows consumer spending. With the collapse of markets worldwide, state planners are called on as never before to develop an economic engine to address the crisis of global warming — new passenger-rail and sustainable-energy grids the first priority.
In the Oct. 16 article, Walter Griffin quotes several Transportation Committee members who suspect that the conservation partners on the Joint Use Planning Committee are negotiating in bad faith. And indeed, while agreeing on the record that a port is an “appropriate” use for Sears Island, compatible with their proposed education complex, they maintain that “the conservation agreement creates no conditions that enable development of a port.” A case can be made, however (and doubtless will be by armies of taxpayer-funded lawyers), that their escape clause — language in a consensus agreement that for “substantial” reasons they are free to object to a port — is subject to override by provisions of the UMBT. The conservation partners are dealing with a wily adversary.
I speak for myself and many other Sierra Club members who believe that the collusion of the club and their allies in this deal with Maine DOT to industrialize Sears Island is fundamentally misguided. The federal regulation that makes it possible should be targeted for repeal by conservation groups when the next Congress convenes in 2009. In Maine it’s up to us to contact members of the Transportation Committee (in office through 2008) and keep DOT’s blueprint for environmental destruction from disappearing under the radar. They meet on Nov. 18 to reconsider the joint-use plan, which was finished at an “emergency” JUPC session on Oct. 27. At that time we learned that a meeting planned for Oct. 29 to hear public input, an opportunity for media reporting, had been canceled. Opinions thus suppressed can be registered on line at: www.mpjen.org/petitions.
Demand that oversight of Sears Island be shifted from the Transportation Department to Natural Resources.
On 11/5/08 at 6:50 AM,
Mainecommenter wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
There are always "dead-enders" who refuse to agree to any compromise. Case in point.
On 11/5/08 at 9:14 AM,
PeterTaber wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Mainecommenter shoots from the lip and has no idea what he or she is talking about. Case in point. This is no compromise. Rather, it is nothing less than a SWINDLE on the part of state-sponsored port proponents. It is also an example of lazy, spineless and above all self-serving personal behavior by a carefullly vetted group of Maine's so-called environmental defenders.
The fact is ambitious state bureaucrats in league, this time, with the ever-clueless Baldacci administration have for the past two years been CORRUPTLY determining the future of Sears Island as the site for a container port through a highly manipulated "consensus" process in which only those willing to play along were allowed to play. The general public, a preponderance of which at the onset of the process made it passionately clear they favored total preservation of this largest remaining of all wild public islands on the East Coast, they were ignored. Fishermen down Penobscot Bay including the largest and longest self-sustaining lobster fishery in the world whose livelihoods could be seriously affected by industrial port development, they have never even been consulted. Neither has the myriad of small business operators who actually represent the backbone of Maine's economy, an economy with tourism at its center that is critically dependent upon having easily accessible wild and scenic places like Sears Island. Instead, we have state government working very hard to position a port that offers few conceivable benefits to anyone but the speculators who snapped up the fire sale assets of the bankrupt Bangor and Aroostook Railroad. In short, this is big corporate welfare at its lowest.
As a onetime newspaper reporter who for 16 years covered this story, I can testify to all manner of back-handedness with respect to planning for Sears Island. That includes several secret meetings in late 2006 at Department of Conservation headquarters in Augusta at which the environmental quislings colluded with these representatives of dying heavy industry to deliver up a consensus document in which everyone including the Maine Sierra Club's Joan Saxe, self-proclaimed Earth Firster Jimmie Freeman and a host of land trust employees led by CMLT's Scott Dickerson agreed leveling and paving over some 40 percent of this beautiful forested island for an unneeded port would be "appropriate."
Dissident Maine Sierra Club member Jody Spear is dead on in her assessment of the role a federal mitigation bank would play in these plans for certain island destruction. The Saxes and the Freemans and the Dickersons can rationalize all they want about how a port will never come about anyway but the truth is their cooperation in this diabolic process has been essential to ultimate realization of a port. They can extoll their proposed EcoWorld environmental theme park with its array of buildings, roads and parking lots on the 601 island acres the people of Maine would under this plan convey to privately operated Maine Coast Heritage Trust. The fact is this parcel of land constitutes the foundation deposit in the mitigation bank and provides much of the needed offset credits that didn't exist a dozen years ago when Gov. Angus King so angrily and reluctantly found himself forced to shelve port plans. Way to go, Joan. Way to go, Jimmie. Way to go, Scott. What a pathetic bunch you all turned out to be.
On 11/5/08 at 9:44 AM,
kellybabe wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
I can't beleive that Maine legislaters want to GIVE 2/3 of this prime real estate island to the ENGOs!!! It must be part of the socialist "share the wealth" scheme that the liberals and radicals are pushing. Take take take from the people of Maine. Give give give to the Green Elite. Senator Damon ad the rest of you legislaters: have you lost your minds??? WAKE UP you're being suckered! If you let the socialist ENGOs take most of the island, they will NEVER, EVER let a job-creating port get built on the rest of Sear Island. Or shoud we start calling it Obama Island?
On 11/5/08 at 1:20 PM,
pizanos wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
The JUPC process led to a reasonable compromise for Sears Island, with 2/3's of the island being preserved in perpetuity. The westerly shore forms a natural part of Searsport's harborfront. It is exactly the right time to take advantage of what few natural economic advantages Maine has available. A port to nowhere? Hardly. Searsport offers more direct shipment options than a number of other ports and it holds the key to long-term services in Maine. Given the economic challenges and continuing budget shortfalls for the state, Maine must explore what opportuinites it has available. Enironmentalism is a wonderful cause, so long as it recognizes that it takes economic prosperity to sustain it.
On 11/7/08 at 10:43 AM,
Chastings wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
I think the Maine Economy has been severely behind the rest of the east coast because of the lack of a good port and railroad connection. If you look at points further south in New York, New Jersey and even Virginia you see thriving ports carrying Containers off boats and onto trains to places in the West. Not only does it reduce emissions (Trains get up to 400 Miles per Gallon) but it takes trucks off our already congested highways. Opening up this land as an economic gateway would be a good decision. Portland never really developed its multi modal connections and actually Auburn picked up there slack creating the "Port of Auburn" every though they aren't even on the coast! This development would help the already ailing Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railroad who lost 12 percent of there revenue to mill closures last year. Maine needs jobs and this could do that. This plot of land already hosts a small port which brings in Petroleum products from over seas. If Maine could get a fully functional Rail to Sea Port it would be the eastern most port of its type in the United States. The next would be either Halifax and St. John (A foreign port) or New York (A highly congested port). Currently the Canadian National Railroad takes traffic from Halifax and St. John OVER Maine to Montreal and then to either Chicago or places further west. The MMA has been trying to push customers onto the Sears Island land but it is currently not big enough to support such a push. The Government right now is very pro Rail, with the Downeaster (A HUGE success) motivating them to expand rail statewide. Yes it would be sad to see a beautiful plot of land go to waste but this would not be waste. Don't shoot this down we NEED this.
My question to all of you is this, Would you rather maintain the beauty and struggling economy of Maine as it is now or would you be willing to sacrifice a little bit of this to bring in new jobs and opportunity to a struggling part of the country? Mainers have continually voted down Casinos and similar proposals to keep Maine as it is but if we can not keep jobs and lift the economy then why bother trying to maintain the state? It wont work. Oh and by the way, the State is losing money and the Governor is going to make $150Million dollar tax cuts in one week. Hows that for a wake up call.
http://bangordailynews.com/detail/92724.html
On 11/7/08 at 11:32 AM,
OldBangor wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Dear Chastings:::::
Not to burst your bubble, and I DO agree with most of what you say, BUT
Trains getting 400 MILES PER GALLON????? More like 400 gallons per
mile for a quadruple-header!
On 11/7/08 at 1:24 PM,
Chastings wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Well I should correct myself, the newest trains get 400 miles to the gallon per TON.
Trains dont run on fuel but rather on electricity. The fuel they carry makes the electricity which powers traction motors in the axles. But bottom line is Trains are more fuel efficient then trucks AND one train could carry as many as 200 trailers (Double stacks at 100 cars)
On 11/7/08 at 3:29 PM,
OldBangor wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Dear Chastings:::::::
Well, that's more LIKE it. However, those big locos DO run on fuel which powers huge diesel
engines which drive generators. I know this. I am not stupid. Plus, you are talking about the
"newest" locos, not ones which are in very wide service if at all. Plus, a "ton" isn't very much.
How many tons does a fully-loaded semi weigh? Look, I AGREE with you mostly, just don't
be handing-out blue sky figures. Exaggeration doesn't help your case. Direct, REAL comparison
does! Trains have their place. So do semis!
On 11/7/08 at 6:23 PM,
Chastings wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
I agree with what you are saying as well but my bottom line point is the rail infrastructure in Maine is 25 years behind the rest of the country! These rail lines are some of the primary veins that power the economy. Healthy railroads will attract healthy and large businesses!
On 11/7/08 at 6:48 PM,
OldBangor wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Mr. Chastings:::::::::::
Maine 25 years behind USA? How many years is USA behind, oh, say Europe? Freightrail
demand is shrinking as it is! Yes, our rail infrastructure is woeful at best, but who will PAY
to upgrade and expand it? Realistically, I mean......
Maine's Rail Future lies with her SEAPORTS! This is really a horse/cart kind of issue. If I
knew the answer, well, I'd get shot down by the self-styled environmentalists!
On 11/8/08 at 1:15 AM,
Chastings wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Yes! At last we have met agreement! It does lie in the seaports which brings us to Sears Island! What do you think should happen to it? I think you have very knowledge opinions and I would be interested in discussing thing further with you! =)
On 11/8/08 at 10:59 AM,
OldBangor wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Mr. Chastings::::::::::::::::::
Private initiative is what will have to be the driving force, here. Not to get away from Sears
Island, but take a look at the new Cianbro operation in Brewer. The steel for fabricating the
refinery modules (I believe) comes in by RAIL, and upon completion, the modules are barged
out down the river. Much needed business for the railroads! Fairly certain on the RAIL part,
but could be via semi. There IS a major siding there. It will take a Cianbro, or someone like
them, to invigorate the three major ports in Maine. Most of the obstacles are those put-up by
State Rule-Making mess and the endless, interminable legal efforts of a tiny minority of self-
styled environmentalists. YES, there have to be good, well-considered regulations, but the
regulations should not be TOXIC to commerce and the creation of JOBS!
Don't get me STARTED!
OldBangor
On 11/8/08 at 3:17 PM,
Chastings wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
haha thank you for the opinion. Its too bad because back when they built the Container port in Portland they wanted Rail access (The rails were already there too) but Guilford Rail (Now Pan Am) wasn't backing it and it never happened. Have you ever seen the Auburn Intermodal complex? If you ever get the chance I suggest you check it out, it is a very well run operation. They do custom checks on site and are very efficient. LL Bean receives a lot of shipments from Vancouver. Currently there is a lot of Intermodal traffic into Halifax and St. John. Also there is a lot of Automobiles coming and going from Europe. Maine's Geographic location is its only advantage to these ports being as its the furthest east in the United States. Maine SHOULD be the economic gateway to Europe and to points west.
On 11/8/08 at 4:22 PM,
OldBangor wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Dear Chastings:
There is a wide gap between "Should" and "IS"! The Auburn Intermodal Facility is great, and we need
another twenty or so of them. But who is going to DO this? Certainly not the State of Maine! By the
way, what I've said isn't opinion, it is fact. I also know all about what they're doing in the Maritimes.
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALL of what you and I envision can be done. It can be done in an environmentally responsible way.
BUT! (and this is a very BIG "but") It WILL NOT HAPPEN under the current state of affairs. Lack of
VISION is the thing that is killing us today, and I say that knowing full-well all of the hoops and hurdles
that face anyone trying to do something GOOD for Maine in this new century.
Where do you actually LIVE, Chastings? Really........
OldBangor
On 11/8/08 at 4:36 PM,
OldBangor wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
To the BDN Forumeers::::
HEY! Take a minute!
Chastings and I are having a conversation over here that actually
relates to Maine's Economic Future!
Think of THAT!!!!!!!!! WHEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OldBangor
On 11/9/08 at 11:57 AM,
Chastings wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Well I currently live in Orono because I am a second year student at UMaine (Communication Major, Business and Public Relations minors) however I am native of Oxford Hills. Of course my father is a firefighter in Portland of 35 years so I've also spent many a time in Portland. Our interests in Railroads over the years has lead me to take the path myself. What about you OldBangor?
haha they should put us in Augusta for all this talk of "economic future"
On 11/9/08 at 2:23 PM,
OldBangor wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Mr. Chastings........
Well, my Great Grandfather was CEO of the B&A in the early 20th century. His title wasn't
"President", that was for Mr. Cramm, Chairman of the Board. My GGF was Superintendant
and then Treasurer. He left them around World War One-ish to run a bank which he did
until his death in 1948. Business titles were different in those days.
Would have thought you were older than +/- 20!
OldBangor
On 11/9/08 at 5:49 PM,
Chastings wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
I appreciate your comment and that is interesting to hear of your family Railroad heritage! I have grown up watching the industry in Maine and have decided to make it a career path of mine. If you are interested I run a Yahoo group called Maine Rail Infrastructure. It is basically a library of all the current rail infrastructure occurrences in the state of Maine. I also like to browse newpapers, blogs and the MDOT website for new information (I browse BDN regularly for news) regarding the industry. Perhaps someday I'll have some sort of influence on these matters but for now I want to learn as much as I can!
For now I'll just leave these comments so hopefully people will understand that the "annoying" trains that we cross paths with every now and then is very important for our State and without them we wouldn't have a lot of the resources we have now. Also these trains take Trucks off the roads which are beating up the maine road infrastructure and congesting our highways.
On 11/15/08 at 8:52 AM,
Focus541 wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Hey Peter,
how do YOU propose we address the ACOE's 'abysmal record of compliance with federal laws to assure that there be no net loss of the shrinking base of wetlands remaining in the U.S.'? The mitigation banking system sounds pretty good to me...do you have a better idea?
Post a comment about this story
You must be logged in to post a comment.
click here to log in.
