Sears Island Planning Initiative Steering Committee Meeting
Hutchinson Center, Belfast
September 13, 2006
SUMMARY OF FOURTH MEETING
I. Welcome, Introductions and Agenda Review
Facilitator Jonathan Reitman opened the meeting by welcoming the parties and asked the participants to introduce themselves. Remote video conferencing sites at Bangor and Ft. Kent were staffed by DOC but no citizens attended.
Department of Conservation Deputy Commissioner, Karin Tilberg, welcomed the group back from its summer break. She expressed appreciation for the fact that members had met and exchanged ideas during the summer and, for the most part appropriately used email as a way of sharing information, not for debate. She said the group is now coming together to find common ground and encouraged people to takes risks and stretch to be open to new ideas. Jonathan reiterated that as we move into the deliberation phase of the Steering Committee’s (SC) work, observing the groundrules was more important than ever.
II. Review of Meeting Summary, July 12, 2006 SC Meeting and July 26 Education Committee Meeting.
These documents were accepted with no revisions.
The group discussed how to use the input from the public Open Space session in June. Jonathan noted that all attendees of that session have been incorporated into the SC mailing list so they have seen all the SC’s work product. Others noted that the Open Space comments had informed Affinity Groups’ Vision Statement. There was broad agreement that a follow up public session should be held once the SC has a draft of its recommendations, to allow public feedback on that draft.
III. Presentations of enhanced Affinity Group visions/proposals with questions and discussions
Vision #1: “Preservation and Port” Scott Dickerson presented a Vision Statement entitled “Preservation and Port” (a copy will be attached to this summary). Scott emphasized that this was a work in progress and may be adapted as future information becomes available. Given the 35 years of strife around Sears Island, this group feels a “permanent vision” is very important, to develop a long-term solution. Scott noted that while the current draft makes no mention of a marine transportation facility on Sears Island, “if there is a substantial public interest to be served,” governmental assertion of eminent domain would allow for a taking of the island in the future. A change of use can be exercised at any time. Meanwhile, the highest value of Sears Island is to preserve it a quiet place of contemplation of nature. Scott said the Affinity Group feels that “dual use” of the island is incompatible. The noise generated by a cargo port would have a substantial impact, and heavy trucks or railcars and recreational travel don’t mix well.
Further, Scott said creation of a marginal pier on the northwest corner of the island (which would be needed for a container facility) is not appropriate given the many streams and wetlands in the area. He said the group has not yet seen the compelling need for a second port facility to supplement Mack Point, although he acknowledged that additional information to be provided to the SC might alter this view. He said “conservation land is an economic engine” and that his group supports and expansion of Mack Point, including use of new technologies. He concluded by reiterating that this was a preliminary vision, and that in order to avoid having this turn into a “popularity contest” only SC members signed the statement, even though many members of the larger community agreed with it. The organizations listed with the signatories are for purposes of identification only; no organization has taken a final position. Since no SC recommendations have been developed.
In further discussion, Scott said the group believes that the improvements suggested for the island were intended to protect the resource and that the structure options would provide stewardship and management functions.
Harlan McLaughlin asked whether the visitor center and parking lot proposed could be off the island, serving the island by a shuttle bus. The affinity group felt having these facilities on the island would provide more sense of “permanence,” and that having a bus in such a small area might create problems.
Anne Crimaudo noted that light pollution was also an issue of concern.
David Gelinas expressed a concern that the proposed conservation status of the island might restrict activities at Mack Point, where noise and light pollution might now be deemed inappropriate. Affinity group members said they did not foresee that as a problem.
Fred Michaud questioned whether the state could exercise eminent domain if a federal entity held a conservation easement or managed the island (one of the management options considered by the group). There was some discussion about the Legislature’s authority to create or alter laws covering Sears Island at any time.
Bob Grindrod asked how the initial construction costs and the ongoing operating costs of the proposed facilities would be funded. This would depend on the ownership status. Volunteers would be utilized as partners in maintaining the island. If a governmental entity owned the island, funds could be raised though a bonding process. If a private or non-profit entity managed a conservation easement, a capital campaign might be required. Funding options would have to be explored.
When some questions arose about modifications to the causeway, Jonathan Reitman noted that many people had expressed interest in this issue and that a separate subcommittee of SC members and state officials would meet to discuss that.
Phyllis Coehlo read a statement supporting the Preservation and Port vision (her statement will be attached). Lorin Hollander then gave a presentation on an overview of possibilities for the Island and the area (his statement will also be attached).
Vision #2: “The Maine Vision for Marine Transportation.” John Melrose presented this Vision (a copy will be attached). He began by noting that the Three-Port Strategy was a compromise between economic an environmental interests which should be honored. A relatively small 25 miles of shoreline at three designated sites has been made available for cargo handling.
John explained the many features, which make the Port of Searsport (including Sears Island) ideal for cargo handling and far superior to Portland or Eastport. These include the fact that Searsport serves a 9-county hinterland.
Given the stringent requirements of NEPA and other local, state and federal regulatory processes, the use of Sears Island as a cargo port would have to be analyzed as one of many options. John stressed that this vision was also a work in progress.
Steve Miller asked how a container port on Sears Island would serve the hinterland. John said one benefit would be to reduce truck traffic on Maine roads, where the amount of freight delivered to Maine businesses by truck has risen from 60 to 90% in the last decade. If Sears Island becomes a niche port, the beneficiaries will be Maine businesses and consumers.
In further discussion John said that the Maine Integrated Freight Plan has recommended reviewing the Three Port Strategy, as a way to make other ports eligible for public funding. The Plan also recommends restoring rail access for Eastport and enhancing truck access at Portland.
John said that the Maine Vision represents the views of only the signatories, and is not the position of the State of Maine.
A discussion ensued about the rail potential envisioned in this Vision. The causeway was built with rail in mind. To move goods to a national network requires connectivity with inland areas. Currently paper from Maine mills is shipped overseas from Port Elizabeth, N.J., and the paper companies would prefer to ship out of Searsport. Portland is too small and has other problems making it unsuitable.
John expressed his view that a “just the very presence” of conservation easement on Sears Island would create greater constraints and new hurdles in the regulatory process if a cargo port proposal is to be advanced in the future. He said the affinity group does see the potential for “co-location” of conservation and port activities.
Lorraine Brown asked whether the whole point of the Maine Vision was to keep open the option for a port in the future. John responded that any proposal (even one on Mack Point), which required permitting, would also require an alternatives analysis (including Sears Island) so options can never really be closed. He expressed his view that the permitting process would take at least 5 years. There are no known proposals at this time, but this stakeholder process may be inhibiting any such proposals from coming forward.
In response to a question, John said that his use of the figure of $26 million in public investments in Sears Island came from a Freedom of Information Act request to the State. He said taxpayers have already paid for the initial infrastructure (road, causeway, etc.) and that private developers could now “finish the job.” He also said that the use of shipping to move goods is far superior environmentally to the continued use of trucks. In response to a question from Jan Flint, John said he believes the impact of a cargo port would be more truck traffic in the immediate area, but less in Maine overall. This raises the question of whether the SC should be focusing on local or statewide goals.
Jay Economy asked whether a cargo port on Sears Island would require additional dredging. David Gelinas responded that specific impacts of a port would have to be provided by a port planner and port economists. John Melrose added, however, that a main benefit of a cargo port on Sears Island would be to reduce overall transportation costs to the Maine economy. He believes the economic future of Maine is held back by not developing marine and rail networks.
Scott Dickerson asked what Sears Island provides that could not be provided by increased use of Mack Point. Mack Point may not have permit approval for certain uses, and there are also pricing competitiveness issues, since there is little competition with Sprague. Becky questioned whether public funds should be used to “manipulate competitiveness.”
When asked “what has changed?” since NMFS/NOAA concluded Sears Island was unsuitable for a cargo port, John said the regulatory hurdles to development are as high now as they have ever been.
Vision # 3: “Fair Play for Sears Island Position Statement” Harlan McLaughlin presented his affinity group’s vision (see attachment). His basic view is that any buildings or parking lots should not be built on the island, and that the entire island should be sued as a buffer for Mack Point. “Nothing should be built there which doesn’t need to be there,” he said. He said SC members should review and utilize landscape architect Terry DeWan’s drawings, which provide for parking on the causeway. The primary difference between this vision and Vision #1 is that here there would be NO development of facilities on the island, and that this is a “major philosophical difference.”
Harlan stated that voters all over the state of Maine support this vision, and therefore its constituency is far larger than others’. Under this vision, DOT would retain ownership and oversee the island in concert with other state agencies. He said this vision is superior to others’ because it does not “bind the future.” If people want any changes from the current status of no development they should go to the Legislature.
He proposed an amendment to L.D. 277 that would include its current use as a buffer zone in the term “current use,” which could only be changed by returning to the Legislature.
When asked how this vision accommodates the town’s expressed interest in jobs, economic development and tax revenues, Harlan said there would be indirect benefits, not direct jobs. “The island is the draw,” he said.
James Gillway raised questions about how public safety services would be provided and funded under this Vision. Harlan said we should look to other examples such as the Allagash Wilderness Waterway. James noted that the locked gate makes law enforcement and safety services difficult to provide. He also noted that the costs of providing safety services will increase as the number of visitors increases, and pointed to Moose Pt. State Park as an example.
IV. Presentations on Long Term Shipping and Transportation Trends:
Captain David Gelinas presented his report (previously provided to SC members). He said that while break bulk, Roll-On Roll-Off and containers could all work on Sears Island, the focus of his report was on containers. Mack Point has adequate capacity for expanded bulk break cargo.
As for the shipping potential for Sears Island, David believes that it could be reasonably be expected to become a 2nd or 3rd tier “niche” container port, which could accommodating ships of up to 900' in length in the future.
David stated clearly that he is neither a port designer nor economist, but it seemed likely that the marginal pier design required for a container port would require additional dredging. He also discussed traffic management schemes for Penobscot Bay (including defined shipping lanes), which were developed in collaboration with the fishing community. Questions from audience included how a container port provides the competition called for in "The Maine Vision for Marine Transportation"
and whether shipping causes damage to the North Haven electrical cable by shipping prop wash.
All members of the SC expressed their deep appreciation to David for the extensive research he had undertaken to compile his report.
Bob Grindrod also made a presentation entitled “Why Marine Transportation?” (See attachment). He illustrated his belief that Mack Point does not work as a container facility, unless there was “massive dredging” of Long Cover to create a marginal pier. Even then, he questions if there is enough land adjacent to such a potential marginal pier to create an intermodal (rail) facility. He said that if conservation stakeholders would support that dredging in Long Cove and assist in the regulatory process to permit such a facility, he would promptly adjust his current view that such a facility can only be built on Sears Island. In the meantime, the SC should “retain the island in its present status [undeveloped, DOT ownership], allowing for future limited development as a port facility if and when needed.” He concluded that we should allow the status quo to remain in place until developments require more definitive action to be taken. Then, deal with the realities of the situation at that time, he said.
V. Presentation on Nature-Based Tourism:
Phil Savignano of the Department of Economic and Community Development made a presentation and handed out a report on Nature-Based Tourism. Tourism in general provides 176,000 jobs in Maine. While the figures nationally are much lower, 34% of Maine tourists engage in “touring,” and 21% in “outdoor recreation.” The primary interests are “sightseeing” and “scenic byways.” They like Maine’s small towns, and are likely to get out of the car and appreciate first hand the scenery, history and culture of an area. The Governor’s initiative on experiential, nature-based tourism (based on the Fermata Report) would be consistent with conservation of Sears Island.
VI. Presentation on How Conservation, Economic Health and Partnerships are successful in Maine:
Ralph Knoll, who is retiring from the DOC after 28 years, described a number of programs designed to help conservation efforts. He said most conservation is prompted by fear of an unknown future, and motivated by a desire for some certainty and predictability in a rapidly changing landscape.
Among the essential for all successful projects are: 1) economic benefit to the local economy; 2) funding (which requires attention to funders’ requirements); and 3) interests at the local level in preserving traditional uses.
He reviewed several projects that DOC has helped negotiate in recent years, including one in Parsonfield which preserved 8,600 acres. The project he cited as perhaps most similar to Sears Island was the West Branch of the Penobscot. In that project, 280,000 acres were preserved, and the possibility of a sawmill which might be built in the future was specifically negotiated as part of the agreement even though there was no current proposal to build such a facility. He described other projects as well.
As for Sears Island, the “lion’s share” of protection has already been accomplished by the State’s purchase of the island (which would be prohibitively expensive at today’s rates).
VIII. SC Work Plan between now and December
Subsequent meetings were set as follows:
Steering Committee: Monday, October 16, 2006, 9 a.m. - 3 p.m., place TBA
Steering Committee: Thursday, November 9, 2006, (time and place TBA)
In addition, because of limited time for the presentations in the afternoon, several people expressed a desire to meet with David Gelinas and Bob Grindrod to explore those issues in more depth.
In addition, as mentioned above, a meeting will be set with members of the SC and state officials to discuss the "causeway" issues.
John Hyk asked for clarification on whether it is the position of the State of Maine that a cargo port should be built on Sears Island. It was agreed that the SC will hear from Commissioner David Cole on this and other issues about the Three Port Strategy at the October 16 meeting.
Nancy-Linn Nellis and Jane Sanford asked that Matt Simmons be asked to speak to a future SC meeting.
Because of the shortage of time at today’s meeting, the SC deferred discussion of the kinds of development which are not being proposed for Sears Island where they may be consensus. This discussion will take place at the October meeting.
Finally, Jonathan introduced the concept of the SC’s creation of a smaller, representative “Drafting Committee,” which is a structure that many stakeholder groups adopt during this deliberative phase of their work. The idea here is that a small balanced group of stakeholders would be convened to begin to work on a common document (a “single text”), which would incorporate elements of the Visions articulated thus far. This group has NO decision-making authority, which is reserved to the Steering Committee itself. Rather, its function is to intensively debate issues, which are cumbersome to process in a group of 45 stakeholders and other interested parties
IX. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 pm.
Meeting Summary Prepared by Jonathan Reitman and Sue Inches, with help from Steve Spencer.
