Sears Island Planning Initiative Steering Committee Meeting
October 16, 2006

DRAFT SUMMARY OF FIFTH MEETING

I. Welcome, Introductions and Agenda Review

Facilitator Jonathan Reitman opened the meeting by welcoming the parties to the fifth meeting of the Steering Committee (SC) and reviewing the day’s agenda. Participants introduced themselves. Department of Conservation Deputy Commissioner, Karin Tilberg, welcomed the parties, expressing continued appreciation for everyone’s involvement since the commencement of this process last spring. Noting that SC members all agreed on the goal of developing consensus recommendations for future land use activities for Sears Island, Tilberg stated that now is the time to engage in active consensus building and thanked the group for its continued commitment.

II. Review of Meeting Summary from September 12, 2006 SC Meeting

The 12 September 2006 SC Meeting Summary was accepted with the following revision to the last paragraph of Section IV on the top of page 6:

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 consider adjusting his current view that such a facility can only be built on Sears Island.

III. Review of discussion at October 10, 2006 Education Committee meeting

Dianne Smith reported on the Education Subcommittee meeting of October 10th, stating that it provided an opportunity to better understand one another’s perspectives through candid and courteous dialogue. The subcommittee agreed upon two speakers for a future SC meeting: Matt Simmons, a well-known expert on energy/transportation issues; and, Dr. Shashi Kumar of the Maine Maritime Academy. In addition, the subcommittee agreed to add the recent report by the Brookings Institute to the SC resource materials.

IV. Presentation by DOT Commissioner David Cole re: Three Port Strategy, etc.

Commissioner David Cole led a presentation by representatives of the Maine Department of Transportation (DOT) and Maine Port Authority on how Searsport fits into the larger transportation context – regionally, nationally and internationally. Cole cited three major studies currently underway: the Northeast CanAm Connections Study, the Integrated Freight Plan, and the Port Development Plan for Maine’s Deepwater Ports or “3-Port Strategic Plan.” (Handout provided at meeting). Further, Cole reported that he is the incoming Chair of the Intermodal Freight Committee, a group of transportation representatives from around the country, and was recently part of delegation to China to assess freight transportation. He noted that the volume of freight is forecasted to double in the next twenty years.

Northeast CanAm Connections Study Commissioner Cole reported that the Northeast CanAm Connections Study will assess which transportation investments could trigger economic opportunities in the Northeast corridor – including the New England states, New York, Quebec, Ontario and the Maritime Provinces. He added that Maine has over 600 miles of border with Canada, but no planning for trade has occurred. This study will address how to open up new markets for Maine, how this area fits with global trade and how to integrate, rather than duplicate, infrastructure. Maine is the administrative agent for this study performed by Wilbur Smith Consultants and led by an economist. Interviews with stakeholders are being conducted and preliminary data will be available in December. Over the next year, strategies will be developed to fit the economic realities of transportation needs in the next twenty-thirty years, with the final Report expected in December 2007. Further information about this study is available at: http://www.canamconnections.com

Cole further cited an effort of the New England Regional Economic Development Commission, led by Maine Congressman Mike Michaud, to study what economic and social developments would benefit the region as a whole – from New York to New Brunswick.

Integrated Freight Plan DOT’s Greg Nadeau presented the Integrated Freight Plan, which is being done in concert with the DOT’s long range (20 year) Strategic Plan as required by the federal government. This Plan expands the scope beyond DOT, including local and regional transportation and land use plans, to insure that all transportation systems (road, rail, air, etc.) are integrated to maximize resources as efficiently as possible for the State of Maine. Nadeau stated that, by the year 2020, 45% of the Maine’s Gross State Product will be from international trade. The Plan seeks to analyze the extent to which the transportation system can be prepared to accommodate and take advantage of this growth without jeopardizing our quality of life. He cited Gateway One as DOT’s prototype for developing highway capacity in a way that meets all interests with minimal impact on the way of life of individual communities. The Integrated Freight Plan is the third version of the original Plan, which is updated approximately every three years. The completed update is expected by the end of the year.

In regard to the 2020 projection of 45% of the Gross State Product being foreign trade, Nadeau was asked what the number is today and which areas of trade will be reduced. He stated that the increase in foreign trade nationally was due to the “just-in-time” (rolling warehouse) inventory management that has been made possible through modern technology. Despite higher fuel costs, this trend will likely continue because of the benefits it provides to business.

Now, 80% of freight movement is by truck and 17-18% is by rail. Nadeau stated that the largest container port in Maine is the truck-to-rail port in Auburn, which can double stack freight all the way to Vancouver. This helps reduce the truck traffic.

In response to a question regarding passenger transport, DOT stated that it is part of the long range planning effort. Citing the Island Explorer in Mt. Desert as a successful response to congestion and environmental concerns, DOT addresses this issue on a regional basis, as each corridor has different needs. (Island Explorer is a public-private partnership.) Commissioner Cole added that the focus of DOT’s presentation today is freight, as requested, but that a future presentation on passenger transport could be provided.

Three-Port Strategy
Maine Port Authority Director, Brian Nutter reported that the state has recently selected a consultant, The Cornell Group, to study what type of port strategy is needed in Maine. He added that all data gathered through the study would be looked at in the context of impacts to communities and the environment.

In response to the question of whether the 3-Port Strategy includes plans for Sears Island, Commissioner Cole stated that DOT has no imminent plans for the Island, but because future needs are unknown, DOT cannot rule out use of Sears Island because it is a resource.

It was noted that the 3-Port Strategy has been around for many years, but in the meantime conditions have changed because many industries have shut down. Where will the freight come from to support this port? Maria Fuentes cited a letter from the Pulp & Paper Association provided to the SC, which stated that, while the number of employees and mills has been reduced through improved technology, mill production has increased every year. In 1890, 350 tons per day; 1961, 5800 tons per day, today, 8200 tons per day.

The three ports have land available to accommodate growth as follows: The Portland International Marine Terminal has approximately 10 acres. When Ocean Gateway opens in 2007, the activity will quintuple. (27,000 containers per year can be accommodated). No expansion will be possible beyond those 10 acres. Eastport is a 45-acre site with 10 acres unused at this time. At Mack Point, there are 160 acres, including Sprague and private interests, with 40-50 acres still undeveloped.

In response to the question of what type of dredging would be required to create a marginal pier at Long Cove, DOT and David Gelinas stated that the berth alone (not including the channel) would need to be 1000 ft. long X 40 ft. wide X 30ft. deep. This would be a significant environmental impact and the permit process would require DOT to consider less damaging alternatives – Sears Island would likely be one.

Nutter stated that the 3-Port Strategy study would not assess return on public investments to date. $15 mil was invested in Eastport with no return. At Mack Point, the $16 mil spent was recovered and the investment spurred additional development (Sprague, etc.). The study that was proposed several years ago to assess the investments individually did not take place as requested due to lack of funding. Marietta Ramsdell suggested that until we know the return on prior public investments, Maine should be cautious about making more such investments.

The 3-Port Strategic Plan study will cost $250 mil, but no tax dollars. It is being paid for with income dollars: $100 mil by DOT and $150 mil by the Maine Port Authority.

If the LNG project would have come to fruition, that would have taken the place of a cargo port because of the limited space at the deep-water port.

One SC member noted that, over the years, cargo transportation plans were made that turned out to be ill advised (e.g. woodchips in Eastport, peat moss at Mack Point).

Short sea shipping would be a good way to reduce truck traffic in the Northeast Region. For example, instead of 60 trucks per day traveling between Maine and New York, one shipment of 300 containers could accommodate the same volume of freight. However, short sea shipping does not exist at this time because of the “just-in-time” trend. If these goods move by ship, they must be staged and this has an economic impact. Also, short sea shipping is affected by the Jones Act, which allows only U.S. ships to travel between U.S. ports.

Most of the traffic today is in-bound cargo: including home heating oil, petroleum, tapioca, and windmill products.

The CanAm Study, focusing on global trade, will use results of the 3-Port Strategic Plan study of existing infrastructure. The 3-Port Strategic Plan will assess the current facilities and how they can accommodate growth: freight capacity and expansion possibilities. It does not address passenger and tourism issues. The Explore Maine Study in 2002 dealt with passenger movement and may have included Searsport in the analysis. However, this was done prior to the Mack Point improvements in 2003.

One SC member suggested that we are missing an opportunity to look at passenger capacity – Bar Harbor is not the only desirable place on the coast. It was noted that passenger traffic could not be accommodated at Mack Point because of security issues.

In response to a question of whether DOT takes into account the current global environmental crisis, including global warming, Cole stated that DOT just invested $500K in Southern Maine to take trucks off the road. DOT is engaged in many initiatives geared toward energy-saving solutions. Transportation is a contributor to the problem and DOT seeks to contribute to the solution.

Lorin Hollander cited U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ statements made in the 1970’s about massive environmental damage to Sears Island if certain uses (including a cargo port) were permitted. Nutter stated that two permits were issued then taken back and the application was pulled before the Army Corps could rule on the application. The project that was proposed at that time to be permitted may not be the same as what might be proposed in the future.

More information on the Auburn Port was requested. One asked whether this type of port could be duplicated in other parts of the state, serving as an alternative to marine ports. It was further asked: If Wal-Mart meets its typical build-out target of 100 Super Centers in Maine, would the Lewiston Wal-Mart Distribution Center exhaust the capacity of the Auburn Port? Expansion of transportation capacity may not benefit our economy if the trend of bringing in cheap products from Asia continues.

Ben Crimaudo, Scott Dickerson and other SC members asked whether DOT considers Sears Island part of the “Port of Searsport” as that term is used in the 3-Port Strategy? Brian Nutter responded that the “rule of thumb” for use of the term “port” includes both sides of the harbor, but today, the only cargo facility is at Mack Point. He said “The Port at Searsport” reference would encompass from the town pier to the island.

John Melrose was asked about the use of the term Port of Searsport as used in “The Maine Vision for Marine Transportation” proposal for the island. He reiterated that the island was bought and the pier infrastructure created for marine transportation purposes. The Marine Transportation Affinity Group views the causeway and the deep-water frontage as part of a potential facility, and therefore, part of the “Port of Searsport.” Sears Island is included in the “Port of Searsport” in that it implies that it can be developed as a port.

Commissioner Cole reiterated that there are no current plans to build any facility on Sears Island, but we do not know what could be proposed or needed in the future. DOT’s job is to continually assess the state’s transportation needs and advise policy makers. DOT is also in the business of preserving areas for future transportation use. Sears Island is, at a maximum, only in the galaxy of opportunities for future possible use as a marine port. Whether or not this port is ever built is a policy question to be decided by the Governor and future Legislatures.

Astrig Tanguay expressed frustration because of the uncertainty about the future of Sears Island. She said area residents feel “hostage” to this process because of that uncertainty.

In response to the question of whether any of these studies will specifically address container ports in the region, Sears Island and Mack Point, and the feasibility for this type of shipping, DOT stated that it will address container shipping along with other types (e.g. short sea) and expects that Sears Island will be included as part of the analysis.

All agreed that, in the interest of time, the Education Subcommittee should host a follow-up session with the DOT representatives to continue this discussion.

V. Discussion of Affinity Group visions

Karin Tilberg opened the discussion of Affinity Group visions, stating her hope that areas of overlap and shared values among the visions be identified and brought to a drafting committee so that a single text document could begin to be developed. Acknowledging the difficulty in reaching consensus amidst the uncertainty of DOT’s future plans, she urged the SC to focus on and build upon the areas held in common. Tilberg cited the Calais Rail Branch Project as an example of a successful resolution between transportation and recreation interests, in which the future needs of the transportation sector were also uncertain. In that project, DOT retained the railroad infrastructure pending future need, but in the meantime, removed the rails, re-built the rail-bed, repaired bridges and addressed other environmental concerns, transforming the facility into a comprehensive multi-use recreational trail system. More details about this project can be made available through the Education Subcommittee. See also: http://www.hcpcme.org/transportation/sunrise/plans/plans.htm

Jonathan Reitman noted the disagreement within the SC as to the historical facts and future uncertainty surrounding Sears Island, and asked the group to what extent they need agreement on these issues in order to do the task they are charged with today. Is it possible to “agree to disagree” on some of those historical issues and still build a consensus on how to proceed from today forward?

The SC proceeded to discuss and question the Affinity Group Visions. One SC member suggested that, prior to asking a question, SC members examine how their question will help move the group toward consensus.

Asked whether it views the whole of Sears Island as a transportation interest, the Marine Transportation Affinity Group said yes, DOT can only own property for transportation purposes. However, a valid transportation use would be the maintenance of a “buffer area” to any facility, and this area could remain undeveloped and used for recreation. “You might call it conservation, I might call it a buffer, but we’re talking about the same thing,” he said. At the Eastport facility, for example, one end of the buffer is used for recreation and the other for aquaculture. In response to questions, John Melrose asked whether after decades of effort to retain Sears Island for transportation use, should we now just set it aside? There must be a balance between the number of coastal acres for public access and the number of acres for working waterfront. What is wrong with the current situation which allows full public access to Sears Island?

Security concerns

In response to the question of whether recreational use of the buffer could be blocked due to security issues, it was noted that security closures could happen anytime, even today, by the Dept. of Homeland Security. There have been many changes in shipping regulations concerning security since the 1970’s because of such events as 9/11. The proposed LNG facility would have required helicopter monitoring, closing of harbors during the docking of ships at the facility and the like. Other questions included:
Would Stockton Springs be affected by the security concerns?
Would hunting be allowed on the island?
Who will pay for the security? In Harpswell, the town had to pay for security at the LNG facility and the facility’s revenue did not cover those costs. It was noted that Sprague pays for security at Mack Point.

Co-existence of recreation and transportation

How would recreational visitors access the island if there was a lot of rail and ship traffic? The rail bed is not on the same side as the causeway. Since 1907, visitors must cross the railroad tracks to reach the island.
We cannot ignore the fact that this island is currently within an industrial area.
How much recreational use would the island have if there is development – how realistic is “co-existence?” There was disagreement on the level of successful co-existence at other facilities at Humbolt Bay in Northern California and Charleston, South Carolina. While shipping activities provide the funding for the recreational areas in these examples, some stated that those facilities have reduced surrounding property values, caused noise pollution and interfered with migratory birds. Having only one access point to Sears Island from the mainland is another issue that affects co-existence of recreation and transportation interests.

Generating revenues/Costs

Searsport lost revenues when the railroad sold the island to the State. Waiting to see if a port is needed will not generate revenue, but putting something else into place now (nature-based tourism) can generate jobs and revenue.
A port facility would generate much more revenue than what is proposed in the Sears Island Alternative Uses Report.
What have been the real costs to taxpayers so far, including the legal and other costs associated with the 1997 Consent Decree? It was noted that the figure of $26 million emerged from a Freedom of Information Act request to the DOT.
The Preservation and Port Affinity Group proposes that Sears Island should not be included in the Part of Searsport, recognizing the revenues generated by Mack Point and the expansion possibilities there. How long must we wait to see a return on the Sears Island investment (deep water and causeway) when we have an alternative option at Mack Point? We should invest in future nature-based tourism now to begin generating revenues rather than sitting on the asset for an unknown future transportation need. This proposal would be a “significant contributor” to nature-based tourism, yielding 5 jobs and $2 mil in revenues.
Zaven Koltookian noted that in addition there would be substantial indirect benefits flowing from increased revenues from local businesses.
When asked what is holding the state back from marketing Sears Island in order to get a return on the investment, DOT stated that it is currently marketing Mack Point, but there are limits to the types of things that Mack Point handle.
Asked how the Preservation and Port Vision would provide economic benefits to Searsport, Scott Dickerson suggested that the vision leaves open the possibility for an agency or non-profit organization to control a visitors center or education facility and make a contribution to the Town in lieu of taxes – usually 10%.

Calais Rail Branch Project

Peter Taber raised the issue of democracy in reference to the Calais Rail Branch Project. In that example, the issue of when rail is needed will be decided by the legislature. Assuming that the legislature is most representative of the public views, would that process it be acceptable here?
The Sears Island situation was differentiated from the Calais Project in that there, no case could be made for retaining the rails, as there is no potential use for the Calais Branch. However, since the existing right of way cannot be replaced (today, it would cost $7 mil per mile for the 200+ miles), DOT retained it.

Eco-tourism

A member of the Preservation and Port Affinity Group cited a number of publications – newspapers and magazines – that mentioned Sears Island as a tourist destination.
If eco-tourism is developed, the return will be in the form of hotels, restaurants, retail and ancillary benefits of tourist dollars. Tangentially, it could bring in greater revenues to the area than Sprague does.
It was noted that the Audubon Society has a significant presence in the area and has brought revenue to the state through birding activities (e.g. the puffin project). This could be expanded to Sears Island.
Could a visitor’s center or education facility be placed on the mainland? Yes, but the sense of “arriving on Sears Island” begins after the concrete barriers at the end of the causeway.

Passenger rail

Permanence

Tom Groening asked whether the Marine Transportation Affinity Group would be willing to put a cap on the number of acres they would be willing to accept as a set-aside for future cargo port uses in a potential consensus agreement?
The notion of “permanence” is important to many in this process because it provides some economic predictability. Smaller businesses must make decisions in the short-term about whether they can benefit from nature-based tourism.
Scott Dickerson said he understood that this notion of conservation “permanence” may “stick in the craw” of those who advocate a port on Sears Island, but said he wondered if there was some middle ground between permanence and those transportation advocates who want to make no commitment.
It was suggested that transportation interests agree to a fixed period of time within which a marine transport facility would not be proposed.
John Melrose repeated his suggestion that the use of Sears Island continue as it is until and unless a marine facility is proposed, at which time negotiations for conservation land could take place.

Jurisdiction

Members of the Marine Transportation Affinity Group expressed opposition to changing the jurisdiction over Sears Island. This would require legislation, and the outcome of that legislation would be uncertain given the volatility of the Sears Island issue. It was argued that the SC should keep control of the process and continue to discuss alternative uses.
Bob Grindrod said whichever agency retains jurisdiction, it should remain with the state as opposed to any private or non-profit group
Harlan McLaughlin suggested that DOT retain jurisdiction, but with a cooperative land management agreement with DOC and other groups.

VI. Discussion of proposals we agree are not appropriate for Sears Island

The SC reached consensus on the following items all agree are not appropriate for Sears Island:

Do not demolish the causeway. (This does not preclude allowing water flow-through if that is determined to be beneficial. Jonathan Reitman noted that a meeting with Dept. of Marine Resources on this issue as requested by some SC members is being arranged.)
No unauthorized motor vehicle traffic.
No residential development
No XXX Drive-in Movies
No nuclear power plants
No coal-fired power or industrial plants
No commercial retail or restaurants
No casinos
No chemical manufacturing
No international airport, airstrip or helicopter landing area
No overnight camping without a permit
No gate fees for Maine residents.
No permanent religious buildings
No unauthorized cutting or harvesting of wood
No marine transport of out-of-state or domestic garbage or construction waste to or from the island
No incinerator
No unlawful destruction of wetlands or habitat
No soil harvesting

It was suggested that this list be compared with the Town of Searsport’s Comprehensive Plan and the Sears Island Alternative Uses Committee Report. Town Manager James Gillway agreed to do so.

VII. Discussion of Drafting Committee and its charge

Jonathan Reitman described the Drafting Committee as proposed in the Requested Stakeholder “Homework” for today’s meeting, stating that a smaller group, representative of all interests and without decision making authority, could work together to shape a draft text for review by the full SC.

All agreed that today’s discussions were productive and that more such dialogue is needed in the whole Steering Committee before a sufficient foundation of consensus is built from which a single-text document could be drafted.

VIII. Discussion of Work Plan between now and December (including Public Participation Meeting), Scheduling Meetings

The next SC Meeting will be held on November 9th at this location, the Congregational Church in Searsport. The agenda will include continued discussion of Affinity Group visions, reflection of the Education Subcommittee’s follow-up session to today’s DOT presentation, and the two speakers if they are available.

The SC discussed the importance of making proceedings available to stakeholders in the northern region, but agreed that video conferencing has not been fruitful.

Some supported the suggestion that the group wait for preliminary data from the DOT studies before scheduling further SC sessions because the Marine Transportation Affinity Group will be in a better position to negotiate when DOT’s plans are made available. Others agreed that while the port plans will have an impact, only the Integrated Freight Plan is expected to be complete before the year’s end. The more comprehensive Port Development Plan and Northeast CanAm Connections Study will not be complete until Spring 2007 and 2008, respectively. As these reports will consider community perspective, the SC recommendations will be taken into account. Therefore, the SC should proceed with its charge. All agreed to go forward with the November 9th SC Meeting and revisit this issue at that time.

X. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 pm.

Meeting Summary prepared by Jonathan Reitman and Kimberly Vogel.

Department Information

Bureau Information

Sears Island Planning Initiative Steering Committee Meeting
October 16, 2006

DRAFT SUMMARY OF FIFTH MEETING

Upcoming Meetings

Important Links

In the News

Department Information

Bureau Information

Sears Island Planning Initiative Steering Committee Meeting October 16, 2006 DRAFT SUMMARY OF FIFTH MEETING

Upcoming Meetings

Important Links

In the News

Sears Island Planning Initiative Steering Committee Meeting
October 16, 2006

DRAFT SUMMARY OF FIFTH MEETING