Search

Jul 14, 2024

Pen BayWatch Nov 20, 2023 comments on Draft Wind Energy Area (WEA) in the Gulf of Maine

PENOBSCOT BAYWATCH
People who care about Maine's biggest bay.

November 20, 2023

Zachary Jylkka
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Office of Renewable Energy Programs
45600 Woodland Road, Mailstop: VAM-OREP
Sterling, VA 20166

re: Draft Wind Energy Area (WEA) in the Gulf of Maine

Penobscot Bay Watch is a citizens association dedicated since 1993 to protecting and restoring the living marine resources of Penobscot Bay and the greater natural Gulf of Maine it adjoins and serves.

Our relevant oversight efforts over that time have included

(1) Communications, then administrative appeals and litigation over the University of Maine's DeepCwind project's Monhegan site selection. This continues since its inception and through its morphing into Maine Aquaventus Project leaving us today with their presently stalled increasingly outdated floating wind turbines proposal there.

(2) Frequent dialog with the Norwegian Statoil company's staff as it proposed but ultimately dropped a proposal for a floating wind array off midcoast Maine.

We likely have the best archive around of audio and documents of those early years of BOEMRE and DeepCwind.

Comments on Impacts of Offshore Wind Energy Development on Currents and Fishing Grounds in the Gulf of Maine

Background:

BOEM is requesting input on offshore wind planning in the Gulf of Maine, which contains numerous interconnected currents critical for ecosystems and fisheries. These comments from Penobscot Bay Watch (PBW) outline concerns regarding disruption of these complex flows that sustain marine life.

Major Currents and Fishing Grounds at Risk:

Labrador Current - This cold water influx already weakened by climate change

may be further altered by Canadian wind projects, disrupting the Gulf’s circulation.

Nova Scotia Current - Flows past productive grounds like Laurentian Channel and Banquereau Bank. Changes could impact larvae supplies for lobster, crab, and other fisheries.

Northeast Channel Current - Anything slowing this current could lessen influx of nutrients that increase productivity on western Gulf banks.

Eastern Maine Coastal Current - This major southwest flow passes valuable scallop and urchin grounds on Petit Manan and Dirt Hills. Anchor scour or current shifts threaten these species.

Downeast Coastal Current - Flows towards lucrative urchin and sea cucumber grounds off Grand Manan Island that rely on this current’s nutrient transport.

Jordan Basin Circulation - This internal cyclonic gyre concentrates particles to feed scallop and worm grounds in the Basin. Slowing this gyre may lower productivity.

Western Maine Coastal Current - Change to this flow passing through lobster grounds like Small Point could impact larval supply and dispersal.

Georges Basin Gyres - These gyres entrain larvae of clams, scallops, lobster and other invertebrates harvested here. Disrupting circulation may lower settlement.

Gulf of Maine-wide Concerns:

Right whale migratory routes, feeding habits, and population distribution depend on currents and gyres that concentrate their zooplankton prey. Any disruption threatens this endangered species.

Herring spawning grounds rely on currents to transport eggs and larvae. Altering flows during critical stages may jeopardize stocks.

Overall lowered productivity that could ripple through all trophic levels, worsening with climate change pressures.

Recommendations:

Site-specific current studies using ADCPs and drifters should occur before siting decisions, with attention to variations over time.

Ecosystem impacts must be projected using coupled biophysical models accounting for cumulative effects.

Seasonal restrictions may be needed during critical life history events dependent on stable currents and gyres.

Gulf of Maine-wide Concerns:

Independent review is essential to ensure adequate data collection, model projections, and ecosystem-based planning.

PBW believes the scale of floating offshore wind development proposed for the Gulf of Maine warrants a precautionary approach to safeguard the region's interconnected ecosystems, fisheries, and maritime communities.

These comments outline risks to major currents, fishing grounds, endangered whales, critical bird habitats, lobster larvae flows, scenic areas, and more. BOEM must fully assess array effects on currents and marine life before approving projects that could inflict irreversible damage. The Gulf's biodiversity, ecology, subcultures and sustainability must take priority over energy production targets.

Right whale migratory routes, feeding habits, and population distribution depend on currents and gyres that concentrate their zooplankton prey. Any disruption threatens this endangered species.

Herring spawning grounds rely on currents to transport eggs and larvae. Altering flows during critical stages may jeopardize stocks.

Overall lowered productivity that could ripple through all trophic levels, worsening with climate change pressures.

Recommendations:

* Site-specific current studies using ADCPs and drifters should occur before siting decisions, with attention to variations over time.

* Ecosystem impacts must be projected using coupled biophysical models accounting for cumulative effects.

* Seasonal restrictions may be needed during critical life history events dependent on stable currents and gyres.

Appendix A

Proposal for Eastern Maine Coastal Current Habitat Area of Particular Concern Designation

The Eastern Maine Coastal Current (EMCC) warrants designation as a National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) due to its ecological significance for fisheries and protected species, vulnerability to disruption, and increasing threats from expanding human uses like offshore wind development. But also legacy pollution wastes

We call on BOEM and NOAA to work with the New England Fishery Management Council, Wabanaki Nation and other indigenous and historic stakeholders to initiate this process.

An EMCC HAPC would highlight the current's vital role as a migratory conduit, larval transport pathway, and nutrient aggregation zone supporting Gulf of Maine ecosystems and economies. It would facilitate tracking and assessment of cumulative impacts while prompting comprehensive review of proposed projects like floating wind arrays that could degrade essential habitat conditions.

While not imposing direct regulations, EMCC HAPC status would compel managers and developers to account for the risks posed to the current's ecological functions and productivity. It would incentivize careful siting of new infrastructure and thoughtful mitigation of unavoidable impacts. Seasonal restrictions could safeguard critical life stages of vulnerable species like right whales.

The EMCC meets the key criteria for an HAPC based on its importance for ecological functions, sensitivity to human impacts, foreseeable development pressures, and singular nature as the Gulf's dominant coastal current system. An HAPC would provide no new restrictions but highlight the EMCC as a flowing habitat requiring stewardship. Responsible planning mandates recognizing the current's significance before permits are issued in the region.

In closing, we urge BOEM to embrace a vision of the Gulf of Maine as a living entity nourished by interconnected currents that flow through it like arteries and veins. These currents pulse with the kinetic energy of winds, tides, and celestial cycles, while drinking sustenance from the outflow of rivers and streams along the coast. Their rhythms enable the Gulf’s bountiful ecology, from microscopic plankton to great whales.

As you evaluate the risks posed by floating offshore wind turbine arrays, consider the perspective of this watershed as a nurturing habitat animated by currents that are vital to sustain. New development must respect the Gulf’s own currents of life if it is to find an enduring place within this ecologically and culturally rich seascape.

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you would like additional inforimation our email is coastwatch@gmail.com tel and text 207-691-4634

Sincerely

Ronald Huber

Ron Huber

Penobscot Bay Watch

cc Media

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

•Atlantic Salmon Federation. "Species Profile: Atlantic Salmon." https://www.asf.ca/species-profile-atlantic-salmon.html

•BOEM. "Commercial Wind Leasing Offshore Massachusetts." https://www.boem.gov/commercial-wind-leasing-offshore-massachusetts

•Davies, K.T.A, Taggart, C.T. "Measuring the influence of wind-driven advection on the recruitment ecology of Gulf of Maine Atlantic cod." Fisheries Oceanography. 2007.

•Harrison, Autumn-Lynn. “Migratory Birds of the Gulf of Maine.” Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/2/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/migratory-birds-web.pdf

•Johnson et al. "Entanglements of baleen whales in fishing gear and marine debris in the Gulf of Maine and Scotian Shelf." Endangered Species Research. 2021.

•Kenney, Robert D. “Right Whales: Eubalaena glacialis, Eubalaena japonica, and Eubalaena australis.” In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. 2018.

•NOAA Fisheries. "Atlantic Salmon." https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/atlantic-salmon-protected#conservation-management

•NOAA Fisheries. “Shortnose Sturgeon.” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/shortnose-sturgeon#conservation-management

•Saba et al. "The Past, Present and Future of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation." Nature. 2021.

•Burgund THE CURRENTS OF PENOBSCOT BAY, MAINE:Observations and a Numerical Model by Halsey R. Burgund Advisor: Philip Bogden 2nd Reader: George Veronis April 21, 1995

* Conlon 2018 Circulation, Cross-Shelf Exchange, and Blue Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Population Connectivity in a Complex, Tidally Driven System. Summer 7-27-2018 A thesis by LeAnn M. Conlon

Jul 13, 2024

Sears Island vs. Mack Point - federal and state officials involved in the reviews. Links!

Click links to learn about the state and and federal officials taking part in this review   
And how to reach them. They NEED your input, you need to know how they see the proposals .  *Note: as of 7/14/24  a lead federal agency has not been chosen
.
.
.

Jul 7, 2024

Quarterly Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region 2016-2023

 Quarterly Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region -     Dec 2023 Drought.gov  https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-december-2023Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for September–November 2023...

Quarterly Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - June 2023 | Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-june-2023Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for March–May 2023. 

Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region Sept 2023    | Drought.gov

Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for June–August 2023. 

Quarterly Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region -   March 2023 | Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-march-2023Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for December 2022–February.

Quarterly Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - December 2022 | Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-december-2022Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for September - 

Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - June 2022  Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-june-2022Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for March–May 2022. .

Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - Sept 2022 | Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-september-2022Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for June–August 2022. Dated...precipitation ranged from 25% of normal to 150% of normal ...

Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - March 2022 | Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-march-2022Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for December 2021 - February...from 1°C (2°F) below normal in parts of Maine to 3°C (5°F) ...

Quarterly Climate Impacts Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - Dec 2021  Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-december-2021Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for September - November...precipitation ranged from 50% of normal to 175% of normal. NOAA’s ...

Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - Sept 2020  Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-september-2020Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for June – August 2020....Fredericton and St. John, N.B., had one of their five hottest ...

Quarterly Climate Impacts &  Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - Sept 2021  Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-september-2021Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for March - May 2021. Dated...precipitation ranged from 50% of normal to 200% of normal ...

Quarterly Climate Impacts  & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - June 2021 | Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-june-2021Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for March - May 2021. Dated...precipitation ranged from 50% of normal to 150% of normal. Sea ...

Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - March 2021 | Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-march-2021Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for December 2020 – February...precipitation ranged from 50% of normal to 150% of normal. Sea ...

Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook Gulf of Maine Region Sept 2015  Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-september-2015
Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook Gulf of Maine Dec 2015  

Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-december-2015...outlook for winter 2015-16 for Gulf of Maine region....Quarterly Climate Impacts and Outlook Gulf of Maine December 2015 Document Author ...

Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - Dec 2016  Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-december-2016Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for September – November...Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - ...

Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region - Dec 2020 | Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-december-2020Climate Impacts and Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region for Sept – Nov.2020

Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region, Sept 2016 | Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-september-2016 June – August 2016

Quarterly Climate Impacts & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region, June 2016 | Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-june-2016..March – May 2016.

Quarterly Climate impacts & Outlook for the Gulf of Maine Region, March 2016 | Drought.gov

https://www.drought.gov/documents/quarterly-climate-impacts-and-outlook-gulf-maine-region-march-2016 December 2015 –February 2016

Jul 2, 2024

PENOBSCOT BAYWIDE TOXICS SNAPSHOT: BAY LPA AQ SITES AS SOURCES

Penobscot Baywide Toxics Snapshot?  Using Bay LPA sites as Sample Sources 

 To be renewed, LPA licenses must continue to meet
the provisions of DMR Rule 2.90 and 12 M.R.S.A. §6072-C.

DMR Rule 2.90: https://www.maine.gov/dmr/laws-regulations/regulations/index.html 12 M.R.S.A.
§6072-C:https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/12/title12sec6072-C.html

 
A DOUBLE  ISSUE.  Maine's  Limited Purpose Aquaculture 'Licenses' are expandingrapidly  into inshore  waters.  At times adjacent to  land and sediment sites with documented present or historic  waste concerns.  
  Left image show   LPA licensed sites as of October 2023. Right=outfalls( blue/white & red/white, wastewater plants, orange & black)  landfills & other remediation sites (color circles w/centerdots.

 (Not shown: oil and gas spills,  as they would cover the map.  Also not shown: standard aquaculture leases)
AT ISSUE  DMR does not require toxics testing of the animals  and algae typically  grown in LPA cages or trays: oysters, mussels,  nori,  sugar kelp, other algae.  Yet they are well known, well understood  heavy metals bioaccumulators.    DMR's  biosecurity  is focused on biological threats -  bacterial and viral-  and does it well Chemical threats?  Not so much.   
Yet as the attached pair of  images show, Penobscot Bay has  well documented  pollution hotspots associated with the  mid19th  to late 20th century era.  Industry  grew here, supplied by first sail, then steam then petroleum power .  Departing companies  left their  industrial wastes behind,    Demolished old factories were dumped  into spent quarries or directly onto the shore to enlarge upland rea;l estate. covered with fill dirt. and and abandoned  Remediation may have  been state of the art at the time, (1940s-1980s) but time is one thing the remediation has not withstood.      

PROPOSAL  As DMR is being timid about metals testing,  your BayCare project would purchase samples directly from  each of the LPA aquaculture operations in the bay - they sell from home -  and test them for the 4  heavy metals of Penobscot Bay waters concern: methylmercury, cadmium, lead & arsenic.  Funding may be available for PFAS testing too though at present  the state is still sorting out testing regimes for that set of chemicals

RESULTS.  A scientifically credible snapshot of  the heavy metals loading of the  seaweed and shellfish species being raised and  sold in  Penobscot Bay - location by location.  This allows hotspots to be detected and LPAs to be  diverted from such locations.  .  

SuggestionContract with  Maine Environmental Laboratory  for bay wide*  coordinated contaminants testing of  sediments and aquacultured biota.   ME is among the  certified testing labs of Main. Employee owned   I've used them a number of times, mostly to follow up on earlier waste spill reports  from several  chronic leaker locations from earlier decades GAC Chemical and the former papermill turned landbased aquaculture applicant.  Here are  two  I will get into why doing it baywide is important 

Here  are two MEL reports I commissioned 
A  2016 MEL report on  GAC chemical waste sites 

A  2019  MEL report on mercury in Bucksport sediment immediately below proposed Whole Oceans site 

* Note: "Bay-wide" means at least one set of sediment and/or biota   tests in waters/intertidal  of every bay town)

Jun 26, 2024

Stockton Harbor 1975 Hydrographic Study - Complete

Hydrographic Study of Stockton Harbor, Searsport, Maine, July 1975,  for Central Maine Power and Maine Yankee Atomic Electric Company.  by Aquatec Inc.Environmental Services, Burlington VT


Cover

Table of Contents 

Table of  Figures

------------------------------------

Introduction 

-----------------------------------

INSTRUMENTATION & DATA  ACQUISITION

Instrumentation & Data Acquisition. Pt1

Instrumentation and Data Pt2 

Instrumentation and Data Part 3 

Instrumentation and Data Part 4

Instrumentation and Data  Part 5

-------------------------------------------

DATA REDUCTION  

Data Reduction Procedures Pt1

Data Reduction Procedures Pt2

---------------------------------------------

DATA ANALYSIS 


Data Analysis 1

Data Analysis 2

Data Analysis 3

Data Analysis 4

Data Analysis 5

Data Analysis 6 

Data Analysis 7

Data Analysis 8

Data Analysis 9

Data Analysis 10

Data Analysis 11


Data Analysis 12

Table 3

Tables 4, 5 & 6

Tables 7, 8 & 9

======================

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

Summary and Conclusions 1

Summary and Conclusions 2

Summary and Conclusions 3

===================-===

APPENDIX

Appendix Part 1 Cover

Appendix  Part 2

Appendix Part 3

FIGURES

Fig 1 Station Location Map

Fig 2 Bottom Contour at Transect 1

Fig 3 Bottom Contour at Transect 2 

Fig 4 Bottom  Contour at Transect 3

Fig 5 diagram of data acquisition

Fig 6  Tidal height at transect 1

Fig 7 Tidal height at Transect 2 [Missing]

Fig 8  Tidal height transect 3

Fig 9 Tidal Height at the Platform

Fig 10 Perpendicular Component of Velocity at Transect 2 - Station 6

Fig 11 Volume Flow Rates at Transects 2 and 3

Fig 12 Bottom topography of Stockton Harbor

Fig 13 Volume of water in Stockton Harbor versus Elevation at Mean Low Water

DYE TESTS 1  (Modelling planktonic clam larvae)

Fig 14. Average dye concentration  2 to 5 feet from water surface, Transect 2, Station 6

Fig 15.  Cross Sectional Areas Corresponding to the Seven Stations at Transect 2.

Fig 16 Cross Sectional view  of Dye Concentration in PPB  0550 - 0648 July 16, 1975

Fig 17 Cross Sectional view of Dye Concentration in PPB  0723 - 0747 July 16, 1975 

Fig 18 Cross Sectional View of Dye Concentration in PPB 0802-0829 July 16, 1975  

Fig 19 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 0923-0947 July 16, 1975

Fig 20  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1018 - 1043 July 16, 1975

Fig 21  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1113 - 1128 July 16, 1975

Fig 22  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1147 - 1218 July 16, 1975

Fig 23 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1241 - 1307 July 16, 1975

Fig 24 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1322 - 1404  July 16, 1975

Fig 25 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1454 - 1523 July 16, 1975

Fig  26 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1536 - 1614 July 16, 1975

Fig  27 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1720 - 1750 July 16, 1975

Fig  28 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1815 - 1859 July 16, 1975

Fig  29 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1911 - 1937  July 16, 1975

Fig 30 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1959 - 2017  July 16, 1975

Fig 31 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  2036 - 2103   July 16, 1975

Fig 32 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration   2218 - 2311  July 16, 1975

Fig  33 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  0012   July 17, 1975

Fig 34  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  0027 - 0134  July 17, 1975

Fig 35  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  0212 - 0251  July 17, 1975

Fig 37 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  0409 - 0444   July 17, 1975

Fig 38  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  0506 - 0538   July 17, 1975

Fig 39  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  0602 - 063 7 July 17, 1975

Fig  40  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  0649-0719  -  July 17, 1975 

Fig 41 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 0731 - 0804 July 17, 1975

Fig 42 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 0830 - 0900  July 17, 1975

Fig 43 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  1000 -1128  July 17, 1975 

Fig 44 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1142 - 1210   July 17, 1975 

Fig 45 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1237 - 1305  July 17, 1975 

Fig 46 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration 1407 - 1431   July 17, 1975 

Fig 47  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  1442 - 1506   July 17, 1975 

Fig 48  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  1601-1700   July 17, 1975 

Fig 49  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  1746 -1808   July 17, 1975 

Fig 50  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  1710-1730  July 17, 1975 

Fig 51  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  0550-0648   July 17, 1975 

Fig 52  Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  0802-0829  July 17, 1975 

Fig 53 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  1113-1138  July 17, 1975 

Fig 54 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  1322-1404  July 17, 1975 

Fig 55 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  0550-0648  July 17, 1975 

Fig 56 Cross Sectional view in PPB of Dye Concentration  0807-0829  July 17, 1975 

SALINITY

Fig 57 Cross Sectional view of Salinity in parts per thousand PPT  1113-1138 July 17, 1975

Fig 58  Cross Sectional view of Salinity in parts per thousand PPT  [missing]

DYE TESTS 2  CONCENTRATION VS DEPTH

Fig 59 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975 

Fig 60 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975        

Fig 61 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975


Fig 62 Dye Concentration vs Depth  [Missing]








Fig 71 Dye Concentration vs Depth  [missing]















END REPORT












 











Jun 13, 2024

Sears Island History. November 2008. Sears Island Joint Use Planning Comm's plan to divide the island was turned back.

Sears Island  2008

Nov 29, 2008

Jilted Port Huggers Lament Oversight 'Poison Pill'. OP-ED









Several of the creators of the foundered JUPC plan for partitioning Sears Island fired back at their critics and at the Maine legislature today with a co-signed op-ed in the weekend Bangor Daily News. READ OP-ED BELOW

Do the trio admit to having made mistakes? Of course not. Do they fault their decision to exempt their Plan from impact review under the federal highway administration's own environmental law, even though it was appropriate?  Not a bit


Do they renounce their bizarre decision to acquiesce with MDOT's demands they sacrifice hundreds more acres of the island's forests and streams than would logically be needed for a port? Nope.

From the 30 acres the state previously found an acceptable acreage for a port, did they  give up without a whimper 270 acres more of the island's forested, stream cut western shore.Ayuh.- and by definition the thousand acres of nursery shoals  in front of those 300 acres that would have to be dredged and filled? Suppose so. They never thought about that.

Do they regret bypassing environmental review of their giant vague plan purely for the sake of shortening the process?  Not a bit. Like mindless robots, they were "charged by the governor" to ignore the environmental consequences  of their plan for the upper bay's brackish estuary, which a port would sit in the amidst of.  

But the rest of us know better . Stand tall, Legislature! 
Strip MDOT from Sears Island's title and deed. Place it under the state's Public Reserved Land status, with attendant payment-in-lieu-of-taxes to Searsport. Not under the privatizing thrall of  overgrown,  privately-held Maine Coast Heritage Trust and its hangers-on. Should a port become a necessity, the need so great it justifies biting a chunk out of the island and fish nursery shoal, why, public reserved land is legally open to such compromises. But a port isn't a necessity. as the three essayists note.  Not for the foreseeable future.  Read their essay (below or  the online version,) and weep.
They just don't get it.  Read the letter to e editor of the Bangor Daily News

Letter by leaders of the  Sears island Joint Use Planning Committee

Sears Island decision a missed opportunity for Maine.                                                                        by James Gillway, Dianne Smith and Scott Dickerson

"On Tuesday, Nov. 18, the Joint Committee on Transportation of the Maine Legislature made a deeply flawed decision concerning the future of Sears Island. Unless corrected by future action, their vote on the recommendations presented to the committee by the Sears Island Joint Use Planning Committee continues indefinitely the 40-year stalemate concerning the island’s opportunities for both economic development and conservation."

The transportation committee accepted every recommendation of the JUPC, but added a contingency that poisons the potential of real progress for many years, perhaps indefinitely. The JUPC’s key recommendation is to dedicate 330 acres of the island for potential use as a marine port and 601 acres for outdoor recreation, environmental education and ecological protection."

These recommendations were developed through an intensive, 3-year planning process by more than 50 different representatives of transportation, industry, conservation, outdoor recreation, local business, state agencies and town governments. This complete spectrum of interests achieved a consensus to reach beyond gridlock and produce the first comprehensive resolution of this long-contested issue."

The poison pill that the transportation committee inserted into its decision is the contingency that before the conservation land can be established, a port proposed for the island must receive all permits. This decision was neither fair to the people of Maine nor prudent for the future of the island, as demonstrated by these facts:"

The 330 acres for potential port use was delineated by DOT staff and is more than three times the area required for development of a container port."

Finding a private entity to fund and partner with the state to develop a port, design facilities, conduct studies, and proceed through regulatory review will take an unknown number years."

During the past 40 years, six major developments, including one port, have been proposed for Sears Island. Not one has ever received the permits necessary for completion."

Any permitting process for a port on the island must consider alternative sites. Improvement and-or expansion of the existing port at Mack Point might be sufficient to serve the need, further delaying satisfaction of the committee’s contingency for a permit for an island port."

A 2006 economic analysis of the conservation program as proposed for Sears Island determined that the conservation land — including a small visitor, education and maintenance center, multiuse trails and related public access facilities — would attract a projected 23,000 visitors each year who would inject $1.7 million into the economy of the region annually."

Why not commit the 601 acres to conservation now, and allow at least that portion of the island to become a performing asset for the people of Maine? Extensive research by the JUPC determined that this will not conflict with future proposals to use the 330 acres for a port."

In the meantime, the island continues to drain resources from the town of Searsport. It receives no tax revenue from the island due to state ownership, but has to provide police patrols, emergency response, trash removal and other services. Further, because there is no management of the current public use except for concrete barriers and a gate across the entrance road, ecological values of the island are being degraded."

The stalemate perpetuated by the transportation committee’s narrow decision should be corrected through action by the full Legislature, in recognition that the people of Maine have a broad set of interests in Sears Island. The balance of uses proposed by all parties through the JUPC’s recommendations encompass this breadth. The transportation committee’s decision does not."

It is time for the entire Legislature to consider the future of Sears Island, the value of the recently thwarted JUPC’s proposed compromise, and vote to take responsibility for stewardship of this important state asset."

END

Written by James Gillway, Dianne Smith and Scott Dickerson

James Gillway is Searsport’s town manager; Dianne Smith is co-chairwoman of the Joint Use Planning Committee; Scott Dickerson is executive director of Coastal Mountains Land Trust. All three served on the committee that crafted the compromise plan

Nov 24, 2008

Sears Island - The empire retreats.

Another happy event has transpired since the Legislature's Joint Transportation Committee adopted the Savage Plan, which withholds approval of Maine Coast Heritage Trust's easement over 2/3 of the island, and establishment of an educational center, until a port and railyard is fully permitted on the remaining third.