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 63 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 64 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 65 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 66 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 67 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 68 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 69 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 70 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 71 Dye Concentration vs Depth  [missing]

Fig 72 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 73 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 74 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975  

Fig 75 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 

Fig 76 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 77 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 78 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 79 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 80 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 81 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 82 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 83 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

Fig 84 Dye Concentration vs Depth July 16, 1975

END REPORT

 

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.

MIcro-societies need a break! (through)

Increasing the politeness and decreasing the brutality of  our interactions with Earth's wild micro-societies populating our  earth, wind and sea is critical as we degrade and destroy  the societies of  their larger bretheren  of our macrosphere

First step is understanding them

Recent advances have revealed that bacteria

*  communicate within their own species AND 

"Listen in’ and ‘broadcast to’ unrelated bacterial species to intercept messages and even coerce cohabitants into behavioural modifications, either for the good of the population or for the benefit of one species over another. 

MICRO-CHEATERS:   Quorum-sensing and Cheating in Bacterial Biofilms

ABSTRACT: The idea from human societies that self-interest can lead to a breakdown of cooperation at the group level is sometimes termed the public goods dilemma. We tested this idea in the bacteria species Pseudomonas aeruginosa, by examining the influence of putative cheats that do not cooperate via cell-to-cell signalling (quorum-sensing, QS). 

Quorum Sensing is not limited to the bacterial kingdom.  The study of two-way  intercellular signalling networks between bacteria (prokaryotes: organisms without  cell nuclei and mitrochondria )  and with both  both single-celled and multicellular eukaryotes (organisms with their chromosomes stashed in each  cell's  nucleus and mitochondria) as well as between eukaryotes is just beginning to unveil a rich diversity of communication pathways. 

(End Intro excerpts). 

We found that:  

 (i) QS cheating occurs in biofilm populations owing to exploitation of QS-regulated public goods; 

 (ii) the thickness and density of biofilms was reduced by the presence of non-cooperative cheats; 

 (iii) population growth was reduced by the presence of cheats, and this reduction was greater in biofilms than in planktonic populations; 

(iv) the susceptibility of biofilms to antibiotics was increased by the presence of cheats; and (v) coercing cooperator cells to increase their level of cooperation decreases the extent to which the presence of cheats reduces population productivity. 

Our results provide clear support that conflict over public goods reduces population fitness in bacterial biofilms, and that this effect is greater than in planktonic populations.

Quorum sensing protects bacterial co-operation from exploitation by cheats

Definitions: (From Wikipedia, whose microbiology contributors sare pretty solid)

*  Prokaryotes.  "Quorum Sensing"   "microbial intelligence "  "swarm intelligence"  Biofilms

FROM NOAA:  Marine microbes (NOAA)  

Useful research papers

2020   Quorum Sensing Communication: Molecularly Connecting Cells, Their Neighbors, and Even Devices

2009   Quorum  Sensing and local networking in the microbial world Centre for Biomolecular Sciences, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK

Cross-kingdom Signalling: Exploitation of Bacterial Quorum Sensing Molecules by the Green Seaweed Ulva

HOW WE BLOCK THEIR SPEECH

2020 Prevention of Biofilm Formation by Quorum Quenching

  2005 * Disrupting quorum sensing in seawater abolishes attraction of zoospores of green alga Ulva to bacterial Biofilms. 

* Microbial Communication:Quorum Sensing Drives the Evolution of Cooperation & Cheating in Bacteria 

* Bacterial conversations have impact on climate Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

http://comenius.susqu.edu/biol/312/quorumsensingandsocialnetworkinginthemicrobialworld.pdf

HOW THEY SPEAK    

Definitions: (From Wikipedia, whose microbiology contributers seem pretty solid)

*  Prokaryotes.  "Quorum Sensing"   "microbial intelligence "  "swarm intelligence"  Biofilms

biofilm Environ Microbiol. 2005 Feb;7

* Engineering viruses to destroy biofilms. Dr. Timothy Lu (scroll down that page to see descriptive images of what he's up to)

Prenylated Diresorcinols Inhibit Bacterial Quorum Sensing

Adaptive Response of Bacterial Quorum Sensing Modeling bacterial quorum sensing can be possible

Current understanding of multi-species biofilms

The alphaproteobacterial Roseobacter group

Human attitude needs to broaden. As noted above most researchers looking deeply into the society and languages of the microbes are doing so as medical researchers, who identify the species they study as "bad" organisms. They are interested understanding the intricacies of the eukaryotic world's communication  so that they can disrupt it as a means of destroying  microbial communities and preventing future microcommunited from forming

Still what they have learned along the way is important, and it is important for microbiology researchers to  be able  to respond to the concerns of by deep ecologists of the overarching value of the rest of the microbes which are overwhelmingly friendly or oblivious of human beings. and our co-mega flora and fauna.

Micro species. How they defend themselves.

Biofilms and  Eukaryotic cell death programs.    Single celled organism exude a chemical 

Single celled organism exude a chemical that  directs an encroaching  eukaryotic cell's genetic machinery to shut  down. .

 it is not wholly unexpected that Gaia considers switching back planetary biomass to prokaryotes-only, .  

The communities of the one celled organisms with no cell nuclei, mitochondria or other "organelles" complicating their internal structure. Organisms that are capable of living interchangeably as individuals and as temporary multicellular communities. We call them "bacteria" and "archaea" (the latter being a fairly recently-differentiated  seperate one-celled kingdom)

Here are  some basics to set the stage for further considerations.  Links to backgrounders about this interesting society that are accessible to the general reader as well as the  meaning requiring only a general knowledge of the life sciences.  

A note on Kingdom-ism.  

To a carpenter, every problem is a nail, its said,and, with the majority of  those studying microspeech being within the biomedical disease fighting field, bacterial communication is bacterial outbreak needs its communication utterly disrupted, its defenses piercedevery challenge with bacteria  disrupting it and of destroying their communities. 

While comprehensible for the minuscule percent of prokaryotes that are "pathogenic",  it is important to try to limit attacks against quorum sensing to those disease species only, leaving the benign majority of prokaryotes unharmed.  Will that be possible? 

For it is likely that 

(1) The great flush of pharmaceuticals into our  rivers and coastal waters via sewage treatment plants that don't break down these chemicals will send them them in concentrated pulses into the receiving rivers and bays.  and 

(2) Another direction in anti-quorum sensing research is developing means of keeping bacteria from settling on aquaculture nets, ships' hulls,  piers  and other surfaces, thence providing an attractive substrate to settle on for larger organisms like seaweeds, mussels, sponges, barnacles , thus "fouling" the suerface.    How can that be done without  impacting the microcommunities carrying out this necessary function in the nearby coves or downstream places beyond those treated pilings and nets?

Ron Huber
Friends of Penobscot Bay: a Waterkeeper Alliance Affiliate

Sears Island. State agencies involved in Maine offshore windport site review

Part 1 Department of Marine Resources

DMR FOAA contact Charlene.L.Beringer 624-6553 32 Blossom Ln Augusta ME 04333-0017

DMR Offshore Wind-tasked  Staff

Meredith Meldenson  meredith.mendelson@maine.gov

Deputy Commissioner   Duties: Fed policy issues (appropriations, legislation), emerging issues (incl. offshore wind

Ethan J. Taulbee ethan.j.taulbee@maine.gov
Div of "Ecology and the Environment". Wind & Trawl survey - Wind

Erin Wilkinson    erin.wilkinson@maine.gov  530-1001 Augusta, Policy Coordinator for Offshore Wind and Whales,    She has been in DMR since 20129. Commissioner's Office since Dec 2021  Before that six  years with NOAA Fisheries 

Casey Yanos  350-7165  casey.yanos@maine.gov   Boothbay Harbor Lab 

Marine Ecology and Evolutionary Scientist; Science Equity and Diversity

Division of "Ecology and the Environment"  "Scientist for offshore wind and the environment"

 (She/Her) 2nd degree connection  University of Groningen, Netherlands

 Her COA student Profile 

Profiles

logiLINKS 

https://www.carrabassettvalley.org/wp-content/uploads/assets-migrated/SugarloafAirportTaxiwayHangarSLDA3.pdf 

 2018 Atlantic Salmon Ecosystems Forum.  Program and Abstracts
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/23032

....

Session II: Estuarine and Marine Ecology Patrick Dockens, Wildlife Biologist, US Fish and Wilblife servicedlife Biologistst, US Fish and W

Maine Joint Use Planning Committee, 2007 - 2009

Audio recordings of meetings and hearings of Maine Legislature's Transportation Committee and MDOT's Sears Island Joint Use Planning Committee, 2007-2009 (mp3s)

Joint Use Planning Committee Agendas & Meeting Summaries, 2007-2008

Joint Use Planning Committee Official Documents 2007-2009

Sears Island Media Archive 1980's -1990s

Sears Island WERU Debate: Sierra Club v. Fair Play for Sears Island.

Sears Island LNG Struggle 2004-2005

Sears Island Woodchip port struggle 1990's