Maine Dredge Team meets October 6, 2020. Plus: what was decided at 3/3/20 mtg

On October 6, 2020, from 10am to noon, Maine Dredge Team will meet virtually using the Microsoft Teams technology.     AGENDA      Click here for info on joining the meeting.  

At dredge team meetings, navigation projects large and small that involve excavating out an area of our bay floors, GOM-floor or river floors - and moving the "spoils" to another location - come under discussion by municipal, state and federal officials with dredging part or all of their mandates. Along and with environmentalists and others joining in as the interested public,  presenting as well.

The dredge team also reviews proposed or ongoing ecological  restoration projects - often more of them than navigation projects. As the minutes of the  March 3, 2020 meeting and the October 4, 2019  bear witness to .

At the March 13 meeting, ACOE 's Mark Habel said there were no large scale dredging  projects underway in Maine.  He then gave  updates on the status of small-scale navigation improvement projects  presently under consideration in  Blue Hill Harbor,  Great Chebeague Island. Surry  and  Brooksville 

Non-navigation projects considered at the March 13, 2020 meeting included Pleasant Point (shore protection riprap),  Cherryfield Dam on the Narraguagus River (modelling  fish passage options),   Stratton Island (Proposed shorebird habitat enhancement,)   Meduxnekeag River (investigating fish passage& habitat improvement);   Pleasant River (culvert replacement and marsh restoration);  New Meadows River (improving water quality and enhancing inter-tidal and salt marsh) and  Royal River  marsh remediation project and  fish passage options at the dam and falls on the lower river.

SUMMARIES & AGENDAS & AUDIO OF EARLIER MAINE DREDGE MEETINGS

2019  10/4/19 meeting summary

2018  10/1/2018)_Maine Dredge Team

2016  October 11, 2016 meeting summary    March 7, 2016  (meeting audio) 

2000  NYT 8/6/2000  Lobstermen Protest Dumping of Dredge By Paul Molyneaux 

Searsport Harbor dredge plans:two updates. Plus Camden & Blue Hill dredge news

Maine  Dredging Team Updates 

The Maine Dredging Team today released minutes from its October 11, 2016 meeting in Portland.  The team is led by Maine DOT  and the Army Corps of Engineers  and includes other state and federal agencies.  At the meeting, the Army Corps of  Engineers (ACOE)reviewed  the status of current navigation improvement projects in Maine. 

Below are sections from the report about Searsport Harbor,  Camden Harbor & Blue Hill Bay.  Read full 2 page report here. (pdf)  *** Meeting participants list (pdf)

Searsport Harbor (1). Ed O’Donnell (ACOE) explained that, at the request of MaineDOT, the ACOE is evaluating options for maintenance dredging of the existing federal project as a separate project, independent of the related proposed navigation improvement project. See above. Mr. O’Donnell clarified that the maintenance dredging project would be confined to the boundaries of the existing federal project, and involves dredging about 40,000 cy of material near the piers. Mr. O’Donnell further explained that ACOE is looking at various disposal options, would like to place the dredged material in a suitable upland location, and is awaiting further information from MaineDOT. 

Rob Elder (MaineDOT) noted that Maine DOT has retained an environmental consulting firm to investigate to assess upland disposal alternatives. In response to questions, 

Jay Clement (ACOE) indicated that he had no knowledge of discussions of potential dredging in the Penobscot River and placement of dredged materials in a CAD cell to be built off Castine and Cape Jellison as part of the federal court-ordered cleanup of mercury contamination. Mr. Clement said he’d check with colleagues and provide follow information. In response to the questions, Mr. Clement further explained that any such dredging and disposal project would require applicable state and federal permits, applications for which would be processed with public notice and opportunity for comment and in consultation with natural resources agencies. Mr. Clement further explained that a project-specific EA would prepared and would be the basis for determining whether an EIS would be appropriate to ensure a hard look at environmental effects.

Searsport Harbor (2) Ed O’Donnell (ACOE) explained that, at the request of MaineDOT, the ACOE is evaluating options for maintenance dredging of the existing federal project as a separate project, independent of the related proposed navigation improvement project. See above.

Searsport Harbor. Mack Point dredging, 1966.

Ed O’Donnell clarified that the maintenance dredging project would be confined to the boundaries of the existing federal project, and involves dredging about 40,000 cy of material near the piers. Mr. O’Donnell further explained that ACOE is looking at various disposal options, would like to place the dredged material in a suitable upland location, and is awaiting further information from MaineDOT.   Rob Elder (MDOT)noted that MaineDOT has retained an environmental consulting firm to investigate to assess upland disposal alternatives.

In response to questions, Jay Clement (ACOE) indicated that he had no knowledge of discussions of potential dredging in the Penobscot River and placement of dredged materials in a CAD cell to be built off Castine and Cape Jellison as part of the federal court-ordered cleanup of mercury contamination.  Mr. Clement said he’d check with colleagues and provide follow information. In response to the questions, Mr. Clement further explained that any such dredging and disposal project would require applicable state and federal permits, applications for which would be processed with public notice and opportunity for comment and in consultation with natural resources agencies. Mr. Clement further explained that a project-specific EA would prepared and would be the basis for determining whether an EIS would be appropriate to ensure a hard look at environmental effects.

Camden Harbor .  Mark Habel (ACOE) reported that ACOE headquarters approved federal involvement in a feasibility study of a proposal to improve the existing breakwater. Work on this project remains on-hold pending execution of a feasibility cost-sharing agreement with the Town of Camden pursuant to which the town would be obligated to fund 50% of the study’s cost.  The ACOE awaits the Town’s decision.  Note This project has been "on hold" since at least May, 2016.      Camden Harbor Navigation Project

Blue Hill Bay. Mark Habel (ACOE) said that the Town of Blue Hill and the ACOE have entered into a cooperative agreement for the on-going feasibility study for this project. which involves a proposed shallow-draft channel and turning basin. See news story.10/20/16 Environmental sampling showed gasoline contamination in some areas where dredging had been planned, and additional sampling showed this to be confined to surface sediments, with clean glacial till comprising the bulk of the material to be dredged. The ACOE and town are also looking at reconfiguring the turning basin to minimize the volume of contaminated material needing removal.

Searsport Mega Dredge: the Four Criteria that the dredge project must meet to be taken up by the BEP

Requests for Maine Board of Environmental Protection to take Jurisdiction over Searsport mega dredge application must meet at least three of these four criteria.

* Will have an environmental or economic impact in more than one municipality,     territory or county;
*  Involves an activity not previously permitted or licensed in the State;
* Is likely to come under significant public scrutiny; and
* Is located in more than one municipality, territory or county.

Let's look at those four in regard to this dredge project:

* Will have an environmental or economic impact in more than one municipality, territory or county.  
YES.  Up to six towns.The sediments would be dredged in  Searsport  and dumped in waters shared by Belfast and Islesboro. In addition the plume from the spoils would likely spread to Northport's waters.  Bangor civic organizations have declared that their city will be significantly benefited by the dredge project. Finally some of the waste would be landfilled. Local options are limited; it may need to go to the Orrington landfill.

*  Involves an activity not previously permitted or licensed in the State; 
YES.  Never has so much spoils been dug out from one Maine harbor, and then  dumped (approximately 1,000 bargeloads)  into one location in inshore state waters.

Never has the state of Maine proposed approving such an economically damaging project on behalf of two foreign oil companies  that officials admit would suppress the lobster fisheries and mussel farming of at least two towns  for up to three years  -  with NO compensation - for a dredge project the applicant itself  freely admits will  at best save two or thee ships a year from having to wait in the Searsport anchorage a few hours before offloading at their Mack Point terminals

* Is likely to come under significant public scrutiny
YES The project has been and will continue to be under a great deal of public scrutiny! It has pitted towns against one another - Belfast and Islesboro against Searsport and Bangor.  Public  meetings and hearings have been held by municipalities,  by federal and state agencies and by non government organizations, to assist the public in their scrutiny of,  and observations about, this dredge proposal 

* Is located in more than one municipality, territory or county. 
YES. The dredging would take plan in Searsport, the dredge materials would be disposed of in waters shared by Belfast and Islesboro.

Looks like the proposed dredging project easily meets all four criteria!

More info on the criteria click here

Lobster zone council to hear from opponents of Searsport dredge plan tonight

Tonight the Zone D lobster council - Muscongus Bay and West Penobscot Bay - meets in Rockland at the ferry terminal. Some guests will be there to try to fire up the lobstermen about the dredge-hell that the Army Corps of Engineers and Maine DOT hope to unleash on Penobscot Bay.

 
Should those agencies succeed, great plumes would arise, watery expanding mushroom clouds of tainted sediments, spreading far and wide the industrial wastes laid down there in the upper bay in the 19th and 20th centuries, as the prevailing currents at each depth demand. What would be in those plumes?

* Coal tar wastes from gas works of the19th century. Burnt coal ash & clinker waste by the megaton.

* The greases, oils and petrol of the 19th, 20th and early 21st centuries' internal combustion age.

* The megatons of waste left behind by the mighty fertilizer factories of Mack Point and Kidder Point of the early to mid 20th century. (5 tons of waste for every ton of fertilizer produced)

* Dioxin & mercury contaminated effluvia of the 19th and 20th centuries from the rivers' papermills, that has come down and laid itself to rest in the upper bay's sediments.

* The sad and malodorous remains committed to the bay in the mid to late 20th century by Belfast poultry plants.

* Supporting it all, former virgin soils of the Penobscot River watershed, set free by 18th, 19th and 20th century logging and farming, travelling 100s of miles, now filling the mouth of Penobscot Bay, tinctured with the many flavors of the Maine Woods watershed plus all of the abovenamed unnatural pollutants.

There is no purpose to the expansion dredging. No Sears Island port wannabees needing more navigable space between mainland and Sears Island. Hence there is no need for the grandiose "expansion dredging" plans of Maine DOT that would set loose all that stuff in great silty toxic clouds, choking the bay-breathers, from zooplankton to barnacles to mummichogs to lobsters.

And, most dangerously for the bay's most profitable and productive

fishery, that dredge cloud would stop up our lobsters' scent receptors, making their survival in the cool dark waters of the bayfloor a matter of luck instead of smell-informed decisionmaking. "Odorem est Omnia!", Latin-speaking lobsters would contend, adding gloomily, "Nihil sit sine odore."

In short, that the maintenance dredging for the continued profitability of Mack Point be approved,with dredge spoil dumping subject to strict contamination and season limits, but the expansion dredge plan be pitilessly chopped away, for the cancerous growth that it would be

DCP Searsport's death throes continue. Company adds two more nails to its own coffin.

Two more twitches of the corpse of DCP Searsport were detected, one on April 5th and one April 9th, 2013:

The April 5th "Petition for Surrender of License",  by Kelly Boden, DCP's soon-to-be-former Maine attorney, concludes with the following to Maine DEP Commissioner Patty Aho:

"Given that DCP has concluded that it is not going to construct the Project as permitted by the Department, pursuant to Section 23 of Chapter 2 of  Department's rules, DCP hereby petitions to surrender the DEP Licenses. DCP has not commenced any on-site activities approved under the DEP Licenses and does not intend to do so in the future. DCP hereby waives any notice or opportunity for a hearing."

On April 9th, a "Notice of Withdrawal"  was sent  by soon-to-be-ex-DCP atty James Kilbreth to Jay Clement at the Army Corps of Engineers, announcing the death of the LPG tank proposal:

"DCP has petitioned to surrender its Maine DEP permits (attached). Although I understand that there is no formal mechanism to surrender the above-identified Army Corps permit, DCP has no intention of proceeding with the Project at this point. DCP has undertaken no activity with respect to the activities permitted by the Corps."

So long DCP! It appears that corporate rigor mortis is setting in. Let us turn DCP's picture to the wall, and contemplate how better our world without the (not-so) dearly departed!