The recent position of this newspaper’s editorial board on the “sand dunes” bill (L.D. 2266) and its preference for the siting of the proposed wind port on undeveloped Sears Island rather than at a brownfield site on Mack Point was short-sighted, given its hurry-up attitude, and it lacked the historical perspective to understand that Sears Island has successfully resisted development since the Sears family owned it in the 1800s.

An impressive list of projects has come to Sears Island to die. A coal terminal, a coal-fired power plant, an oil-fired power plant, an aluminum smelter, a nuclear plant, a dry cargo terminal, a liquefied natural gas terminal and a container port have all been proposed and failed for a variety of reasons. But most applicable to this wind port proposal were the plans for a dry cargo terminal.

In 1995 the U.S. EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service evaluated the significance of impacts of a proposed dry cargo terminal on Sears Island as required under National Environmental Protection Act regulations.

They found that “the proposed project would have substantial permanent adverse effects on … human health and welfare… life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife… aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability … and aesthetic values.”

On mitigation, they noted that “it is technically difficult to restore or create these habitats successfully, let alone replicate the unusual juxtaposition of habitats that result in the high biodiversity on Sears Island.”

On the Sears Island alternatives presented, these agencies concluded: “All three federal environmental agencies believe that the impacts associated with a Sears Island port facility would cause significant degradation of waters of the United States.”

On the Mack Point alternative, the agencies said that “a port facility at Mack Point with appropriate and practicable mitigation would not result in impacts sufficient to trigger the significant degradation provision” of federal guidelines.

The Press Herald editorial board must know that the National Environmental Protection Act requires the permitting agencies to find the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. That is obviously Mack Point as it was 30 years ago.

Please remember that the wind port project is significantly larger and more impactful than the cargo port was. It is hard to imagine these same agencies will come to different findings 30 years on, when the singular ecological attributes of the island are even more unique and of even greater ecological significance and value.

Also, please realize that the friends and allies of Sears Island are larger and louder than 30 years ago and are rightfully committed to prevent the permitting of the wind port project based on the facts and the law. They will fight it for years to come. Sears Island is simply a dead end.

If the editorial board is truly committed to the rapid deployment of wind power from Searsport, then it must reevaluate its position and back Mack Point as the only practical and possible location for the wind port.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Opinion: Gov. Brennan knew a thing or two about courage

Next »

Opinion: Stop saying ‘immigrants do jobs Americans don’t want to do’