Appendix E – Sears Island/Mack Point
| Mode | Marine, Highway, Rail |
|---|---|
| Ownership | Public/Private |
| Commodity Type | All |
| Location | Rural, East |
| Lead Federal Agency | FHWA (Sears Island), COE (Mack Point) |
| Cooperating Agencies | FRA (Sears Island) |
| Review Agencies | USCG, EPA, FWS, NMFS |
| State or Local Agencies | Maine DOT |
| Air Quality |  |
|---|---|
| Cultural Resources | |
| Land Use | |
| Local Transportation |  |
| Natural Resources | |
| Noise/vibration | |
| Hazardous Waste |  |
| Socioeconomics | |
| Water Quality | |
| NEPA, including agency consultation | |
|---|---|
| Use of structured process | |
| Integration of NEPA and state processes | |
| Timing of environmental review initiation | |
| Effect of process on project design and alternatives | |
| Multi-agency review | |
| Public involvement | |
Project Description
Initially, Maine DOT had proposed Sears Island, in Penobscot Bay, as their preferred alternative for an intermodal facility and nearby Mack Point eventually became an alternative site.
Subsequent to the termination of the Sears Island project, Maine DOT, in cooperation with private investors, is proposing to renovate an existing intermodal facility at Mack Point. While the current Mack Point project is substantially different from the project originally proposed at Sears Island, the Sears Island EIS had addressed Mack Point and the regulatory agencies and environmental groups had urged its selection. Therefore, both projects are described in this case study.
Under the Port Planning and Development Program, which began in 1976, MDOT targeted the Searsport area for potential development of a new port facility capable of competing with new port facilities outside Maine. The proposed action in the original FHWA EIS for Sears Island was for a two-berth dry cargo port with the potential for future expansion to six berths. At full build-out it would have required 160 acres of the mostly forested 940-acre island. The port would have been connected to the mainland through the construction of a 2.3 mile-long, two-lane highway, including a 1,200 foot causeway and a 1.5 mile railroad spur along the length of a gravel bar connecting to the mainland. The port was intended to supplement the existing petroleum and cargo port at nearby Mack Point with container and break-bulk capacity. It would primarily service Maine's northern hinterland, which mostly produces forest, paper, and agricultural products. MDOT considered two alternative sites on Mack Point located across the harbor from Sears Island near the mainland end of the proposed causeway. Mack Point is 50 percent developed with industrial and port facilities. MDOT rejected both Mack Point alternatives as impractical given the projected need for six berths at full build-out.
MDOT constructed a causeway and highway connecting the port site to the mainland in 1982 with federal-aid highway funds. Eventually, MDOT completed substantial clearing and grading at the proposed site and removal of approximately 303,000 cubic yards of dredged material before further construction and funding of the project were enjoined. The dredging represented approximately 60 percent of the total required to complete the initial one-berth terminal in Phase I of the project.
The Mack Point facility currently proposed for redevelopment would create two modern piers with four fully serviceable berths for less than one quarter the public cost of the previously proposed Sears Island development. "By constructing the two new piers within the footprints of the existing piers, environmental impacts have also been vastly minimized," according to Maine Transportation Commissioner John Melrose.
The new berths would handle all commodity types, including petroleum, and be served by pipeline, road, and the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Searsport Terminal. No new roads would be required. Increased traffic would require new stop lights in a neighboring town.
Mack Point renovation would be a $19 million joint public/private venture, for which the State of Maine has pledged $16 million from a combination of general fund bonds and appropriations. The balance will be financed through a revenue bond paid by the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad (BAR) and Sprague Energy. A unique provision was created to allow either the railroad or Sprague to buy back their pier site and pier when the state's full investment is paid back. Both parties have agreed to payments over time that would allow ownership to revert to them. According to Melrose, "We plan to have all BAR and Sprague payments go toward capitalizing a revolving loan fund for Maine ports and harbors that would be under the direction of the Maine Port Authority."
The COE has not yet determined whether the dredging renovation or a new action that requires permitting. If a permit is required, the Army Corps of Engineers will fund the dredging.
The engineering for Mack Point is 70 percent complete. Necessary permit applications were supposed to have been filed by the end of December 1999, and bidding for construction was expected to begin in April 2000.
Environmental Issues of Concern
Local Transportation: The local transportation impacts created by the Mack Point facility will be mitigated through the installation of stoplights.
Natural Resources: The Sears Point facility would have damaged wetlands on the island and eelgrass habitat in the subtidal zone surrounding the island. The access corridor's division of the island also would have fragmented species populations, damaging the diversity and health of the island ecosystem.
The Mack Point renovation is estimated to affect less than one acre of wetlands. There is local concern that increased shipping efficiency will stimulate trade in wood chips, increasing deforestation.
Hazardous Waste: The safeguards needed for the transport of hazardous materials, such as petroleum, are already in place at Mack Point.
Socioeconomics: Sears Island initially garnered public support for its potential job creation and other socioeconomic benefits. Currently, the renovation of the Mack Point facility is also being championed as a source of new jobs.
Environmental Review Process
NEPA, including agency consultation: FHWA accepted the lead agency role for the Sears Island port project because FHWA had been involved in MDOT's construction of a causeway and highway connecting the port site to the mainland in 1982 with federal-aid highway funds. FHWA also had an ongoing relationship with MDOT and of the affected federal agencies, they had a local presence in Maine. In the fourteen years from initial proposal to cancellation of Sears Island as an intermodal site, an EA, EIS, and Supplemental EIS were prepared. The Sierra Club's litigation over the initial EA led to the preparation of the EIS. The EIS took two years to prepare, mainly because the reviewing agencies had substantial disagreements with FHWA and Maine DOT. Subsequent to the EIS, the Sierra Club won a court ruling that USCG had unlawfully issued a permit for the proposed causeway under the General Bridge Act. FHWA and Maine DOT prepared a Supplemental EIS, which took over three and a half years, before deciding that the use of Sears Island had become economically infeasible.
In terms of agency consultation, FHWA and MDOT held at least two scoping meetings with all of the agencies participating in the EIS process. FHWA and MDOT also circulated a preliminary draft EIS among these agencies. Several of the agencies criticized MDOT for rejecting both Mack Point sites as impracticable alternative sites for the project. They suggested carrying the Mack Point alternatives through the full impact analysis at the same level as the Sears Island site. There was also disagreement particularly from FWS and EPA, over the MDOT proposal for analyzing secondary impacts, which were being limited to currently viable development alternatives. EPA's written comments to FHWA on the preliminary draft EIS argued against FHWA and MDOT's position that there were no viable alternatives to the Sears Island site. They also strongly disagreed with only analyzing secondary growth likely to occur as a result of the port while not evaluating potential development due to the newly created access road to the island. MDOT decided to fully analyze the Mack Point alternatives in the Final EIS. Simultaneously, EPA hired their own consultant to prepare a study on the practicability of the Mack Point alternatives. EPA and their consultants met with FHWA and MDOT to discuss the conflicts between the findings of their respective consultants. There was a conflict among the consultants regarding the adequacy of two berths versus six berths for the twenty-year design life.
FHWA and MDOT circulated a preliminary Final EIS for Sears Island and issued the Final EIS in the face of continued opposition from FWS, NMFS, and EPA. Those agencies and the Sierra Club submitted additional comments on the Final EIS before FHWA issued its ROD.
As part of the COE review of the Section 404 permit application for Sears Island, the COE met with EPA, FWS, and NMFS to discuss their opposition to the project. The COE was unable to resolve their concerns and issued the COE ROD approving the MDOT application. EPA pursued a formal review of the COE Division Engineer's decision through the Assistant Secretary of the Army, who issued the final COE approval. The USCG also issued its ROD permitting MDOT to construct the causeway.
FHWA and MDOT prepared a Supplemental EIS, because subsequent to the Final EIS, FHWA and MDOT determined that a six-berth facility would require 124 acres of upland rather than 50. MDOT subsequently determined that Sears Island had become economically infeasible.
The identification of all necessary permits for the Mack Point renovation is pending the Army Corps of Engineer's decision regarding the nature of the dredging. Should a review be deemed necessary, an EA would most likely be completed, with the Army Corps of Engineers serving as the lead agency.
Use of a structured process: For Sears Island, Maine DOT started with FHWA's standard approach to NEPA reviews, but over the course of the lengthy review process they had difficulty following the approach. In addition, Sears Island was part of a "three port strategy" for the state, so there was a larger planning context. Maine DOT has taken a standard approach to planning the Mack Point renovation. Maine DOT has worked with FHWA to begin the NEPA process earlier in their planning activities and to better integrate the project planning and NEPA review processes for all projects.
Effect of process on project design and alternatives: The Sears Island project plans and alternatives were altered and eventually abandoned after review. Prior to abandoning the Sears Island site, concerns over wetlands resulted in the reconfiguration of structural designs and drainage patterns.
Multi-agency review: The proposed Sears Island project triggered substantial multi-agency review efforts as discussed above. Some of these reviews led to additional studies and NEPA documents.
Public involvement: Initially, Sears Island had public support. Approximately 100 people attended the public hearing on the Draft EIS. Most of the people who spoke were from the local community and expressed support for the project because of the potential for job creation in this economically depressed area. The shipping interests believed that the Mack Point facilities were outmoded, overcrowded, and unsafe. The Sierra Club's opposition focused on the underlying assumptions for the facility rather than on environmental issues. They argued that the project was unneeded and based on erroneous or misleading and/or incorrect data in the Draft EIS. Eventually, other environmental groups, summer residents, and others strongly objected to the facility. Public involvement in the planning and review of the Sears Island facility consisted of sporadic public meetings until the initiation of the supplemental EIS, for which formal public meetings were regularly held. Maine DOT has incorporated the public into planning of the Mack Point renovation through regular public meetings and a town oversight group that acts as an intermediary between the local citizens and the project group.
previous | next
