Lobstermen hear facts about dredge projects

First published in Landings, June, 2014.

On May 2, the Maine Lobstermen’s Association (MLA) hosted a meeting in Belfast specifically for lobstermen to review two dredging projects proposed for the Mack Point area of Searsport harbor. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a neutral arena for lobstermen to ask questions of state and federal regulatory staff concerning the projects. More than fifty lobstermen from throughout the coast attended; thirteen agency officials made presentations. “There are a lot of community members who are dead set against any development of Searsport, people who have been active on the Sears Island issue over the years,” said MLA executive director Patrice McCarron. “Since this group has been extremely vocal, the MLA felt it was important to hear directly from lobstermen, without all the emotion from the broader community dictating the agenda.”

The port facilities in Searsport, also known as Mack Point, have long been the subject of controversy. In the 1980s the state Department of Transportation had considered developing nearby Sears Island as a major cargo port for exporting wood products. In the face of sharp opposition, the state dropped its plans for a port, finally purchasing Sears Island in 1997. Subsequent proposals in the 2000s to build a natural gas terminal and container port failed.

Mack Point is one of three major cargo ports in Maine (the other two are Eastport and Portland). The federal navigation channel there was authorized by Congress in 1962 under the River & Harbors Act, with construction completed in 1964.

The navigation channel is 35 feet deep and 500 feet wide. The channel runs for 3,500 feet and expands to become 1,500 feet wide off the piers to provide a turning basin for vessels. There are several berths at Mack Point, two at the state pier (rebuilt in 2003) and two at Sprague Energy’s pier. Commodities received at the port include petroleum and petroleum products and various bulk and break-bulk materials. Oil and gasoline are the dominant imports, generally making up 70 to 80 percent of the total tonnages. Of the bulk and break-bulk commodities, the most common imports are road salt, wood pulp, clay, chemicals, and gypsum.

In 2000, Congress authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to look at navigational improvements to Searsport Harbor. Subsequently the Army Corps conducted a feasibility study. That feasibility study included a draft report and environmental assessment, released in April, 2013, and filing for a water quality certification permit under the federal Clean Water Act this spring.

There are two dredging projects proposed at Mack Point. The first is dredging to maintain and improve the channel and the maneuvering area. This project is sponsored by Maine Department of Transportation (DOT). The Army Corps’ role is to provide technical assistance to the state and recommend the scale and scope of the dredge project based on the findings of the feasibility study. The second project is a maintenance dredging of the piers proposed by and funded by Sprague Energy.

The Army Corps has recommended an improvement project to deepen the depth of the access channel and the turning basin from 35 feet to 40 feet at mean low water (MLLW); expand the access channel from 500 feet at its narrowest to 650 feet in width; lengthen the shipping channel and increase the area of the maneuvering area adjacent to the state cargo pier. The Sprague-sponsored private maintenance dredging project would involve dredging two berths along the Sprague Energy pier to a depth of 43 feet at MLLW, providing three feet of underkeel clearance. The projects would generate more than 900,000 cubic yards of material.

There are two principal reasons cited by the DOT and the Army Corps for the dredging projects: cargo ships have gotten larger and their hulls have gotten deeper. Under-keel clearance should be 10% of the draft of the vessel. For safety’s sake, larger ships that now arrive at Mack Point at low tide offload some cargo at sea in order to make the vessel lighter and ensure the ship doesn’t ground out when coming up to the piers. The turning basin and narrow point of the channel also pose a challenge in safely maneuvering ships in and out of the channel.

This is the sort of thing that makes the Army Corps and the DOT nervous. The objective of the dredging is to decrease “navigation inefficiencies” for ship. As larger ships with the capacity to carry larger loads use the port the cost of commodity transport will be reduced. A deeper channel depth will allow ships to load deeper and for larger vessels to call at Mack Point, thus achieving economies of scale.

But what about the dredged material? The standards for deciding if sediment is contaminated are set by the EPA under the Clean Water Act, when dumped in state waters, and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, often called the Ocean Dumping Act, when dumped in federal waters. The Army Corps conducted a battery of tests to determine the characteristics of the sediment to be removed. Steve Wolf, from the Army Corps New England office, explained the process the Army Corps uses in analyzing dredge materials. First, Corps delineates the horizontal and vertical boundaries of proposed project area, the surrounding depths and currents, and reviews records of previous dredging.

Then staff create a plan for sediment sampling, noting specifically what to sample for, where, and at what depth. Sampling generally includes physical properties (grain size, geotechnical); metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc); and organics (PAHs PCBs, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides). Sediment samples are also taken at possible at-sea disposal sites for comparison.

The samples are sent to an independent lab for analysis, using protocols set by the EPA. The analysis results are then turned over to the EPA for consideration. The material at Mack Point was determined by EPA under the Clean Water Act to be suitable for at sea disposal [see attached tables] and thus could be disposed of at any of the three dredge disposal sites in Penobscot Bay – Belfast, Penobscot or Rockland. In its feasibility study, the Army Corps selected the Penobscot Bay disposal site, off Islesboro, as its preferred disposal site for the spoils from the federal improvement project. That site has depths of approximately 100 – 200 feet and is riddled with deep pockmarks into which the dredged material could be dumped. The Army Corps determined that due to the depth of the pock marks, the dredge materials could be disposed of in a relatively small area of the disposal site. The Rockland site is the furthest from Searsport (25 miles away) and would require an additional 63 days of scow trips versus the Penobscot site, and would require the material to be dumped over a larger footprint.

The materials slated for removal from the private Sprague proposal are slated to be disposed of at an upland site since they do not meet the criteria for ocean disposal.

The Army Corps looks at a multitude of factors when disposing of dredged material at sea. Principally it wants to be sure that the material can be accurately placed at the site and remain in that place. It also wants to make sure that there is not a release of material into the water column during disposal and that it does not have an unacceptable impact on the benthic community of creatures on the bottom. According to the Draft Feasibility and Environmental Assessment report issued last year, the material at Mack Point is fined grained silt and clay that is consolidated, meaning it has become compacted over time. When disposed of at the Penobscot site, the creatures on the bottom will be buried by the material. However, the Army Corps argues that since the material to be disposed is similar in nature to the soft sediment at the disposal site, recolonization would occur fairly rapidly.

But that is just the Army Corps’ opinion. The decision on whether or not the materials can be dumped in state waters lies with Maine’s DEP, which must issue a water quality certification. In addition to the EPA and Clean Water Act standards, the DEP must meet the criteria under Maine’s Natural Resources Protection Act. As part of this process, the DEP must consult with Maine DMR to understand the potential impact on marine organisms as well as commercial fisheries.

The MLA’s meeting in May was an opportunity for lobstermen to learn more about the project and for state and federal managers to hear their concerns. Lobstermen were provided detailed information about the history and future timeline of the project, and how they can most effectively weigh in. “Lobstermen raised concerns during the meeting about the scale of the project and the potential impacts that dumping such a large volume of sediments could have on the lobster population,” said Patrice McCarron. “The MLA is putting together a letter to state and federal regulators outlining the concerns expressed by lobstermen during that meeting. MLA’s role is to serve as a watchdog for lobstermen – to make sure that all the laws are followed, lobstermen’s issues are heard and that lobstermen remain informed.”