Letter to John DeVillars, Director EPA Region 1 Coastal Waters Project

August 8, 1994

John DeVillars Region One Administrator
US Environemental Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston MA 02203

Dear John,

I was pleased to make your acquaintance in Rockland on August 2nd, when you came to hear the concerns that the conservation, labor and environmental groups of Maine share about the Sears Island Cargoport proposal. I would like to reiterate several of the concerns with the existing proposal that were raised during the meeting, particularly as regards its secondary and cumulative impacts to Maine's marine and Northern Forest ecosystems, as well as impacts to the traditional economic systems that currently utilize them.

1. MARINE IMPACTS We believe it is important that the potential cumulative and secondary marine impacts, both economic and ecological, of the cargoport be taken into full consideration.

Marine fish habitat protection is receiving increased recognition from both state and federal resource agencies as vital to restoration and maintainence of commercially important species. Congress is presently considering marine fishery habitat protection legislation.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has characterized the habitat resources in the vicinity of Sears Island as extremely valuable and probably irreplacable habitat.

NMFS has recently completed a study of marine habitat of southern Mack Point, the site proposed by the MDOT as their Mack Point alternative. NMFS states that the site's intertidal and subtidal areas "comprise a notably less diverse habitat assemblage than the intertidal and subtidal zones at the proposed port location on the western shore of Sears Island." ('Marine Habitat Characterization of Southern Mack Point, Searsport, Maine' prepared by NMFS Habitat and Protected Resources Division, June 1993)

NMFS biologist John Kurland recently noted that the state's most recent alternative Dİ3 still results in unacceptable degradation of eelgrass and intertidal fish and shellfish habitat.

As was discussed at the meeting, the brackish upper Penobscot Bay, including the waters surrounding Sears Island, is one of the most significant estuaries on the eastern seaboard of the United States, providing important forage, spawning and nursery habitat for a wide variety of marine species, including many that are under federal fishery management plans, such as winter flounder, cod, and haddock.

Consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council is recommended under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act for projects that may pose a threat to essential habitat for species under a federal management plan. Several species found in the waters off Sears Island are under federal management plans.

US Fish & Wildlife Service and EPA New England have both previously voiced concerns about the proposed terminal's impacts to marine resources as well. Please consult Alan Peterson or Jon Kurland of NMFS for further information about marine species in the vicinity of Sears Island.

We were recently given an opportunity by MDOT to review their 'Sears Island Cargo Terminal Marine Resources Impact Assessment and Mitigation Agency Review draft report, May 1994' prepared by the state's consultant, Normandeau Associates. In the report the MDOT severely limits its evaluation of secondary and cumulative impacts to the immediate vicinity of the proposed port and does not examine impacts to either marine dependent ecosystems or marine dependent economies in thePenobscot Bay and greater Gulf of Maine region.

It does not, for example, address the secondary and cumulative impacts to commercial fisheries that could reasonably be expected to result from reduced recruitment of commercially important fish species that could be port construction and operation. Such impacts include loss and/or degradation of forage, spawning and nursery habitat for federally managed marine species and their prey, and degradation of estuarine water quality from increased wastewater discharges from both port operations and industrial development that could reasonably be induced in the upper Penobscot Bay region by the Sears Island cargoport.

Maine's commercial fishing industry lands fish and shellfish worth at least $150 million dollars annually. Fishery dependent industries, including fish processing, wholesale and retail sales, boat dealers, boat building and repair, and a sizeable tourism industry focused on seafood consumption, represent a much higher figure of economic activity dependent on healthy marine environment.

We are asking that you consider impacts to these economic activities that could stem from degradation of critical spawning nursery and foraging areas in the vicinity of Sears Island could cause as you review the permit application.

FORESTRY IMPACTS
As representatives of the Sierra Club and the Woodworkers Union emphasized at the meeting, creation of a cargo terminal on Sears Island could result in major secondary and cumulative impacts to Maine's forest ecosystems, and dislocation of forest dependent economies, as large scale raw or chip wood export replaces inİstate value added wood processing.

The Maine Department of Transportation's stated primary justification for preferring Sears Island over Mack Point as site for the port is that it would facilitate large scale woodchip export to a greater extent than comparable facilities on Mack Point or any of the other alternatives. MDOT has said that although a renovated Mack Point facility would be viable, it will not consider a port that does not service the woodchip industry.

Therefore to meet the NEPA requirements for any alternative that includes Sears Island, the state must consider impacts to the forest resources of the woodchip sourcing area. According to the Maine Natural Areas Program and the Maine Dept of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Maine's forests within the sourcing area for the proposed woodchip port provide critical habitat for four federally listed endangered species and one federally listed threatened species, as well as by nine species that are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Because of this, and based on the precedent of recent federal actions undertaken in regard to similar woodchip export terminals in the southeastern United States, we believe that full consideration must be given in the Supplemental EIS to the potential secondary and cumulative impacts to these species and the general forest ecology stemming from increased forestry activities induced by the creation of the Sears Island Cargo Terminal, especially when layered over existing forest practices in Maine.

See 4/8/94 letter from L. Barclay, USF&WS to J.D. Norwood Army Corps of Engineers; (enclosed) and Final Environmental Impact Statement Chip Mill Terminals on the Tennessee River, February 1993 (TVA/RG/EQSİ93İ2), (excerpts forwarded to your office July 15, 1994). In the above cited letter the US Fish and Wildlife Service notes that "Chip mills... pose a significant threat to the environment that clearly deserves thorough evaluation of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of each facility under both NEPA and the ESA." According to the USF&WS, woodchip export related timber harvesting has the potential for significant secondary and cumulative adverse impacts to fish and wildlife (including threatened and endangered species), water quality, the region's forest resources and other aspects of the human environment.

In summary, without consideration of the marine and forest related impacts discussed above that permitting of the Sears Island Cargoport could cause, we believe the SEIS will fall short of NEPA requirements for full analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed action.

In addition, the Clean Water Act's 404 guidelines require the denial of permits when (1) feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives are available; (2) the proposed project could cause or contribute to significant adverse impacts to wildlife or ecosystem integrity; or (3) the project could jeopardize federally listed threatened or endangered species.

It is our belief that all of the state's proposed Sears Island alternatives meet the above three tests for denial of permits. The state has admitted that improvements to theexisting Mack Point facilities would achieve the goals of improved marine access for commerce and industry; we believe this would also be a less damaging alternative.

For those reasons, should the US Army Corps of Engineergrant permits to MDOT to develop Sears Island in accordance with any of the existing alternatives, we strongly urge you to exercise your veto authority.

Sincerely,

Ron Huber, director
Coastal Waters Project

cc A. Peterson, NMFS
R. Lambertson, USFWS