Proponents of the project point out that Mack Point will be the only port in the state with adequate rail connections. "You're looking at twelve hours by rail to Montreal," said Dan Sabin, manager of Iron Road Railways, which owns the former Bangor and Aroostook rail line to Mack Point.
    Sabin and MDOT project manager, Rob Elder, both foresee bringing containers and bulk cargo such as salt and gypsum through Mack Point. Exports from the port will include wood products, primarily pulp and paper, along with bulk cargo such as gravel.
    "This port has big potential," said Elder. "We could compete with Halifax."

Lobster Health Concerns
    Lobstermen and community leaders claim they don't want to stop the project. But in the wake of a massive lobster die-off in Long Island Sound, and reports from Rhode Island of lobsters with shell disease, they have become increasingly concerned about habitat degradation that could ruin Maine's multi-million dollar lobster industry.
    Lobsters in western Long Island Sound, between New York and Connecticut, began dying off at an alarming rate last fall. Some lobstermen there saw their catches drop by 95 percent, and many have lost their boats and homes. While nothing conclusive has been determined, scientists are looking at water quality as a major factor in the lobster disaster.
    Considering the possible ramifications of such an event in Penobscot Bay, Sue Lessard called on the State to rethink its plan. "If it's a State mission to have this port, we want it handled responsibly," she said. Lessard wants an above board process and a decision based on sound science.

Face to Face
    In order to get the facts on the table, and address the concerns of Lessard and others, State Representative Joe Brooks organized an informational meeting in Searsport on April 26. Brooks invited representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Maine's Departments of Transportation, Environmental Protection, and Marine Resources, to address the public.
    Congressman John Baldacci, and staff members from the offices of Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins also joined the discussion.
    Carl Boutilier, of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Concord, Massachusetts office, explained the Corps' involvement in the project. Along with several other federal and state agencies, the Corps holds the responsibility for determining whether dredge material is suitable for disposal at the site off Rockland.
    "Where there is contamination we test for chemicals, heavy metals and PCBs," said Boutilier.
    According to Boutilier, if the material is deemed unsuitable for open ocean disposal, the applicants may have to seek an upland disposal site for it. If no sites are available within reasonable distance of the dredge site, then they have to look at some way to dispose of the material at sea.
    "At least 90 percent of our work occurs in the open ocean," said Boutilier.
    He then described several approaches to deal with dumping contaminated material in the open ocean. One option is to test the material to see if it is more contaminated than the material already at the site; if not then it is okay to dump. If the material is deemed more contaminated, then the applicant can request biological testing.
    "We determine if the material will impact benthic species," said Boutilier, "either through its toxicity or over time through bio-accumulation."
    If the material turns out to be harmful, then one solution is to cap it. In capping, the contaminated material is dumped first, and then covered with "clean" material from an uncontaminated dredge site.

Just Say No
    While the Corps has its systematic approach to the problems involved in dredge material disposal, for Pete Jones, manager of the Vinalhaven Lobster Company, the situation is simple.
    "In 1953 when you opened this site it was not a lobster nursery. Now it is," said Jones, speaking at the Searsport meeting. Jones claimed the dump site was no longer suitable because of its increased importance to area lobstermen. "We don't want another Long Island Sound," he said. "We need to close the Rockland site permanently."
    "We're not in the business of putting you out of business," responded Boutilier. "But every site is important to somebody." Boutilier suggested looking at the alternatives that would allow the fishery and the Mack Point dredge project to co-exist. He noted that several other projects in the area intended to use the Rockland disposal site.
    "Maintenance dredging is being proposed for the city of Belfast," said Boutilier. "105,000 cubic yards of material are scheduled for removal from the channel and anchorage there." He continued down the list: Camden, Rockland, Thomaston, eight projects in all; some private, some federal, are in the pipeline for approval. Most of the plans include the use of the Rockland disposal site as an alternative.
    Penobscot Bay lobsterman David Black wants no dumping at the Rockland site. "The proposal for the discharge of dredged material into the middle of Penobscot Bay is not only questionable, but in my mind unreasonable and irresponsible," he said, and warned that events similar to the Long Island Sound disaster could happen here.
    While the Corps of Engineers appears to operate strictly by the book, Lessard pointed out that disposal sites such as the one near Rockland are required to be monitored every ten years. "This site has not been monitored since 1989," said Lessard. "People are concerned that it is no longer suitable. What I want to know is will this site be reviewed prior to the issuing of any future permits?"
    Like Peter Jones, Lessard wondered whether the site no longer fit its own definition. "Maybe it hadn't ought to be a site," she suggested.

MDOT Seeks Compromise
    DOT Commissioner John Melrose tried to present the issue in terms more palatable to Lessard and others. "People hear these numbers and it gets out of hand. The initial phase of this project will only involve 25,000 cubic yards of material of which only 3,600 cubic yards is contaminated," he told the audience.
    But Lessard pointed out that the application was for 375,000 cubic yards and reiterated the Corps' statement that almost half that material was unsuitable for open ocean disposal. "There is a lot of political will behind the Mack Point Project," said Lessard. "People are telling me it's a done deal, but I won't accept that."
    Congressman Baldacci called for a review of the site prior to any future dumping. "The congressman is sending a letter to the Corps strongly urging them to conduct a review, and has invited the rest of Maine's delegation to sign on," said a spokesman from Baldacci's Bangor office.
    Maine's Department of Marine Resources (DMR) had held a hearing, to review the application, on April 13. At that time, the Department had no position on the matter.
    "We need to remember that disposal at this sight has occurred concomitant with the largest increase of lobster landings on record," said DMR Commissioner George Lapointe.
    After the April 26 meeting however, Lapointe agreed that there were some questions that needed answers. "I think it is a logical question to look at the suitability of the Rockland site," he said and suggested a search for alternative dump sites for contaminated material.
    Lobstermen have also raised the issue of off-site impacts from the dispersal of dredge material. They expressed concerns about sediment loading and contaminant uptake in lobsters.
    Lapointe noted that there are other fisheries in the bay besides lobsters. "If we're going to look at off-site impacts, we might want to look at other species. If we're concerned, we need to look at the entire system," said the Commissioner.
    Boutilier pointed out that the Rockland site was scheduled for evaluation in the year 2000, but noted that that would probably not affect the Mack Point application.

Worth the Risk?
    Bill Smith, head of the Long Island environmental group, Fish Unlimited, has blamed the lobster die-off in western Long Island Sound on the disposal of contaminated dredge material from New York's Mamaroneck Harbor.
    "They dredged up 800,000 cubic yards," said Smith. "In it were a whole host of pesticides, heavy metals, and other stuff. They dumped it in western Long Island Sound, in an area that, not surprisingly, was one of the first places where the lobsters started turning up dead. In these dredge spoils there were at least twelve different pesticides."
    Lance Stewart, a biologist from the University of Connecticut, has been studying the Long Island Sound lobster die-off. "We're looking at a number of things," said Stewart. "Dredge material is on the list, but it's not a major issue." Stewart believes the problem may be more closely related to pesticides which have been placed in the area's storm drains to combat mosquitoes.
    While almost all the dead lobsters from the sound contained paramoeba parasites, Stewart and many others think this could be a secondary infection as the result of environmental stresses on the lobsters.
    "What we are seeing could be the cumulative effects of a lot of things," said Stewart. However, he pointed out the difficulty in determining which straw broke the camel's back. "Anything is easy to say, but it's hard to prove."
    In the face of so much uncertainty, Leroy Bridges, president of the Downeast Lobstermen's Association wonders who will be liable if problems arise in Penobscot Bay. "If you had a flare up of disease in Penobscot Bay," asked Bridges, "where does the liability fall?"
    "I don't know the answer to that," said MDOT's John Melrose. "We might have some liability as a state. In the end, if we're liable, you're liable as tax payers of the State of Maine."
    Bridges claimed that many buyers are now refusing to buy Long Island Sound lobsters at any price. "that's what we're trying to ward off here," said Bridges. "We don't know how the prudent consumer would react to a toxin scare. I wouldn't want to have to put a warning label on every lobster I sell."
    According to Bridges, lobstermen are concerned about everything going into the water. "A couple of years ago we had a release of mercury from HoltraChem in Orrington. That mercury is still in the water. We're concerned about lice medications used by salmon farms, and medicated feed used by pound owners. They keep telling us it's all okay, but the fact is we don't know. We don't have a baseline measurement for what a healthy ocean looks like."
    Weak lobsters have already shown up in the waters of Penobscot Bay, claims Bridges, and he attributes that to environmental stress.
    Bob Bayer, Executive Director of the Lobster Institute, said the bacteria were found in weak and dying Penobscot Bay lobsters, but he believed those infections were secondary to other stresses. "I worry about dredge spoils," said Bayer. "it's something I'd want to find out more about before taking the risk of getting this stuff spread around."

Growth and Sustainability
    While almost everyone at the meeting expressed concerns about water quality in Penobscot Bay and elsewhere, most of the speakers voiced the opinion that the redevelopment at Mack Point should continue. Figuring out how to do both is the hard part. Different groups have different priorities. MDOT's John Melrose urged a wider view of the situation. "One thing that's left me sort of unsettled this evening is that much of the discussion has been focused on the resource," said Melrose. "You need to consider what will happen to other projects. I have some uneasiness as to whether we can move some of these projects forward if the Rockland dump site is not available."
    Burt Russell, of Sprague, acknowledged that there was a constraint on how much could be spent on the dredging phase of the project. "Naturally the project limits are consistent with the bond issue," he said. But he claimed he had not considered the worse case scenario that could halt the project. "I'm optimistic," he said.
    The Mack Point project is funded by a $15 million bond issue approved by voters in 1998.
    "The beautiful thing about this project," said Rob Elder of the DOT, "is that Sprague will lease the pier from the state until that money is paid back. That's an important point," said Elder. "You wouldn't have a private company investing if they didn't think they were going to make money."
    In the interest of moving the project through, Elder said that DOT and Sprague were re-evaluating their application. Changes in the pier design since the application went in could substantially reduce the amount of contaminated material dredged from the site.
    Carl Boutilier made the point that dredging contaminated material out of estuarine areas and disposing of it in deep water could actually benefit the environment. "Every time a ship comes in there it stirs that material up into the water column. Wouldn't it be better to have it in a more manageable site?" asked Boutilier.
    The perspectives on this issue of ocean disposal of dredge material, contaminated or otherwise, vary with each user group. Fishermen like David Black do not want to stop development, but they want to protect their resources.
    Rob Elder claims he "doesn't want to create problems for fishermen," but at the same time he wants the project to go through.
    Joe Brooks wants people to keep talking. "We need to address the concerns of fishermen, while allowing for economic development," said Brooks.
    Shipping and fishing are both traditional activities in the bay. A suggestion made repeatedly at the April 26 informational meeting was to set up a task force of interested parties and create a plan addressing the needs of both industries.
    "I think we can do it," said DMR Commissioner George Lapointe. "I like the idea of putting people together, looking at the options, and seeing what we can do." Lapointe believes that when the various interests sit down and look at solid alternatives, they will be able to hammer out a compromise.
    Jay Clement, of the Corps of Engineers, agrees that a task force is a good idea for the long term management of the bay, but that it would not affect Mack Point.
    "It may not be appropriate for the [Mack Point] application," said Clement. "It would not allow due process for the applicant. I think the decision on Mack Point will have to be made in the absence of any committee input."
    Clement supported long term coordination of use of Penobscot Bay, but said that would not affect the relatively short public interest review as part of the application process.
    Taking time to evaluate the suitability of the Rockland disposal site, and test the Mack Point dredge material for dioxin will take time, maybe weeks, maybe years, according to Clement. "From what I understand, DOT doesn't have a year," said Clement. "I believe they plan to get started by late fall. Whether that's realistic, I can't say."
    The destruction of the western Long Island Sound lobster fishery is fresh in the minds of commercial fishermen and the communities that depend on marine resources. "I don't want to see a situation develop where we trade the long term health of the resource for short term profit," said Sue Lessard.
    For now, the issue of Mack Point dredge material ending up in Penobscot Bay appears to be in the hands of regulatory agencies. While the role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is important, Maine's Department of Environmental Protection could refuse to certify the project; although that seems unlikely. The National Marine Fisheries Service, National Fish and Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection agency all have input as well.
    Fishermen and members of the public who want a say in the process one way or the other, will have to follow the situation closely and avail themselves of every opportunity for input.