c»
''"Mi <*
UWTID ST ATI S DCWUmUKT OF COMMCRCf
Nattofttl Ofiink mn4 Atmospheric Administration
NATIOMAL MAAINI FtSMCMIK* SlftVICt
WOrtTHSASTnSOION
On* ItMkWm Drtv*
OiWMMr, MA 011>0
United Sara Department of the Interior
R9f AND W1LDUH 3EKY1CZ
EVALUATION OF THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS
SEARS ISLAND DRY CARGO TERMINAL
SEARSPORT, MAINE
September 29, 1995
Submitted by:
U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
-------
EVALUATION OF THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS
SEARS ISLAND DRY CARGO TERMINAL
September 29, 1995
I. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) prepared this document to describe and evaluate the
effects of the proposed Sears Island marine dry cargo terminal on
aquatic resources, wetlands, and wildlife. The report utilizes the
information presented in the Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the project, as well as other
information collected during the development of the DSEIS. The
text analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project in
the context of Section 230.10(c) of the EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines
for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material
(40 CFR 230.10). The federal resource agencies prepared this
document to assist the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in determining
compliance with the.significance test of the Guidelines.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CHARACTERIZATION
Sears Island is an uninhabited 940 acre island approximately
one-quarter mile from the mainland in northern Penobscot Bay. A
solid fill causeway currently connects the island to the mainland.
A road runs, along the spine of the island terminating at the west-
central shore, and a stone jetty extends into the water at the site
of the proposed port facility. The island is 80% forested, and
contains more than 200 acres of primarily forested and scrub-shrub
wetlands. Numerous intermittent streams currently empty into
Penobscot Bay. Vernal pools are scattered throughout the wetlands.
Two saltmarshes exist on the northeastern and northwestern
corners of the island. Mudflats and rocky intertidal areas
surround the shores of Sears Island. Expansive beds of eelgrass
exist off the western shore of the island; smaller beds of eelgrass
are present off the eastern shore of the island (Short 1995) .
The valuable freshwater wetlands, saltmarshes, eelgrass,
1 The State constructed the causeway in the 1980s pursuant to
Corps of Engineers permits #ME-CAST-84-241 and ME-CAST-86828-R-88.
In addition, approximately 10 acres of freshwater wetlands and a
stream were filled without a Section 404 permit during construction
of the access road and terminal area in 1985. A court order halted
further construction when the Sierra Club obtained an injunction in
1989.
1
-------
mudflats, intertidal and subtidal habitat found on and around Sears
Island provide an unusual mixture of high quality habitats all
within close proximity. This mixture of habitats results in a high
biodiversity of flora and fauna on the island.
Freshwater and Marine Resources
The Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) proposes to
construct a two-berth marine terminal on the west-central shore of
the island. The freshwater wetlands in this area consist primarily
of a 23 acre wetland dominated by mixed deciduous-evergreen forest,
with some areas of tall shrubs and softwoods (wetland N-l) (see
Figure 1) .2 Six intermittent streams drain wetland N-l, and
several amphibian breeding sites are scattered throughout the
forest.
The intertidal and subtidal marine habitats w'ithin and
surrounding the proposed project area on Sears Island comprise an
uncommonly diverse and productive environment. These areas enhance
water quality and provide direct habitat and food chain support for
numerous important living marine resources, including many
commercially and recreationally valuable species of fish and
shellfish.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Approximately 68% of all wetland dependent birds, mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians that occur in this region of Maine have
been verified on Sears Island.3 Wetland N-l is the largest and
most vegetatively diverse wetland in the project area, and
therefore has the potential to support a high diversity of wildlife
|species.
Seventy-nine percent of wetland dependent mammals occurring in
this region of Maine were verified on Sears Island. The softwood
stand in wetland N-l provides an important wintering area for
white-tailed deer (USFVJS Evaluation, p. 8) . Wetlands on Sears
Island also provide habitat for other mammals, including raccoon,
2 Prior to the unauthorized filling performed by MDOT in
1985, wetland N-l was part of a much larger wetland system
approximately 49 acres in size-. The 9 acres that were filled
connected wetland N-l to the nearby wetland S-l; this wetland
system was the largest freshwater system on Sears Island, and
likely provided excellent wildlife habitat for forest interior
species.
3 EPA and USFWS used the New England Transportation
Consortium's (NETC) lists of wetland dependent mammals, reptiles
and amphibians, and birds to calculate these percentages. NETC
defines wetland dependency as animals that may use non-wetlands,
but that occur in wetlands most of the year or have life requisites
met by wetland habitats that are not met by non-wetland habitats.
This estimate does not include bats, sea turtles or marine mammals
(except seals, which are included).
2
-------
mink, southern bog lemming, muskrat, and star-nosed mole. Winter
tracking data on Sears Island show that the mixed forested wetland
cover types, such as that found in wetland N-l, have a high
abundance of mammal species relative to other Sears Island habitats
(USFWS Evaluation, p. 8) .
The diverse vegetative cover types in wetland N-l provide
feeding, breeding, migration, and wintering habitat for 77% of
wetland dependent bird species. In addition, 2 out of 3 (67%) of
the wetland dependent jeopardized neotropical migrant species
(i.e., species breeding in North America and wintering in Central
and South America undergoing serious population decline) found in
this region of Maine were verified on Sears Island.4 Bird survey
data for Sears Island show that mixed forested wetlands have a high
relative species richness; avian species utilizing wetland N-l
include warblers, vireos, sparrows, and kinglets (USFWS Evaluation,
p. 9; see USFWS Evaluation in general for detailed species lists).
The moist soils and alder thickets in N-l provide feeding and
nesting habitat for the American woodcock, a species of management
concern for USFWS.
Only seven species of wetland dependent reptiles and
amphibians were found on Sears Island, but the scope of the
amphibian surveys was limited in method and season. Breeding
spotted salamanders and wood frogs (obligate vernal pool species)
were found in a vernal pool in wetland N-l, and other herptiles
that may utilize these areas include blue-spotted salamanders,
four-toed salamanders, wood turtles, and ribbon snakes.
Sears Island and its immediate environs provide habitat for 21
state and/or federally listed wildlife species (USFWS Evaluation,
p. 29 and Table 4). The bald eagle, federally-listed as
threatened, feeds in the waters off the island and perches in trees
along the shoreline. Sears Island provides potential nesting
habitat for an expanding eagle population in Penobscot Bay. The
peregrine falcon, a federally endangered species that has been
verified on Sears Island, likely preys on smaller birds along the
island's coast. The southern bog lemming (state watch list) and
eastern ribbon snake (state special concern list) have been
verified on Sears Island, and both utilize wetland habitats similar
to N-l.
Prior to the construction of the Sears Island causeway, an
intertidal bar connected Sears Island to Kidder Point. The area
was dynamic and productive, and supported varied habitat types
including sandy flats, cobble/gravel substrates, submergent algal
aquatic beds, two pockets of emergent marsh vegetation (presumably
Spartina alternaflora), and two pockets of submergent vascular
aquatic beds (presumably Zostera marina) (NAI 1993). The bar was
partially vegetated with fucoid algae, a source of primary
Moreover, 85% of the jeopardized neotropical migrant
species that utilize wetland habitats and may be adversely affected
by the loss of wetlands (but not classified as "wetland dependent"
by NETC) have been verified utilizing Sears Island.
3
-------
biological productivity which supports important food chain
(resources such as amphipods. The causeway area also supported
dense concentrations of blue mussels, soft shell clams, and other
benthic invertebrates. Of the 3.7 acres filled for the causeway,
approximately 1.5 acres comprised highly productive habitat for
soft shell clams (NMFS 1983). The entire area provided suitable
foraging habitat for finfish such as Atlantic menhaden, alewife,
blueback herring, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, and
Atlantic salmon, as well as crustaceans such as rock crabs,
lobsters and green crabs. Shorebirds also used the habitats at the
bar for feeding during the fall migrations. Heavy use by waterfowl
was also recorded prior to causeway construction (NAI 1995b).
The intertidal bar also served as a hydrologic connection
linking Long Cove with Stockton Harbor. Before the causeway was
constructed, the two waterbodies were connected across the bar for
approximately 5 hours at every high tide (FHWA and MDOT 19 95) .
This condition permitted free tidal exchange between the two
embayments, allowing natural movement of suspended sediments,
nutrients, plankton, shellfish, and finfish.
The intertidal substrate at the proposed • terminal site
consists primarily of sand mixed with gravel, cobble, and large
boulders. This area supports benthic invertebrates including soft
shell clams, blue mussels, periwinkles, limpets, and a variety of
marine worms. Surveys of the intertidal flats in the proposed
project area have documented extremely high biological
productivity, including soft shell clam densities far above
commercially viable levels for harvesting (FHWA and MDOT 1987) . A
I brief exploratory survey in 1992 did not duplicate the earlier
findings, but predation (e.g., by green crabs) may account for a
lower standing stock of clams at the time of the 1992 survey. The
condition of clam habitat in this area has not changed, which
suggests that it would support a future recovery of clam stocks to
the high densities documented in .the FEIS.
Rocky areas in the intertidal zone are vegetated with fucoid
algae, and support associated communities of rock crabs, green
crabs, amphipods, poly'chaetes, barnacles, periwinkles, and
epiphytic algae (FHWA and MDOT 1987). This area provides valuable
refuge habitat for small forage fish, which can be readily observed
in tide pools in the area that would be filled. NMFS and EPA have
noted that the interspersion of these macroalgal communities with
sandy mud flats and exposed rocky intertidal environments provides
attractive foraging habitat for crustaceans and finfish at higher
tidal stages. American lobster, hermit crabs, sand shrimp, jonah
crabs, horseshoe crabs, pollock, Atlantic mackerel, menhaden, and
winter flounder are representative species which likely use these
habitats in the project area (NAI 1995).
The shallow subtidal environment in and adjacent to the
proposed project site is a soft silty-sand bottom dominated by beds
of eelgrass between the low tide line and approximately -10 ft MLW,
mixed with scattered rocks and boulders. Eelgrass is a submergent
vascular plant with thin strap-like leaves which provides
extraordinarily valuable foraging, shelter, breeding and nursery
4
-------
habitat for a variety of fish and shellfish species. The plants
typically grow in beds or meadows, creating a dense canopy with
vertical and horizontal complexity which is highly attractive to
marine organisms. However, even individual shoots of eelgrass may
support greater concentrations and diversity of marine life than
adjacent unvegetated bottom. Eelgrass beds of varying sizes,
including an extensive meadow south of the existing stone jetty,
grow in the project area. Virtually the entire shallow subtidal
area is suitable eelgrass habitat.
A 1992 survey documented very high levels of biological
productivity in the subtidal portion of the project area, including
both eelgrass beds and unvegetated inter-patch areas. Small
gastropods (whelks, periwinkles, etc.), echinoderms (starfish), and
similar organisms live on individual eelgrass plants, and the beds,
were inhabited by larger fauna such as crabs, lobsters, sea
urchins, Atlantic silversides, and menhaden (NMFS 1992). Although
not identified during the exploratory survey, additional species
which likely use the area include sea scallops, stickleback,
tomcod, sand shrimp, seahorses, northern pipefish, winter flounder,
windowpane flounder, Atlantic herring, rainbow smelt, alewife,
American shad, and white hake (NAI 1995).
The deeper subtidal portion of the proposed project area
consists of combined sand and mud bottom with small kelp beds, and
is inhabited by scallops, crabs, and a variety of invertebrates
(FHWA and MDOT 1987). This region provides feeding habitat for
harbor seals from Sears Island ledge to the south, which may prey
on migrating or foraging fishes in the area such as menhaden,
American shad, Atlantic salmon, Atlantic cod, and pollock.5
Coastal wildlife surveys show that the proposed terminal
location has a moderately-high abundance and diversity of coastal
wildlife relative to all coastal habitat around Sears Island,
Kidder Point, Long Cove and Stockton Harbor (USFWS Evaluation, App.
I, Fig. 10) . Sears Island has three osprey nests, qualifying it as
a colonial nesting site. These sites are indicative of a highly
productive feeding area for osprey (Penobscot Bay Conservation Plan
1986) .
Rocky intertidal, mudflats, and saltmarsh habitats provide
feeding habitat for a variety of shore and wading birds, including
snowy egret, black-bellied plover, greater and lesser yellowlegs,
solitary sandpiper (these five species are all state watch list
species") , great blue heron, and spotted sandpiper (which also
nests in the saltmarsh). Intertidal and subtidal areas provide
wintering, feeding, and migration habitat for many other species of
waterbirds, including common loon, belted kingfisher, osprey,
5 Harbor seals have been observed loafing in the area slated
for filling (M. Schweisberg, pers. com.).
6 Maine Watch List species are species that warrant special
attention due to possible population declines, restricted
distribution, lack of information, and/or habitat loss.
5
-------
horned grebe, American black duck (state watch list species), ring-
necked duck, common goldeneye, red-breasted merganser, and common
eider. The eelgrass beds along the western shoreline provide
highly productive feeding areas for waterfowl that eat fish and
shellfish.
According to data from EPA's Geographic Information System
(GIS) office, 65 islands off the coast of Maine are greater than
250 acres in size. Of these, only 11 have a terrestrial influence
such as that found on Sears Island.7 Of these 11, only four
(including Sears Island) are undeveloped or relatively undeveloped.
The federal resource agencies agree with MDOT that the
forested wetlands found on Sears Island are not uncommon in the
State of Maine; however, EPA and USFWS believe it is unusual to
find these types of freshwater systems in such close proximity to
the array of marine habitats that exist around Sears Island. In
addition, FHWA and MDOT state that "[t]he forest blocks on Sears
Island are larger than those that typically occur along the shore
of Penobscot Bay" (FHWA and MDOT 1995, Volume 1, p. 3-9) . Finally,
the eelgrass beds found off Sears Island's central western shore
are not common in the region. According to MDOT's consultant,
eelgrass beds in Upper Penobscot Bay "represent an important
habitat for marine resources in Penobscot Bay ¦ and the Gulf of
•Maine. The area of possible and confirmed beds is small relative
to the entire Bay and small relative to the area of the Bay with
proper depths for eelgrass growth ... " (Short 1995, p. 8). The
consultant concludes that the eelgrass beds found off Sears Island
and in other locations within the upper bay are extremely important
jestuarine habitat. NMFS and EPA agree with this characterization.
Other functions and values
Wetland N-l provides moderate groundwater discharge and water
quality protection, including sediment/toxicant retention and
nutrient removal/transformation (Smigelski 1992). Other wetlands
on Sears Island provide similar functions; in addition, some
wetlands adjacent to the shore and perennial stream provide
shoreline and streambank stabilization.
The eelgrass in the proposed project area serves several
important ecological roles in addition to its habitat value. Its
leaf structure serves as a baffle to slow currents and its rhizomes
bind and stabilize sediments, thereby reducing localized erosion.
The plants also help to remove and synthesize excess nutrients
(particularly nitrogen) from the water column, thereby helping to
prevent eutrophication (Kenworthy et al. 1982). Additionally,
detrital export from eelgrass facilitates secondary biological
7 Because of Sears Island's proximity to the mainland and its
sheltered position within Penobscot Bay, it is not subject to
maritime influence. Islands subject to maritime influences (e.g.,-
microclimates typical of open ocean, salt spray, etc.) have
different habitats and different flora and fauna than terrestrial
areas farther inland.
6
-------
productivity by detritivores, which are later consumed by
predaceous fish and crustaceans elsewhere in the environs.
Ill. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives D-l and D-l.l
Alternatives D-l and D-l.l entail a solid fill nearshore
wharf (see Figures 2 and 3).
Alternatives D-2(A) through D-2(D)
Alternative D-2(A) consists of a splid fill offshore wharf
with the north and south approaches to the wharf on piles (Figure
4). Alternative D-2(B) would consist of a solid fill wharf with
the north access to the wharf having box culverts instead of piles
(the south access is still pile supported). Alternative D-2(C)
would be identical to D-2(B), except that the box culverts would be
replaced with circular culverts. Alternative D-2(D) consists of a
pile-supported wharf, and pile-supported bridges seaward of mean
low water (MLW). This alternative would require approximately 1900
piles.
Alternatives D-2.1(A) through D-2.1(D)
Alternatives D-2.1(A), D-2.1(B), D-2.1(C), and D-2.1(D) have
identical marine impacts to Alternatives D-2(A) through D-2(D),
respectively (Figure 5). However, backland associated with these
alternatives in the D-2.1 series has been reduced so that
approximately 20 acres of freshwater wetland fill is proposed, as
opposed to the 25.5 acres associated with Alternatives D-2(A)
through D-2(D).
Alternatives D-4(A) and D-4(C)
Alternatives D-4(A) and D-4(C) were developed in an attempt to
reduce indirect impacts on freshwater wetlands by combining the
access road and the rail along the shore (Figure 6) . Direct
freshwater wetland filling is increased. Alternative D-4(A)
consists of a pile-supported wharf, and pile-supported bridges
seaward of mean low water (MLW). This alternative would require
approximately 1900 pilings. Alternative D-4(C) consists of a solid
fill wharf with pile-supported bridges.
IV. IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
Alternative D-l
* Alternative D-l would fill 18 acres of freshwater wetland.
A total of 3150 feet of streams and three to four vernal pools
would be filled. Some of this impact has already occurred:
MDOT filled 1.6 acres of scrub-shrub swamp for the access road
on Kidder Point pursuant to the 1988 permit. MDOT also
7
-------
filled approximately 10 acres of freshwater wetlands, three
vernal pools (FHWA and MDOT 1995) , and a stream in 1985
without first obtaining a Section 404 permit. Many more acres
of wetlands will be indirectly impacted by this alternative
(see section on "Indirect Impacts" for additional
information).
* Alternative D-l would directly fill 16.2 acres of
intertidal habitat and 18.3 acres of subtidal habitat. A
total of 36 acres of eelgrass would be permanently lost. Up
to an additional 250 acres of eelgrass habitat could be
adversely affected by this alternative.8 This alternative
would also result in the alteration of 45.8 acres of subtidal
habitat due to dredging, and short term benthic impacts due to
dredged material disposal at the Rockland disposal site.9
Some of these impacts have already occurred (MDOT filled 3.7
acres of intertidal habitat during construction of the Sears
Island causeway and dredged 29 acres of subtidal habitat).
Alternative D-l.l
* Alternative D-l.l would fill a total of 17 acres of
freshwater wetland, three to four vernal pools, and 3090 feet
of stream. Indirect impacts would be substantial.
* Alternative D-l.l would directly fill 16.2 acres of
intertidal habitat and 18.3 acres of subtidal habitat. A
total of 36 acres of eelgrass would be permanently lost. An
additional 250 acres of eelgrass could be adversely affected
by this alternative. This alternative would also result in
the alteration of 45.8 acres' of subtidal habitat due to
dredging.
Alternative D-2{A)
* Alternative D-2(A> would result in the loss of 25.5 acres
of freshwater wetlands, 3125 feet of stream, and three to four
vernal pools. Indirect impacts would be substantial.
* Alternative D-2(A) would directly fill 16 acres of
intertidal habitat and 12.1 acres of subtidal habitat.
Approximately 13.4 acres of eelgrass would be permanently
lost, and an additional 80 acres could be adversely affected.
This alternative would also result in the alteration of 33.7
acres of subtidal habitat due to dredging.
8 These adverse effects consist of "reduced productivity" of
eelgrass (i.e., loss of 30% to 84% of eelgrass plants in a bed).
9 Pending the outcome of additional testing, the Rockland
iisposal site would likely be used for dredged material disposal.
8
-------
Alternatives D-2(B) and (C)
* Alternatives D-2(B) and D-2'(C) would result in the loss of
25.5 acres of freshwater wetlands, 3125 feet of stream, and
three to four vernal pools. Indirect impacts would be
substantial.
* Alternatives D-2(B) and D-2(C) would directly fill
approximately 16 acres of intertidal habitat and 11.5 acres of
subtidal habitat. Approximately 13.7 acres of eelgrass would
be permanently lost, and an additional 80 acres could be
adversely affected. This alternative would also result in the
alteration of 33.7 acres of subtidal habitat due to dredging.
Alternative D-2(D)
* Alternative D-2(D) would result in the loss of 25.5 acres
of freshwater wetlands, 3125 feet of stream, and three to four
vernal pools. Indirect impaccs would be substantial.
* Alternative D-2(D) would directly fill 16.1 acres of
intertidal habitat. Over 1900 pilings would be placed in 0.2
acres of subtidal habitat. Approximately 13.5 acres of
eelgrass would be permanently lost, and an additional 120
acres could be adversely affected. This alternative would
also result in the alteration of 33.7 acres of subtidal
habitat due to dredging.
Alternatives D-2.1(A)
* Alternative D-2.1(A) would result in the loss of 20 acres
of freshwater wetlands, 3105 feet of stream, and three to four
vernal pools. Indirect impacts would be substantial.
* Alternative D-2.1(A) would directly fill 16 acres of
intertidal habitat and 12.1 acres of subtidal habitat.
Approximately 13.4 acres of eelgrass would be 'permanently
lost, and an additional 80 acres could be adversely affected.
This alternative would also result in the alteration of 33.7
acres of subtidal habitat due to dredging.
Alternatives D-2.1(B) and (C)
* Alternatives D-2.1(B) and D-2.1(C) would result in the
loss of 20 acres of freshwater wetlands, 3105 feet of stream,
and three to four vernal pools. Indirect impacts would be
substantial.
* Alternatives D-2.1(B) and D-2.1(C) would directly fill
approximately 16 acres of intertidal habitat and 11.5 acres of
subtidal habitat. Approximately 13.7- acres of eelgrass would
be permanently lost, and an additional 80 acres could be
adversely affected. This alternative would also result in the
alteration of 33.7 acres of subtidal habitat due to dredging.
9
-------
Alternative D-2.1(D)
* Alternative D-2.1(B) would result in. the loss of 20 acres
of freshwater wetlands, 3105 feet of stream, and three to four
vernal pools. Indirect impacts would be substantial.
* Alternative D-2.1(D) would directly fill 16.1 acres of
intertidal habitat. Over 1900 pilings would be placed in 0.2
acres of subtidal habitat. Approximately 13.5 acres of
eelgrass would be permanently lost, and an additional 120
acres could be adversely affected. This alternative would
also result in the alteration of 33.7 acres of .subtidal
habitat due to dredging.
Alternative D-4(A)
* .Alternative D-4(A) would result in the loss of 28.4 acres
of freshwater wetlands, 5125 feet of stream, and three to four
vernal pools. Indirect impacts would be substantial.
* Alternative D-4(A) would directly fill 16.1 acres of
intertidal habitat. Over 1900 pilings would be placed in 0.2
acres of subtidal habitat. Approximately 13.5 acres of
eelgrass would be permanently lost, and an additional 120
acres could be adversely affected. This alternative would
also result in the alteration of 33.7 acres of subtidal
habitat due to dredging.
Alternatives D-4(C)
* Alternative D-4(C) would result in the loss of 28.4 acres
of freshwater wetlands, 5125 feet of stream, and three to four
vernal pools. Indirect impacts would be substantial.
* Alternative D-4(C) would directly fill 16 acres of
intertidal habitat and 12.1 acres of subtidal habitat.
Approximately 13.4 acres of eelgrass would be permanently
lost, and an additional 80 acres could be adversely affected.
This alternative would also result in the alteration of 33.7
acres of subtidal habitat due to dredging.
V. CONSIDERATION OF IMPACTS DESCRIBED IN THE 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem
1. Substrate impacts
Intertidal and subtidal filling due to the project would
eliminate water circulation over 16.3 to 34.4 acres-of substrate
(depending on the alternative). Construction of the Sears Island
causeway has already changed water circulation and current patterns
by blocking tidal exchange between Long Cove and Stockton Harbor.
Benthic invertebrates (soft shell clams, blue mussels, marine
worms, etc.) and 3.7 acres of their habitat at the causeway site
were destroyed. Benthic populations and habitat would be similarly
10
-------
destroyed at the terminal site. Localized sedimentation patterns
have changed as a result _of causeway construction. Localized
hydrography would also change in the area surrounding the wharf,
pilings, and associated structures at the terminal site (NAI
1995b).
2. Suspended particulates/turbidity impacts
Suspended particulates and turbidity due to dredging, filling,
driving piles, building bulkheads, etc. would reduce light
penetration through the water column during construction. This
would reduce photosynthetic efficiency for eelgrass, which depends
on good water clarity, and could cause eelgrass beds to be
smothered as suspended sediments settle out of the water column
(Kenworthy and Haunert 1991).
During port operations, propeller wash from cargo ships, tug
boats, and support vessels would resuspend the fine silty-sand
sediments which are predominant in the terminal area, elevating
turbidity levels and decreasing water quality. "Sight-feeding
fishes, seals, and waterfowl would likely avoid the area during
periods of elevated turbidity. Eelgrass beds in the surrounding
areas (i.e., those not destroyed by construction) would be subject
to long term stress from frequent decreased water clarity, likely
resulting in the loss of nearby beds and decreased vegetative
¦density and productivity in beds farther from the terminal site
(NAI 1995b).
3. Water column impacts
The elimination of eelgrass beds due to port construction and
operations would remove a resource which is capable of filtering
pollutants and removing nutrients from the water column (Kenworthy
et al. 1982). Additionally, ambient water quality would decrease
during port- operations due to chemical contamination from runoff,
machinery oil and grease, and other pollutants.
4. Alteration of current patterns and water circulation
Construction and maintenance of the Sears Island causeway has
disrupted current patterns and water circulation by creating a
physical barrier to tidal exchange between Long Cove and Stockton
Harbor, and by eliminating water circulation over the 3.7 acre
tidal bar itself. Construction and maintenance of a large marginal
wharf on the western shore of Sears Island would alter localized
hydrography in several ways (NAI 1995b).
Under Alternative D-l (the solid fill alternative), littoral
sediment transport would be blocked by the wharf. Water
circulation would be eliminated over the 30.1 acres of intertidal
and subtidal bottom filled for the port. Wave reflection off the
wharf structure would modify current patterns and increase
aggregate wave energy adjacent to the port facility, particularly
on the southern side of the port, creating back eddies extending
over 250 acres of eelgrass habitat (NAI 1995b).
Under Alternatives D-2 (B) , D-2(C), D-2.1(B), and D-2.KC),
littoral sediment transport would be blocked by the wharf "island"
11
-------
and solid fill northern bridge. Sedimentation would occur on
either side of the solid bridge. Wrack, trash, and debris would
likely accumulate due to poor circulation in the basin immediately
shoreward of the wharf "island," and would limit the use of this
area by aquatic organisms. Piles supporting the southern bridge to
the'wharf "island" would provide a focal point for scouring. Water
circulation would be eliminated over the 23.3 acres of intertidal
and subtidal bottom filled for the port. Wave reflection off the
wharf "island" and off the margins of the cargo area would modify
current patterns and increase aggregate wave energy adjacent to the
port facility, particularly on the southern side of the port,
creating back eddies extending over 80 acres of eelgrass habitat
(NAI 1995b).
Under Alternatives D-2(A), D-2.1(A), and D-4(C), littoral
sediment transport would be blocked by the solid fill wharf
structure, and water circulation would be eliminated over 24.0
acres of intertidal and subtidal bottom. The presence of the
structure would create back eddies extending over 80 acres of
eelgrass habitat (NAI 1995b).
Alternative D-2(D), D-2.1(D), and D-4(A) would fill 12.2 acres
of intertidal and subtidal bottom, eliminating water circulation
over that area .and creating a structure that would modify current
patterns, forming back eddies extending over 120 acres of eelgrass
habitat (NAI 1995b) .
Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem
1. Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts
Loss of songbird habitat did and would 'result in a reduced
prey base for peregrine falcons, a federally endangered species,
which hunt along the shoreline during migration. The USFWS has
determined that the proposed project would also disrupt feeding and
perching bald eagles, and may preclude bald eagles from nesting on
the island in the future. Moreover, past and proposed wetland
filling on Sears Island alone (i.e., not including the filling on
Kidder Point) would result in the loss of between 15.5 and 26.8
acres of forested and scrub-shrub wetlands that provide suitable
habitat for the southern bog lemming (state watch list) and eastern
ribbon snake (state special concern list).
2. Aquatic Food Web Impacts
Wetland filling and loss of stream habitat did and would
result in the loss of habitat for numerous species of insects,
worms, and freshwater mollusks which are all critical components of
the food web on Sears Island. This loss of habitat did and would
reduce the overall prey base available on the island, and result in
the death of more sedentary wetland species (e.g., worms, snails,
clams, salamanders, frogs, snakes, and small mammals) that cannot
relocate when filling occurs. These animals provide food for game
birds, song birds, raptors, and mammals.
Construction of the Sears Island causeway destroyed resident
populations of mollusks (soft shell clams and blue mussels), crabs,
12
-------
benthic microinvertebrates, fucoid algae, and marine worms on the
3.7 acre tidal bar, as well as the habitat on which these organisms
depended for their survival. Since the habitat was lost, it cannot
be recolonized by organisms from surrounding areas. The habitat
and its important food chain resources are no longer available for
foraging by green crabs, rock crabs, lobsters, winter flounder,
menhaden, pollack, Atlantic salmon, and other species of fish,
shorebirds, waterfowl and crustaceans.
Intertidal fill for construction of the cargo terminal would
destroy resident populations of clams, mussels, crabs, periwinkles,
benthic microinvertebrates, fucoid algae, and marine worms living
at the terminal site, and would eliminate up to 12.1 acres of
habitat for these species. Because the habitat would be
eliminated,, it could not be recolonized. The food web support from
this area would no longer be available for foraging crustaceans,
fish, or birds.
Subtidal fill for construction of the cargo terminal would
destroy resident populations of sand dollars, dog whelks, starfish,
sea cucumbers, sea urchins, lobsters, hermit crabs, sand shrimp,
and other species, as well as 0.2 to 18.3 acres of the habitat on
which these species depend. A large area of eelgrass habitat would
be destroyed, eliminating an extremely valuable nursery, shelter,
and feeding habitat for a wide variety of fish and shellfish
species (e.g., tomcod, silversides, pipefish, and lobster), many of
which eventually become food resources for larger aquatic organisms
including commercially important finfish.
Dredging associated with the facility has already altered 29
acres of valuable subtidal soft bottom habitat, and destroyed any
sessile aquatic organisms in the affected area at the time the
dredging occurred. An additional 4.7 to 16.8 acres of subtidal
soft bottom would be altered by the full project, and sessile
organisms in this area would also be destroyed. Water clarity
impacts and sedimentation from the additional dredging would also
result in indirect degradation and loss of eelgrass habitat, with
associated consequences for the marine food web (NAI 1995b).
Dredged material disposal from the work already completed
involved dumping 600,000 cubic yards of material at the Rockland
disposal site in West Penobscot Bay, resulting in the destruction
of any aquatic organisms inhabiting the site at the time. An
additional 52,000 to 443,000 cubic yards of material would be
dumped for the full project, smothering any aquatic organisms which
have colonized the site, potentially including lobsters, scallops,
spider crabs, and polychaetes. In addition, maintenance dredging
would add another 7,400 to 38,300 cubic yards of dredged material.
Port operations would increase the level of human activity,
noise, and vessel traffic in the area, resulting in habitat
disturbance for finfish, crustaceans, and marine mammals, and
leading to reduced faunal utilization of remaining habitats in the
project area. Water quality impacts from port operations would
result in habitat degradation for all aquatic species.
13
-------
3. Other Wildlife Impacts
The loss of at least 17 acres of freshwater forested and
scrub-shrub wetlands, vernal pools, and several intermittent
streams would diminish breeding and nesting habitat, escape cover,
travel corridors, and food sources for a variety of resident and
migratory wildlife species. The existing fill at the terminal site
already destroyed-9 acres of wildlife habitat and caused indirect
impacts by fragmenting the largest freshwater wetland on Sears
Island; the additional fill proposed by MDOT would reduce the
amount of habitat available even further. This loss adversely
affects many species of songbirds, raptors, game birds; mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians.
At least one vernal pool would be filled by the proposed
terminal, and an estimated three others have already been filled by
the unauthorized filling activity. Because of the limited home
ranges, traditional migration routes, longevity and philopatry
(i.e., dedication to the natal pool) of some vernal pool
amphibians, the loss of vernal pools can devastate a population.10
In addition, amphibians would suffer a loss of nonbreeding habitat
in the forested wetlands surrounding the pools.
Construction activities also filled one of the two largest
streams on Sears Island. This stream likely provided habitat for
a number of aquatic insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and amphibians,
which in turn formed a prey base for birds, mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians. In addition, this stream once supplied nutrients to
Penobscot Bay; the nutrients currently flow into detention basins.
The diversity of cover types available within wetland N-l
provides nesting, perching and feeding habitat for avian species
that use herbaceous, shrub, and canopy layers within a forest
habitat. The veery and woodthrush, both neotropical migrants which
are experiencing population declines, prefer forested wetlands and
would find suitable habitat in N-l. These species, as well as
other migratory and resident songbirds, raptors, and American
woodcock, would lose valuable habitat in addition to that which has
already been lost.11
10 Some salamanders and frogs are laying eggs in the detention
basins that have replaced the vernal pools in the terminal area.
These individuals likely stumbled across the basins when searching
for the pools that had been destroyed. However, it is unknown
whether these egg masses are surviving, and it is unlikely that the
detention basins provide adequate habitat for developing larvae.
11 Impacts- to some bird species extend beyond the obvious loss
of wetland habitat. By fragmenting wetland N-l and the wetland
directly to the south (wetland S-l), clearing and filling the
terminal area rendered roughly 30 acres of the remaining wetland
habitat less suitable as nesting habitat for those species
sensitive to disturbance (e.g., neotropical migrants), and those
species which require large tracts of contiguous habitat (e.g.,
forest interior species, such as the barred owl, veery, and brown
14
-------
Wetland filling did and would also result in the loss of
feeding, breeding, and escape habitat for many mammal species,
including masked shrew, meadow vole, mink, northern short-tailed
shrew, southern red-backed vole, white-tail deer, and long-tailed
weasel (see USFWS Evaluation, p. 8).
Operation of the terminal, rail, and use of the access road
would also result in indirect impacts to the remaining freshwater
wetlands. Specifically, the access road would create obstacles to
migrating herptiles, and contribute to mortality of breeding
amphibians. In addition, noise and lights emanating from the
terminal, road, and rail would render additional habitat less
suitable for many sensitive species (see expanded discussion of
indirect impacts below).
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a total loss
of at least 17 acres of freshwater wetlands and severe indirect
impacts; the filling that has already occurred resulted in the loss
of high value wildlife habitat, and the proposed fill will result
in additional loss of valuable habitat. This loss, in turn, would
likely lead to a decrease in biodiversity, ecological stability and
productivity of the island ecosystem.
Construction and operation of the cargo terminal would result
in habitat disturbance (increased noise, vessel traffic, etc.) for
harbor seals swimming and feeding north of their haulout on Sears
Island ledge. As an indirect 'effect of habitat loss for finfish,
prey availability for seals could decrease in the immediate area of
the port.
Habitat loss for finfish, crustaceans, and mollusks would also
result in a reduced prey base for numerous bird species including
osprey, bald eagle, great blue heron, common loon, greater scaup,
bufflehead, red-breasted merganser, and common eider.
4. Ecosystem diversity
There are several recognized benefits associated with
preserving biodiversity, including possible economic values,
evolutionary potential, aesthetic or ethical reasons, and
maintenance of ecosystem integrity. The array of valuable habitats
on Sears Island (i.e., forested and scrub-shrub wetlands, streams,
vernal pools, salt marsh, rocky intertidal areas, mud flats,
eelgrass beds, and subtidal habitat) contribute to the high
biodiversity of flora and fauna observed on and around the island.
In September of 1990, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) urged the
agency to "attach as much importance to reducing ecological risk as
it does to reducing human health risk." Specifically, SAB listed
habitat alteration and overall loss of biodiversity as two of the
areas of most concern. The primary threat to biodiversity is
direct loss of habitat and fragmentation of ecosystems, both of
creeper). In fact, MDOT's consultant found that wetlands N-l and
S-l currently provide the largest tract of forest interior on the
island; prior to the illegal filling, the wetlands provided an even
larger tract of forest interior (NAI 1995c).
15
-------
which would occur on Sears Island if the port is built as proposed.
Other entities have also recognized the importance of preserving
biodiversity: the World Resources Institute, the World
Conservation Union, and the United Nations Environment.Programme
recently urged national regulators to reform policies that result
in the degradation and loss of biodiversity in coastal, marine, and
freshwater ecosystems.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has stated that
neither public lands nor protected areas (i.e., parks and
wilderness areas) can by themselves maintain biodiversity in the
United States. It is therefore crucial for federal agencies to
consider biodiversity in its decision making processes. In this
case, Sears Island has a remarkable array of rare species, birds,
mammals, and marine fauna that appears uncommon in Penobscot Bay.
It is not possible to definitively list species that would be
extirpated from Sears Island by construction of the proposed port
but they may include area sensitive or human sensitive species such
as black bear, moose, southern bog lemming, bald eagle, peregrine
falcon, and spotted sandpiper, and marine species such as bay
pipefish, seahorse, and grubby.
Special Aquatic Sites
1. Impacts on Wetlands
Alternative D-l would result in the direct loss of 18.2 acres
of freshwater wetlands, a special aquatic site under the Section
404(b)(1) guidelines. Alternative D-l.l would result in the direct
loss of 17.1 acres of wetlands; alternatives D-2(A) through (D)
would result in the direct loss of 25.5 acres of wetlands; D-2.1(A)
through (D) would result in the direct loss of 20 acres of
freshwater wetlands, and; alternatives D-4 (A) and (C) would result
in the direct loss of 28.4 acres. Because wetland N-l provides
groundwater discharge and water quality protection (including
sediment/toxicant retention and nutrient removal/transformation),
the proposed terminal would result in the direct loss of these
functions. Although there is not presently a high opportunity for
the water quality functions to operate, these functions would
become important if development occurred. Moreover, the
destruction of wetland vegetation would reduce wetland N-l's
productivity (i.e., reduce the amount of energy available to
organisms in the aquatic ecosystem food chain). Nine acres of
wetlands adjacent to N-T providing these functions were already
lost due to the unauthorized filling activity.
2. Impacts on Mud Flats
Creation of the Sears Island causeway destroyed 3.7 acres of
valuable intertidal habitat, eliminating associated habitat
functions such as primary biological productivity and food chain
support. Approximately 1.5 acres of the intertidal bar was highly
productive clam flats. Compensatory mitigation which was performed
to offset this loss has failed, as evidenced by a steady decline in
the clam population of all three created flats since 1990. Also,
16
-------
the mitigation sites were created by filling existing valuable
intertidal and subtidal habitats; therefore, the mitigation effort
has resulted in a net loss of marine habitats.
Construction of the cargo terminal would result in the
destruction of an additional 12 acres of valuable intertidal
habitat. Shellfish surveys in this area have documented standing
crops of soft shell clams as high as 93.6 bushels per acre. These
resources would be permanently lost, along with associated mud flat
communities (periwinkles, blood worms, clam worms, ribbon worms,
amphipods, algae, etc.) and the food chain support they provide for
fish and crustaceans, waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds.
3. Impacts on Vegetated Shallows
The project would result in the permanent loss of at least
13.4 acres of eelgrass habitat. Because of the extreme sensitivity
of eelgrass beds to localized environmental factors (e.g., good
water quality and clari'.y, low wave energy, and adequate
substrate), over 80 acres of eelgrass would be adversely affected
due to indirect impacts from dredging and port construction.12
Elevated turbidity and disruption of the substrate over this larger
area from wave reflection, vessel wakes, propeller wash, and
maintenance dredging make it unlikely that eelgrass would
recolonize the subtidal area surrounding the port.
Human Use
1. Impacts on Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
The Sears Island port project would have a permanent adverse
effect on numerous recreationally and commercially harvested
species of fish, mollusks, and crustaceans, including destruction
of fishing grounds and habitat for these species. The project
would result in the direct loss of productive intertidal flats
which could be harvested for clams and/or worms by commercial or
recreational diggers. The flats at the terminal site in particular
have supported soft shell clam densities far above commercially
viable concentrations for harvesting. During field work for the
SEIS, surveyors have noted lobster traps set directly in the
proposed terminal area and seine boats for menhaden working in the
area just offshore of the proposed port site. Additional
recreationally and/or commercially important species which use the
habitats that would be affected by the project for feeding,
breeding, or shelter from predators include: blueback herring,
Atlantic herring, alewife, American shad, white hake, windowpane
flounder, winter flounder, mackerel, pollack, bluefish, Atlantic
rock crab, and sea scallop. EPA and NMFS observed divers
collecting sea urchins and sea scallops from the terminal area in
October of 1993. In addition, USFWS has observed surf casters
fishing off the jetty on several occasions, the most recent being
12 These indirect impacts could affect up to 250 acres of
eelgrass (NAI 1995b).
17
-------
July of 1995.
2. Impacts on Recreation
Hikers and birdwatchers use the forested wetlands on Sears
Island. The access road on Sears Island provides easy access to
wetland N-l, and hikers and picnickers often walk the beaches. The
proposed terminal would result in a destruction of a large portion
of N-l, would reduce the quality of the remaining habitat for
sightseeing and birdwatching, and would restrict access to the
forested areas.
3. Impacts.on Aesthetics
Sears Island is the largest uninhabited island in Maine, and
the thick forests and beaches along the western shore of the island
can be seen from homes in Belfast, East Northport, and Bayside, and
from Moose Point State Park. In addition, many pleasure boats sail
around Penobscot Bay. The proposed cargo terminal would reduce the
quality of the habitat for sightseeing and sailing, and reduce the
aesthetic qualities of Penobscot Bay. Operation of the port would
result in noise and possibly odors, thus further reducing the
aesthetic qualities of the island (FHWA and MDOT 1995).
Persistence and Permanence of Impacts
While some impacts associated with construction of the
terminal may be temporary, virtually all of the direct aquatic
impacts associated with the proposed cargo terminal, and many of
the indirect impacts, would be permanent.
Indirect Impacts to Freshwater and Marine Habitats13
All alternatives proposed by MDOT would result in substantial
indirect impacts to the remaining freshwater wetland systems.
Specifically, preliminary construction of the cargo terminal has
fragmented a large, forested wetland system, and likely increased
the rates of nest parasitism and predation on a number of avian
species, including jeopardized neotropical migrants. In fact,
USFWS estimates that a zone of approximately 200 meters around a
cleared or developed area will be unsuitable or less suitable as
breeding habitat for forest interior species. Therefore, the
wildlife impacts associated with the cargo terminal extend beyond
the direct footprint of the fill. Disturbances from construction
and operation of the cargo terminal would also substantially reduce
the likelihood of future use of Sears Island as a nesting site for
the bald eagle, and would reduce use by eagles that now forage in
13 For purposes of this attachment, indirect impacts are
defined as those impacts that extend beyond the direct footprint of
the fill and result from the discharge of dredged or fill material.
Examples of indirect impacts include, but are not limited to,
fragmentation of terrestrial habitat, shading of marine habitat,
and increased turbidity.
18
-------
the waters around the island but nest elsewhere. In addition, the
proposed development on Sears Island would virtually surround the
entire northwest quadrant of the island. Thus, the approximately
200+ acres on this section of the island would be unsuitable or far
less suitable for many wildlife species.
Construction of the access road has created migratory
obstacles to amphibians and reptiles in N-l, some of which use
established migratory routes to reach breeding pools (e.g., spotted
salamanders). In fact, adult spotted salamanders were found dead
on the access road during the 1992 breeding season. Moreover,
additional filling at the terminal site would further impede
movement of amphibians.
Operation of the terminal (e.g., cargo cranes, railroad
activities, and boat signals) would result in 80 to high 90s
decibels of noise at peak operating capacity; additional noise
would emanate from the access road through the center of the island
(FHWA and MDOT 1995) . This noise will likely render much of the
remaining wetland habitat on the island less suitable for wildlife,
particularly for sensitive forest interior species and for species
that utilize vocalizations for territorial protection and breeding.
Lights at the terminal may also disrupt nocturnal wildlife and
cause some individuals to avoid the area around the terminal.
Finally, water quality in some of the wetlands could be
degraded due to runoff from the roads, trucks, machinery,
stockpiled cargoes, and buildings. This reduction in water quality
could in turn reduce the quality of the habitat for wildlife.
Operation of the port would resuspend sediments and increase
turbidity. As discussed above, this turbidity would likely impact
sight-feeding fish and wildlife, and would decrease remaining
eelgrass density and productivity. Ambient water quality would
also decrease due to chemical contamination from runoff and other
pollutants. Finally, operation of the port would also result in
increased vessel traffic and noise, which in turn would reduce the
value of the marine habitat for a variety of faunal species.
Secondary Freshwater Impacts Associated with the Proposed Pro-ject
The causeway associated with the proposed port provides access
to a once undeveloped island. MDOT proposes to reserve the
northwest quadrant of the island for the construction of an
industrial park approximately 50 acres in size. Given the
upland/wetland mosaic existing on the island and in the northwest
quadrant, it would be difficult for any future development to avoid
the freshwater wetlands entirely. This industrial park could
therefore result in additional direct and indirect freshwater
wetland impacts.
Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem
The aquatic ecosystem in the vicinity of Sears Island is
affected by the existing port facility at Mack Point, runoff from
the General Alum & Chemical site, local sewage treatment practices,
and local fishing efforts (FHWA and MDOT 1995) . A 268 slip marina,
boat yard, and yacht club with 150 single point moorings has been
19
-------
permitted for construction in Stockton Harbor approximately one-
quarter mile from Sears Island (ACOE 1993). Although the facility
was designed to limit impacts to eelgrass, the additional
recreational boating activity could adversely affect wildlife and
marine flora and fauna (FHWA and MDOT 1995) .
Eelgrass in Penobscot Bay grows only to a maximum depth of 10
feet MLW (Short 1995), whereas eelgrass in Casco Bay and in other
areas of the Gulf of Maine grows to depths of 15 feet MLW or more
(Kurland 1994). This suggests that current eelgrass distribution
in Penobscot Bay has greatly diminished over its historic range due
to poor water clarity. Moreover, given the small amount of
existing eelgrass in- Penobscot Bay relative to the amount of
suitable eelgrass habitat in the bay, it is clear that the proposed
project would contribute to the cumulative losses in the region.
Large blocks of forest adjacent to the shorefront such as
those found on Sears Island are also uncommon in Penobscot Bay
(FHWA and MDOT 1995). Fragmentation of the large forested tract
found on the central western shore of Sears Island would further
diminish the presence of this relatively rare habitat in the bay
area. In addition, according to information from EPA's GIS office,
there are only three other relatively undeveloped Maine islands
larger than 250 acres in size with flora similar to that of Sears
Island. Therefore, the placement of a port facility and industrial
park on Sears Island would contribute to the cumulative losses of
these large, coastal habitats.
In summary, the proposed Sears Island cargo terminal would
contribute to cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem by
destroying and degrading large areas of freshwater and marine
^habitat.
V. EVALUATION OF 23 0.10(c) FACTORS
The four factors listed below individually and collectively
are used to determine whether a proposed project would cause or
contribute to significant degradation of waters of the United
States. The analysis below is supported by the consideration of
Subparts C through F of the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Section 230.10(c)(1)
The proposed project would result in substantial permanent
adverse effects on human health or welfare, which is defined to
include persistent effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife and special
aquatic sites. A minimum of 17.1 acres of freshwater wetlands
would be destroyed, between 13.4 and 35.9 acres of eelgrass would
be permanently lost, and severe impacts to mudflats and clamflats
would occur. These resources provide important habitat for
numerous species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and
commercially valuable fish and shellfish. Indirect and secondary
effects would cause further degradation of these resources. The
permanent loss of at least 13 acres of eelgrass, and the
degradation of up to an additional 80 to 250 acres dwarfs any
20
-------
project reviewed in recent times; no projects permitted in at least
the past decade in New England have resulted in this magnitude of
loss to submerged aquatic vegetation.
Section 230.10(c) (2)
The proposed project would result in substantial'permanent
adverse effects on life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife
dependent on aquatic ecosystems, including dozens of species of
fish, shellfish, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and
birds. The project environs provides habitat for 21 state and
federally listed wildlife species. Combined effects total roughly
85 to 130 acres of loss of aquatic habitat which provide important
functions for the above species such as feeding, breeding, nuisery,
and cover habitat. Degradation of additional habitat would extend
beyond the footprint of fill through sediment transport, habitat
fragmentation, altered hydrography, noise, light, pollutant runoff,
vessel operations and other indirect impacts.
Section 230.10(c)(3)
The proposed project would result in substantial permanent
adverse effects on aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity and
stability. Wetlands and eelgrass have been documented to be very
high bioproduction areas. The wetlands and eelgrass on Sears
¦Island are very large, high value resources. Impacts on these
resources include loss of fish and wildlife habitats and the
primary and secondary productivity associated with those habitats,
as well as the loss of other non-habitat functions and values such
as nutrient/toxicant retention, water quality enhancement,
reduction of wave energy and protection against erosion.
Uniqueness or rarity of resources is not a prerequisite for
finding impacts significant. Nevertheless, the biodiversity of
habitat types and associated flora and fauna found on Sears Island
is uncommon in Maine. The significant loss of ecological
diversity, productivity, and stability that would occur on Sears
Island supports a finding of significance.
The significant marine impacts are coupled with the direct
loss of between 15 and 26 contiguous acres of valuable freshwater
wetlands, roughly four vernal pools and almost two-thirds of a mile
of stream. Indirect impacts would extend to a much larger portion
of the island due to fragmentation and disturbances stemming from
operation of the port. If permitted, the impacts to freshwater
wetlands and waters alone in this case would be one of the most
damaging to wildlife habitat in Maine over the past decade.
Section 230.10(c)(4)
The proposed project would result in permanent adverse effects
on aesthetic values by introducing a major industrial facility onto
the largest undeveloped island in Maine. The project site is
visible from numerous vantage points in the area including Moose
Point State Park, U.S. Route 1, Turtle Head Cove, and Belfast Bay.
Recreational values such as hiking, camping, fishing, and
birdwatching on the northwest quadrant of the island would be
21
-------
severely restricted by the presence of a major port facility,
access roadway, and railroad, as well as the potential future
development of an industrial park. Preservation of the remainder
of the island could maintain existing recreational opportunities in
those areas, but recreational values would be compromised in at
least a portion of the preservation land by noise, light, and/or
other influences of the proposed port. Recreational fishing in the
vicinity of the project for Atlantic mackerel, striped bass,
Atlantic salmon, and other species (either from shore or by boat)
could also be compromised as a result of habitat degradation and
loss associated with the construction and operation of the project.
Economic values related to the commercial fishing industry
would be adversely affected by displacing existing and potential
commercial fisheries. Lobster gear in the proposed dredge and fill
area would be permanently displaced. Menhaden seining off the
existing stone jetty and into Long Cove could be curtailed as a
result of conflicts with port operations. Soft shell clam habitat
at the project site would be filled, precluding a future stock
recovery to the commercially harvestable densities documented in
the FEIS (FHWA and MDOT 1987). Historic scallop fishing near the
project site could be affected by the loss of eelgrass habitat,
since scallops can exhibit a marked habitat preference for eelgrass
beds as a refuge from predators (Prescott 1990). Other commercial
fisheries could also be affected by the loss of eelgrass meadows
and other nursery habitats (Heck et al. 1995). These habitat
effects are particularly noteworthy since the proposed project is
unusual in terms of both the amount and quality of marine habitat
that would be lost and degraded.
VI. MITIGATION
Developing a mitigation plan for any of the twelve Sears
Island alternatives portrayed in the DSEIS poses a formidable
challenge. For a permit application to comply with the Section
404(b)(1) guidelines, the proposal must include all appropriate and
practicable steps to compensate for unavoidable impacts. Where, as
here, the adverse impacts in question are significant, the
mitigation plan must also prevent or offset the environmental
damage to an extent sufficient to comply with the section 230.10(c)
of the guidelines (i.e., the impacts must no longer be
significant). Whether a mitigation plan succeeds in sufficiently
reducing significant impacts normally depends upon the extent to
which it replaces or offsets the harm to the aquatic environment
from the project. In this case, the types of aquatic habitats most
severely damaged are forested wetlands, intertidal habitats, and
eelgrass beds. It is technically difficult to restore or create
these habitats successfully, let alone replicate the unusual
juxtaposition of habitats that results in the high biodiversity on
Sears Island.
For example, the hydrology of forested wetlands is quite
22
-------
complex and difficult to duplicate. It would take at least several
years to be able to make an initial judgment about whether an
attempt to restore or create a forested wetland is successful; to
establish a fully functioning system could require a decade or
more. Moreover, EPA and FWS do not know of any instances of
successful vernal pool creation.
With respect to marine impacts, seagrass restoration has never
been attempted in New England on the scale necessary to replace the
eelgrass beds which would be destroyed and degraded by the proposed
project. The only comparable experience with eelgrass creation in
the Region is the experimental effort now underway in New Hampshire
to compensate for the loss of a 1 acre eelgrass bed and 3 acres of
potentially suitable eelgrass habitat associated with the New
Hampshire Port Authority expansion project. The mitigation effort
in New Hampshire thus far is a limited success but it is premature
to determine whether the eelgrass beds wiM be self-sustaining in
the long term. Based on the work of NMFS' Beaufort Laboratory in
North Carolina (an internationally recognized leader in seagrass
research, restoration, and creation), NMFS and EPA doubt that
compensation for the approximately 13.4 to 35.9 acres of permanent
eelgrass loss, let alone the potential adverse impacts to an
additional 80 to 250 acres of eelgrass, is practicable.
MDOT's creation of clam flats in 1989 to compensate for
intertidal habitat lost due to construction of the Sears Island
causeway has not been successful, as evidenced by a decline in the
clam population of all three flats since 1990. According to NMFS,
this experience suggests that intertidal habitat creation has a
high degree of uncertainty and cannot reasonably be expected to
replicate the functions and values of the natural intertidal flats
on Sears Island.
The agencies acknowledge the work done to date by MDOT and its
consultants to identify potential mitigation sites and options for
this project. Preservation of much of the remainder of Sears
Island should effectively address concerns about secondary
development on the island itself. However, preservation does not
compensate for the direct and indirect impacts of the port project.
In light of this as well as the severity of the impacts, the
difficulty of achieving functional replacement and the shortcomings
of the current mitigation proposal, EPA is calling on the Corps and
other knowledgeable parties to work with MDOT to evaluate prospects
for developing a comprehensive mitigation plan that would
adequately offset the harm caused by whatever becomes the final
proposal. This effort should include not only examination of
habitat creation and restoration efforts but consideration of any
other approaches that would offset the lost functions and values
that the project would cause.
23
-------
VII. CONCLUSION
Mack Point Alternatives
The freshwater and marine habitats' at Mack Point are clearly
inferior to those found on Sears Island.14 Specifically, the
freshwater wetland systems on Mack Point are degraded by the
adjacent industrial uses. In fact, the DSEIS states that "[m]ost
terrestrial habitat at Mack Point is highly fragmented by
development" (DSEIS, Volume 1, p. 2-85).
In addition, the type and quality of marine resources at Mack
Point are dramatically different than the marine resources at Sears
Island. Mack Point has much less diverse marine habitat, composed
primarily of a small amount of rocky intertidal habitat, and larger
areas of unvegetated intertidal and subtidal bottom. The quality
of the unvegetated subtidal habitat has undoubtedly been diminished
due to its proximity to the Searsport primary treatment wastewater
discharge, and chronic exposure to vessel operations and occasional
oil spills from the existing facility on Mack Point. NMFS has
concluded that the marine habitat on Mack Point "... comprises a
notably less diverse habitat assemblage than the intertidal and
shallow subtidal zones at the proposed port location on the western
shore of Sears Island" (NMFS 1993).
While the aquatic impacts associated with an expanded Mack
Point facility would not be trivial, there is a marked difference
in quality between aquatic resources at Mack Point and at Sears
Island. If MDOT were to pursue a port facility at Mack Point,
impacts to these aquatic resources would have to be minimized, and
¦mavoidable impacts should be mitigated. However, a port facility
lit Mack Point with appropriate and practicable mitigation would not
result in impacts sufficient to trigger the significant degradation
provision of the Section 404(b) (1) guidelines.
Sears Island Alternatives
The Sears Island dry cargo terminal as proposed would
irreparably harm the aquatic environment because of both the large
size of the fill and the high quality of affected habitat. NMFS,
FWS and EPA have intensively studied and documented the
environmental characteristics of Sears Island and the adverse
impacts that would occur from the port proposal. 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.
14 The freshwater and marine resources that existed at Mack
Point prior to its development were likely similar to those
currently found at Sears Island. The Mack Point port development
resulted in direct and indirect impacts that dramatically reduced
the functions and values of the aquatic resources there. Thus, if
the proposed cargo port is constructed on Sears Island, the
existing valuable habitats are liable to degrade in a similar
fashion.
24
-------
The environmental damage caused by the Sears Island project
exceeds or equals that of most other projects proposed in New
England where the resource agencies have found the impacts
significant. In order to satisfy the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines,
MDOT would have to offset the lost functions and values of the
filled wetlands and waters such that the impacts were no longer
significant. The current conceptual mitigation plan does not
adequately meet this test.
In light of the foregoing, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency believe that the alternatives portrayed in the
DSEIS for the marine cargo terminal at Sears Island would cause or
contribute to significant degradation in violation of Section
230.10(c) of the 404(b) (1) guidelines. We believe the facts of the
case and the detailed analysis provided by our agencies should
compel the Corps to reach the same conclusion.
References
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 1993. Permit #1991-00064
(authorizing the Bangor Investment Company to develop a marina,
boatyard, yacht club, and municipal landing at Stockton Harbor,
Maine).
Federal Highway Administration and Maine Department of
Transportation (FHWA and MDOT). 1987. Final Environmental Impact
Statement FHWA-ME-EIS-86-01-F, Sears Island Dry Cargo Terminal.
FHWA and MDOT. 1995. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement FHWA-ME-EIS-86-01-DS, Sears Island Dry Cargo Terminal.
Heck, K.L.,' K.W. Able, C.T. Roman, and M.T. Fahay. 1995.
Composition, Abundance, Biomass, and Production of Macrofauna in a
New England Estuary: Comparisons Among Eelgrass Meadows and Other
Nursery Habitats. Estuaries 18:379-389.
Kenworthy, W.J., and D.E. Haunert (e'ds.). 1991. The Light
Requirements of Seagrasses. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-
287, 181pp.
Kenworthy, W.J., J.C. Zieman, and G.W. Thayer. 1982. Evidence for
the Influence of Seagrasses on the Benthic Nitrogen Cycle in a
Coastal Plain Estuary Near Beaufort, North Carolina. Oecologia
(Berl) 54:152-158.
Kurland, J.M. 1994. "Seagrass Habitat Conservation: An Increasing
Challenge for Coastal Resource Management in the Gulf of Maine," in
P.G. Wells and P.J. Ricketts, eds. Coastal Zone Canada '94.
"Cooperation in the Coastal Zone": Conference Proceedings. Volume
3. Coastal Zone Canada Association, Bedford Institute of
25
-------
Oceanography, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, pp.1051-1061.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1983. February 28, 1983
letter to Corps of Engineers.
NMFS. 1992. September 16, 1992 letter to Corps of Engineers.
NMFS. 1993. Marine Habitat Characterization of Southern Mack
Point, Searsport, Maine.
Normandeau Associates Inc. (NAI). 1993. Sears Island Causeway
Monitoring Program 1991 Annual Report. Prepared for Maine
Department of Transportation, 39 pp.
NAI. 1995. Sears Island Cargo Terminal Marine Resources Baseline
Report. 84pp.
NAI. 1995b. Sears Island Cargo Terminal Marine Resources Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Final Report. 294pp.
NAI. 1995c. Sears Island Cargo Terminal Baseline Wildlife and
Wetland Studies, Volume II. 96pp.
Prescott, R.C. 1990. Sources of predatory mortality in the bay
scallop Argopectin irradiens (Lamarck): interactions with s^agrass
and epibiotic coverage. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 144:63-83.
|3hort, F.T. 1995. Distribution of Eelgrass in Penobscot Bay,
rlaine. 9pp plus maps.
Smigelski, F., An Assessment of Non-Habitat Wetland Functions and
Values on Sears Island, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, November 17,
1992 .
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wildlife Habitat Evaluation:
Sears Island, Maine (November, 1992).
26
-------
Non-surveyed wetlands north ol Bangor and
Aroostook Railroad on Kidder Point from field
sketch by NAI (1992). Other non-surveyed wetlands
from field sketch by NAI (1991).
Surveyed wetlands delineated by NAI and Sanford
Ecological Services (1989-1991).
Source:
Normandeau Associates
Hay
Wetlands Map
Sears Island Murine Dry Cargo Terminal Project
Maine Department of Transport'
Vnna?se Hangen Bnistlin. Inc
igurc JJ-1
-------
o
a
m
K)
5f«rl/«« HmrUr
0 1000 FmI
1 i 1 ' ' !
f T I » I I » » »
o 304 0
Mick Point
Nor*
Wetlands
Eelgrass Habitat Based on
1992 Observations
Additional Eelgras* Habitat
Based on 1994 Observations
Existing Tree IJne
Streams
10' Contour
l.imit of Proposed
Initial Facility
Limit of Proposed
Expanded Facility
Depth Contour in Feet
Below MLW
Kidder
Sean Island
V VMMkSC C-404VM3101
-------
\
EiWmg
F •«d
Turrvng Btw
(Ml
Ewtnfl
MvMntd
Ne^gebon Ch*nn««
Tr«#*t eel Bmy
T-Y LIN Infernartontf
S«n Island AhrrnciUt D-I.l
V.ir> M.ihiI M.iriiu l>r% ( .iruu I • ritim il I'rojul
Maine Depanmrnt of Transportation
Vanavtc llanftn Bnittlin. Inc.
V OUMCC40«tM)»«|
-------
~ Wei land*
F.elgmss Habit* Based on
1992 Observation*
Additional he Igrass Habitat
Based on 1994 Observalions
Existing Tree Line
Streams
10' Comour
Limit of Proposed
Initial Facility
Limit of Proposed
Expanded Facility
Depth Comour in Feel
lie low MLW
Sears Island
*•« .ir% 1*1 nut M.ir iiM |>r» t .n |« i min il I'mjt 11
Maine Depanment oi Iraniporution
Vina sic Hansen B run I in. Inc.
-------
TJ
t-i
O
G
50
m
(_n
] Wcilnndv
[tfgM ':-Ł'ŁrM,N Habitat Based on
rfKffBM 1992 Observations
|Xv|1 Additional Eelgrass Habitat
'• •''*• * Based on 1994 Observal ion %
—~ F.xisiing Tree Line
- Streams
10' Contour
—— l.imil of Proposed
Initial Facility
• l.imil of Proposed
F.xpanded Facility
Depth Contour in Feet
Below MLW
Kidder
Mack Point
Horn
S/kI/m Hmrtmr
0 I COO I •«
\ i 'i r t ? » i I
0 *>4 6 MKe«S
S«n Island Ahimilvt D-2.1
V.tr* I>l.iml M.irin« l»r* ( .ir I« mint il I'mjc»I
Maine Department of Transportation
Vanasse Hanten Bmsilm. Inc.
It;
Eitttng
f edwe»y Ma#d
Turning ftaato
EiMng
f»»a»yMam
-------
~
Wetlands
lielgravt Habitat Based on
1992 Observations
Additional ISelgrass Habitat
Based on 1994 Observations
(ixisting Tree Line
Streams
10* Contour
l.iinii of Proposed
Initial l-'acility
Scars Island
Ft motirH 04;
T-Y-lIN Internattonat
V.irs M.iml M.iriiu l)r* ( .ire«» I
Maine Depanment of Transportation
Vanatsc Hansen Bruit I in. Inc.
V U*9*S€C-40406M-04t
-------
f)
. mlfe
* 1010894
DATE DUE
------- |