The recent endorsement of the “sand dunes” bill (L.D. 2266) by the local newspaper’s editorial board, with its preference for the proposed wind port on undeveloped Sears Island over a brownfield site on Mack Point, has raised concerns among environmentalists and community members. This decision, made with undue haste, overlooks the island’s long history of successfully resisting development and the significant ecological impacts associated with such a project.
Sears Island has faced numerous development proposals over the years, including coal terminals, power plants, an aluminum smelter, and a container port, all of which have failed for various reasons. Of particular relevance to the current wind port proposal is the 1995 evaluation by federal environmental agencies, which found that a proposed dry cargo terminal on Sears Island would have substantial adverse effects on human health, aquatic life, ecosystem diversity, and aesthetic values.
The agencies also noted that it would be technically challenging to restore or create these habitats successfully, emphasizing the unique juxtaposition of ecosystems that contribute to the island’s high biodiversity. They concluded that a port facility on Sears Island would cause significant degradation of U.S. waters. In contrast, the agencies determined that a port facility at Mack Point with appropriate mitigation would not result in significant impacts, highlighting its suitability as the environmentally preferred alternative.
Furthermore, the National Environmental Protection Act requires permitting agencies to find the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Given that Mack Point was identified as the more environmentally sound option 30 years ago, it is difficult to imagine that these agencies would come to different findings today, especially considering the island’s increased ecological significance.
The opposition to the wind port project is also growing stronger, with Friends of Sears Island and the Alliance for Sears Island committed to preventing the permitting of the project based on both facts and the law. They recognize that Sears Island is simply a dead end for development and that Mack Point is the only practical and possible location for the wind port if the editorial board is truly committed to the rapid deployment of wind power from Searsport.
