The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Nancy Galland of Rockland is a retired organic farmer and advocate for protecting the environment.
A bill currently being considered by the Maine Legislature, LD 2266 as amended to change the bill title to An Act Regarding Restoration and Protection of Coastal Sand Dune Systems and Permitting of an Offshore Wind Terminal on Sears Island, authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection to grant a permit under the Natural Resources Protection Act for an offshore wind terminal located in a coastal sand dune system despite any provision of law regarding activities in coastal sand dune systems to the contrary (i.e. protections) as long as all other applicable permitting and licensing criteria are met.
Note the words “protection of coastal sand dune systems.” I believe it would be more honest to say “removal of protections.” I believe it actuates a violation of current sand dune protections in the DEP’s Chapter 355 Coastal Sand Dune Rules, by removing existing protections for the dune involved, apparently deemed an obstacle to siting a wind energy port on Sears Island. Worse yet, it could set a precedent to bypass DEP sand dune protection laws for future industrial projects.
Maine’s sand dune protections are among the strictest in the country, with Maine having the longest tidal shoreline among coastal states, with the exception of Alaska. As we have seen already, dunes that withstood the test of time for centuries are now eroding from the onslaught of 100-year storms coming at a pace of three in the first three months of this year in Maine. The amendment to LD 2266 includes $1 million for reconstruction of a new sand dune to be built upstage from the destroyed dune.
The Washington Post recently detailed the fatal folly inherent in dune reconstruction. Alison Branco, climate adaptation director at the Nature Conservancy in New York, explained in the article that the slow process of dune formation over many years is “part of why a natural dune that has formed gradually is not the same as a big pile of sand that you might dump.”
Sally Hacker, a coastal ecologist and professor at Oregon State University, warned, the Post said, that creating a hardy dune takes time. “If you plant vegetation first and let the sand build up naturally … it could be five to 10 years before it’s tall and stable enough to withstand erosion,” the Post reported. “But even if it’s in the right place, experts say a man-made dune might not be as resilient as one that formed naturally, especially if it doesn’t have time to develop.”
“It’s all about the root system underneath,” Hacker said. “That network of roots stabilizes the dune and keeps it from eroding.”
The Post offered this cautionary tale: “In Salisbury, Mass., for example, a local group spent more than $500,000 to build a protective dune that washed away in a matter of days after a strong storm pummeled the beachside town.”
What’s the rush in Maine? Follow the money. I was told that passage of the bill is essential for a federal grant. Consider that the National Environmental Protection Act of 1970 authorizes federal agencies to refuse funds to any agency if the effects of the proposed actions will have deleterious effects on the environment or communities, or even if there’s public controversy over the project. The way I see it, if the sand dune in question is still under legal protection when the state requests federal funds for siting on Sears Island, those funds could be denied.
It seems to me that the only rationale for this bill is to derail the fact that Sears Island should not be considered in the first place. But also consider that just 6,000 feet from it is Mack Point, owned by Sprague Energy, where there are 100 acres of flat land ready and waiting for an offshore wind terminal.
LD 2266 needs to be defeated.