On July 28 the Mid-coast Dry Cargo Terminal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) — a two-volume, 1,000-page work — will finally be published, and the public access and comment period can begin for not only nongovernmental organizations but also individuals and federal and state agencies. The public hearing will be held in Belfast on Sept. 12 and the public comment period ends on Sept. 29. We are grateful to the Maine Department of Transportation for extending the period.

We want to clear up the confusion about the Aug. 1 date. This date, set at the beginning of May for the Environmental Protection Agency to decide about the suitability of Mack Point as a terminal site, was committed to by EPA when they, and the state agencies and congressional delegation, thought the SEIS would publish at the end of May. It was not a deadline set by the congressional delegation; Aug. 1 would have been after the full 60 days for public comment. As far as we know, there is common agreement that the Aug. 1 decision will move to the Sept. 29 deadline.

Member of the Coalition for Sensible Energy have been reviewing every current report we can get our hands on about this project for the last seven months. In reading these reports, many conflicting answers are found on basic issues:

(1) Is there sufficient space at Mack Point to build a modern cargo terminal? MDOT says they 100 acres for full buildout and their draft SEIS shows Mack Point to have 119 acres undeveloped.

(2) Would it be better to have the mid-coast modern terminal located at one place so that administrative functions can be combined, equipment costs can be minimized, infrastructure investments such as roads, utility and rail lines and office space need to be made in only one place, leading to lower operating costs and thus encouraging more cargo?

(3) It is just common sense to modernize the already developed site at Mack Point, where the current users are already planning to upgrade their antiquated piers, and the roads, utilities and rail lines are in, rather than degrade a Class A (of national significance) wildlife area? Cost-sharing makes good sense. Yet, according to the draft SEIS, MDOT has eliminated all Mack Point sites. We are anxious to see the final SEIS.

(4) Does this port have enough revenues projected to be economically viable? There is no current market study. MDOT realized this gap and is now conducting the study, but does not expect results for another year.

(5) Will there be sustainable supply of export-grade debarked woodchips made from tree trunks? MDOT projects (in the draft SEIS) that exports of these chips would increase from 689,000 tons in their base case year to 1,589,000 tons by 2040. (Woodchips are 85 percent of the projected export volume of this port and are the driving force for acreage needs, jobs generated, tax revenues, trucks, rail and ship traffic impacts.) The sustainable level, according to an MDOT consultant, is at most only 400,000 tons a year in the Truck Supply Region, which is the only economically viable region for at least the first decade, according to this same consultant.

(6) How many trucks would be using Route 1 if all the woodchips came by truck? What would be the cost to repair the roadways? How disruptive would this additional traffic be during July and August to the tourist traffic and local businesses, particularly now with the new businesses in Waldo County?

(7) Will there be job losses at current Maine forest product companies such as paper mills and pallet makers because of the raw materials being exported? MDOT’s consultant stated that a third of the initial volume would come from current users — those are Maine jobs.

(8) Will there be a demand in the export market for these woodchips after 2010? If not, due to tropical plantations, what cargo will replace woodchips?

(9) Would coal at Mack Point contaminate the clean woodchips? Other ports in North Carolina and Louisiana already handle both commodities in close promixity and some even use the same loading equipment. At Mack Point, Sprague Energy is already handling a “clean commodity” — chemical salt — and coal.

(10) Is there a navigability problem at Mack Point? If so, why have they been able to use it for many decades? Why are they still planning to use this terminal for the most dangerous cargos?

(11) MDOT states there are too many wetlands on Mack Point. But even their consultants show the wetlands on Sears Island to be of higher value.

(12) One of two goals from this port is to bring economic development to Waldo County, yet MDOT consultants show the 293 jobs will be mostly part-time, take five to 10 years to generate because of cargo growth, and will go to people in a five- to nine-county area. Waldo County’s unemployment has been decreasing — as of April it stood at 7.9 percent before the announcement of the 400 permanent jobs from MBNA to be in Waldo County by next spring and the jobs at the new retirement home and nursing home currently being built.

We will be reviewing the SEIS, and, if necessary, parts of the other 14 volumes as well as other agencies’ documents to try and learn more about these issues. We want sustainable economic development for Maine as well as modern port facilities in the mid-coast area.

Pam Person is chairperson of the Coalition for Sensible Energy.