A recent BDN editorial (Dec. 29) concerning Sears Island opined that the plan of the group advocating for completion of a cargo port would somehow “tie up the island for decades,” thereby depriving Searsport and surrounding towns of “potential revenue and taxes” from activities on the 940-acre island.

Sears Island has already effectively been tied up for decades, along with its potential revenue to Searsport, surrounding towns, and the state of Maine, by some of the same conservation interests that now seek to lay claim to the island. Sears Island was purchased by the state through the Department of Transportation specifically for marine transportation purposes. With funds from voter-approved bonds in 1981 and 1983, taxpayers have funded much of the infrastructure necessary for a modern, efficient port. A causeway and rail-bed are in place, a road leads down to the terminal area, and a cleared lay-down area for cargo operations and a breakwater-jetty have been partially constructed.

Most importantly, costly dredging has been completed, leaving more than 40 feet of water alongside the terminal area at mean low water. This existing dredged berth would yield the least environmental impact of any new pier located within the Port of Searsport. Of all the locations available for port development in Maine, this deep-water access, abutting ample land for development, make Sears Island unique.

Ironically, advocates for completion of a cargo port on Sears Island are entirely in support of recreational opportunities and conservation set-asides on a large portion of Sears Island. The point that the BDN fails to grasp is that port advocates feel any conservation plans should be done in conjunction with a port planning and design effort undertaken by the MDOT. The governor charged the Sears Island group to solve the difficult questions surrounding the entire island, not just a portion of it. To agree to an outcome that “green-lights” recreational and conservation use for the bulk of Sears Island without similar certainty for port development does nothing more that set the groundwork for future conflict at best, and likely legal action against any future port proposal.

Conservationists claim a lack of industry interest in a cargo port on Sears Island, stating that no entity has come forward to promote such development. Port advocates have vociferously pointed out the error of this assumption.

The truth is that MDOT has not been allowed to solicit or entertain any port proposals while the steering process is under way. Further, what potential port operator would willingly subject himself to the rancor and legal wrangling that has surrounded Sears Island for two decades?

The correct way to address these concerns is to mandate that the MDOT undertake a “master plan” for the port of Searsport, one that would concretely assess the limitations of nearby Mack Point in both land and deep-water access, and would actively solicit interest from the marine transportation industry in expanded port facilities on Sears Island.

Doing so would yield a plan that interested parties could discuss and influence, while at the same time giving the state the direction it needs to market future port expansion. This necessary step would not take “decades,” as supposed by the BDN. MDOT just opened an award-winning bridge, one that was built in record time, and was started before the final plan was even drawn. It is difficult to see why such award-winning experience and ability could not be applied to a Sears Island port plan.

Significantly, MDOT is also engaged in no less than three major planning studies in which national experts are assessing Maine’s port strategy, freight and shipping needs, and our place in global trading. The CanAm study resulted from a $1.2 million appropriation garnered by Sen. Susan Collins and her colleagues from Maine to western New York. These three initiatives will assess the region’s economic opportunities and identify transportation infrastructure deficiencies that must be addressed in order to grow Maine and the regional economies. These studies will complement U.S. Rep. Michael Michaud’s efforts to establish the Northeast Regional Commission. Why rush into a decision that will lock up 75 percent of Sears Island when the studies’ findings won’t be known for another several months?

The benefit to undertaking this process is that interested parties – both for conservation and for marine transportation – are at the table right now. Does everyone get all they want? Of course not, but it’s in the state’s best interest to involve these dedicated parties in a planning process that addresses the broadest possible range of concerns.

Rather than laying the groundwork for the next legal battle in the saga of Sears Island, the Baldacci administration and the incoming Legislature have an opportunity to ensure that the current Sears Island process becomes an example of how reasonable compromise can benefit the broadest range of interests, not just those that possess political or legal leverage.

Jamie Sarna is president of the Propeller Club of America for the Ports of Searsport and Bucksport.