Maine port development studies executive summary

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Maine Port COASTAL ZONE
Development Study INFORMATION CENTER

AAwAL..,kL. w&AA

RUDEN LINES'

Q.1 -4.
Executive Sum.mciry
1978

GA"hL@Itfto COLLLmCTION
HE
554 kine
A3 partment
M@5
5547
-A3
M35
1978 portation

Maine Port Development Studie/
COASTAL ZONE Executive Summary
INFORMATION CENTER

Index

Page No.
Statement of Issues: . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Background and Factual Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 6
Analysis - Identification of Problems and Opportunities 61- 15

Alternative Courses of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 15 - 19
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 22

WIN
COLLECO'010H
U-@

LLI

Prepared by
0

the
43 Ma@zie Department of Transportation

This Report is part of the Coastal Program of the State of Maine. Financial
assistance has been provided by the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972.
C:

Maine Port Development Studies

Executive Summary

1. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES-.

(a) Introduction

The port communities located along the Maine coast'constitute a major

resource and economic asset of the State. The development 'of this asset
is of great i portance to the State as a whole and of critical importance
IMP
to the port communities themselves. Ani.@mbe'r of state agencies have some

degree of involvement in coastal development. This includes the Department

of Marine Resources, the Department of Conservation, Bureau of Parks and

Recreation, and Bureau of Public Lands, the Department of Environmental

Protection, the State Planning Office, and the Maine Department of Trans-

portation. In order to minimize duplication of effort,and to take.advan-

tage of particular areas of expertise, an agreement wastsigned between the

State Planning Office and the Maine Department.of Transportation to estab-

lish the Mai ne Port Planning and Development Program

The studies undertaken in this program are intended to provide guid-

ance for state level activities in port development.including the estab-

lishment of priorities for public in-vestment in port.facilities where

warranted, as well as developing technical and financial resources to

assist local and spe cific industry (p rivate,.or public) port planning and

.development efforts. The Port Planning,and,Development Program is

supplementary to a number of coastal studies including Heavy Industry

Sites and Tourism as well as plans that have been developed primarily

by the State Planning Office, over the last several years.

The initial step which has been termed Phase I, was to inventory

existing facilities in as many Maine coastal communities as possible.

Some 47 Maine coastal communities have been inventoried and the data

published in two volumes. The first covering the coast from Kittery

to Boothbay Harbor, and the second from Damariscotta-Newcastle through

Eastport. The inventory also included ports on the Saco, Kennebec,

Sheepscot, and Penobscot Rivers. The third volume published under

Phase I is entitled "Planning Volume" and contains a summary of the

inventory data together with eight suggested short term improvement

projects, the description of a number of financing options, and the

identification of areas in which further study appears to be warranted.

(b) The Issues

The reports which are the subject of this summary include the Phase

I, Planning Volume, Forest Products Terminal Feasibility Study, Fish-

eries Port Facilities Study, and Institutional Changes in Maine State

Agencies for Port Planning and Development. The issues addressed in

these reports include:
(1) What port facilities are required and recommended
(a) To adequately handle the present and future waterborne

commerce of Maine industry;

(b) To adequately handle the fish landings for the antic-

pated expansion of Maine's fishing industry; and
(c) To meet the recreational uses and passenger transportation

needs of Maine's coastal and island communities.

(2) How such facilities are to be planned and financed and,the extent
to which State Government should be involved, and-

(3) Ins titutional changes in State agencies to fa ci-litate and accom-

plish recommended development.

2. BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL INFORMATION

(a) Cargo Handlina Facilities

A tabulation of-the tonnage handled by-port and primary commodity.

group for Portland, Searsport'y and the Upper Penobscot River ports
(Bangor, Brewer, and Bucksport) has been developed for.a 25 year period

from 1950 through 1975. A summary covering all Maine ports for a similar

period has also been developed. Significantly, the only ports to show

an increase in traffic handled between 1970.and 1975 are Searsport, Cape

Porpoise, Eastport, and Lubec-Channel.. In the latter three ports the

increase results from.fish handlings. The increase at Searsport, however,

results from a combined increase in both bulk-petroleum and dry cargo

handlings. The improvement in facilities at Winterport has resulted in

a significant increase in activity at that port resulting primarily from

a large potato export.. Port of.Ba th activity is related primarily to the

Bath Iron Works Shipyard plus a significant,amount of recreational boating.

Eastport and Rockland are primarily fishing ports where significant amounts

of both fin and shell fish are landed annually

.Part of the inventoryprocess included a comprehensive study of the

export-import traffic that originates and terminates in the State@ of Maine.

The purpose of the survey was to,provid.e a basis from which to determine
the port facility needs of Maine traffic,and whetherit.would.be possible

to assemble cargoes at Maine ports in sufficient quantities to support

scheduled sailings.

The survey revealed that State of Maine exports and imports combined

totaled approximately 29M tons in 1976, as expected 28M tons was petrole-

um and petroleum products. Of the 1M tons of other cargo, approximately

13 percent was handled in containers.

Major import commodities other than petroleum are gypsum, salt,

caustic soda, tapioca, sardines and lumber. It is significant that 86

percent of the dry cargo imports are handled throughMaine ports, primari-

ly Searsport. Containerized imports totaled 24,000 tons or 1,373 - 20

foot boxes.

Export traffic handled by Maine ports amounted to only 52 percent

of the total of 483,599 tons in 1976.Maine exports fall into two pri-

mary commodity groups, the first being paper and forest products which

totaled 203,282 tons in 1976 and food and food products which total

271,718 tons in 1976. In comparing these commodity groups, however, it

should be noted that food products include 192,000 tons of fresh potatoes

which has never been consistent movement. Potato export depends upon

crop conditions throughout the rest of the world which is uncertain at

best. Containerized exports totaled 106,781 tons or 5,501 - 20 foot

boxes.

(b) Fish Handling Facilities

Each one of the inventoried ports either has fish handling facili-

ties or registered boats that are engaged in commercial fishing of one

type or another. A summary of the data indicates that there are 152 fish

handling facilities at the inventoried ports, 35 of which are engaged in

the exclusive handling of fin fish, 33 that are used exclusively for shell

fish,.and 84 that handle both. These facilities have a total of 2.6M

square feet of dock area.

Inventory data combined with the data produced by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers shows. a total of 95,435 tons of fish landed at M aine

ports in 1975. This includes 87,691 tons of fin fish and 7,744 tons of

shell fish. The inventoried ports had 71 commercial fishing boats.under

U.S. Coast Guard registration and 2,151 other (lobster) boats.

This area of port'activity consists of recreational boating, the-

operation of coastal cruisers, and passenger transportation. Recreational

boating in 1976 along the Maine coast included at,least @25,000 privately

owned and operated boats. Facilities to service these boats,are.found in

virtually every port.and harbor in the.State.

Available data was summarized under two basic headings, privately

owned facilities available for public use, a nd those facilities that are

publicly owned and operated. The facilities involved include yacht clubs,

marinas, boat storage,facilities, public landings and public launching

sites.

The privately owned facilities, include a total of 21 yacht clubs

providing 260 berths and 48 marinas with 1,703 berths. Thirty-six (36)

of the marinas provide food and fuel and repair services.

There are 90 publicly owned docks or landin gs having 594 berths and

258,floats. Public boat launching facilities totaled.53,, 46'being town

facilities and seven state facilities., A total of 5,348,harbor moorings

a-re identified in the inventoried ports.

Headboats (25+ persons) and charter boats (6-8 persons) operate from

virtually all of the involved ports, with York, Kennebunkport, Portland,

Boothbay Harbor, Bar Harbor and Eastport showing higher than average num-

bers. Coastal cruise boats of various sizes including the windjammers

also operate from most of the ports. This activity is heaviest at York,
Portland, Boothbay Harbor, Camden, Bar Harbor, and Eastport.

International ferry service to Nova Scotia is operated from Portland

Harbor and Bar Harbor and service from Rockland, Lincolnville, and Bass

Harbor is operated to the offshore islands in both East and West Penobscot

Bay including Swans Island, Long Island, Islesboro, North Haven, and Vinal-

haven. Ih addition, there is local service to the Islands in Casco Bay.

ANALYSIS -- IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

(a) Functional Classification

In order to provide a basis upon which the systematic classification

of Maine ports can be made, a functional classification is suggested which

include the following categories:

(1) Tons of cargo handled both liquid and dry
(2) Tons of fish including shell fish landed

(3) The number of passengers handled

(4) The number of vessel operations in each of the inventoried ports,

as reported in the publication of the U..S. Army Corps of Engineers

entitled "Waterborne Commerce of the United States".

Each port is classified not only by the level of activity but by

the type of activity occurring, namely cargo handling, fishing or recrea-

tion, the objective being to designate those ports with a relatively high

level of activity from those with a medium range of activity and those

-6-

with a relatively small range of activity by,the prima3:7.,activity.

According:@y, three classifications have been selected*.

(A) Primary Commercial Ports which are those with the,highest

level of activity
(B) Secondary Commercial-Por.ts -.those would.be the medium range

ports, and
(C) Local or those ports having the lowest level of activity.

As an example, ports with an A classi fication are further broken down by

predominant activity as follows:

Al cargo, A2 fisheries, and A3 recreation or passenger handlingo

(b) Port Improvement Projects (2@Zgested for the Short Term)

Analysis of Phase I data indicated several port improvement projects
that could be accomplished in the-near term (3 to 5 years)*

Project,Selection Process

Short term port improvement projects have been suggested for eight

of the inventoried ports;,the basis of the recommended projects is that

it must have a high potential for short term accompli shment, Key factors

in the identification of potential projects were:

(1) Prior definition of the project
(2) Intereston the part of the community as evidenced by strong

local supporto Organi zation of a special committee or group to study and

implement the projecto Attendance at the meting held by MDOT and the

Consultant,, EeCo Jordan Company, Inc*
(3) Project size that would allow construction in a short time

frame and would be feasible from an economic point of view., The project

could not be so complex that extensive study and design would be required

in order to get something built. This factor was assessed by the Depart-

ment of Transportation and the consultant based on joint experience with
port projects.
(4) A willingness on the part of the community, the private sector

or a combination of both to accept some or all of the costs of the project.

Suggested Projects

Eight potential short term projects have been identified. The first

four involve the construction and modification of shoreside facilities that

will not be eligible for assistance from the Corps of Engineers.

Port Facility Est. Cost

Cape Porpoise Harbor Fish Pier $800,OOO-$900,000

Boothbay Harbor Parking Lot, Remedial Rip- $15,OOO-$50,000
rap Protection

Lincolnville Ferry Service Parking $45,000-$60,000
Facility

Belfast Harbor Town Pier Extension $2OO,OOO-$280,OOO

The remaining four projects will be eligible for assistance from the Corps of

Engineers as follows:

Port Facility Est. Cost

Searsport Harbor Breakwater-Dredging To be prepared by the U.S.
Corps of Engineers if project
is feasible
Bar Harbor Breakwater-Dredging To be prepared by the U.S.
Corps of Engineers if project
is feasible

Southwest Harbor Dredging To be prepared by the U.S.
Corps of Engineers if project
is feasible
Northeast Harbor Dredging To be prepared by the U.S.
Corps of Engineers if project
is feasible

Each project is described in detail in the Planning Vo1ume with a

recommended approach for accomplishment. The project description was

prepared by the Consultant E.C. Jordan Company, Inc.

Several financing options for port development are discussed. In-

cluded is a description of the financial assistance available to the

Bureau of Parks and Recreation for the establishment of recreation facili-
ties together with examples of projects that have been approved or accom-

plished at Bath and Ellsworth.

The report also discusses the potential use of Economic Development

Administration funds including public work grants, local public works,

and technical assistance program grants. Examples of such projects in-

clude the facility at Jonesport which resulted in a total cost of $350,000

and included land, a marina and boat launching facility, 80 percent of which

was provided by EDA and the remaining 20 percent by the State Boating Facili-

ties Funds. A commercial fish pier at Milbridge was also used as an exam-

ple designed for the offloading of seafood into tractor trailer trucks.

This was funded by a split of 80 percent from EDA and 20 percent from local

funds. A pending EDA project is the commercial fish pier in Lubec.

A description of the funding capabilities of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers is included which relates primarily to harbor improvement pro-

jects. Examples of the Winter Harbor dredging and Portland Harbor dredg-

ing are described together with an explanation of the procedures to be

used in obtaining Corps approval for harbor improvement projects.

Bond financing is discussed in some detail including general obli-

gation bonds and revenue bonds. Examples of both methods of financing

-9-

are given using the proposed construction of a. general cargo pier and oil

terminal in Portland which was to be accomplished with revenue bond financ-

ing and the construction of facilities used by the Maine State Ferry Ser-

vice in Penobscot Bay, which was provided by general obligation bonds,

Coastal development funds,for predetermined or dedic ated use are

suggested for consideration using as sourcesp watercraft registration

fees, harbor use fees particularly for the assignment of moorings, personal

property tax fees resulting from the registration of recreation and fish-

ing boats and a tax on fish landings.

Financing options are also discussed in connect ion with specific pro-

ject recommendations*

(d) Cargo.Handlln@ Facilities

The export-iMport survey and the subsequent analysis of this data
indicated that paper and forest products constituted about 40% of the

total exports in foreign commerce from the-State of@Maine and that only
about 30% of this tonnage was moving through either of Maine's two active
cargo handling ports. The handling of a large percentage of this tonnage

was determined to be a development opportunity that required further in-

ve stigation.

Accordingly, a study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of

constructing a new terminal aimed specifically at capturing a larger

percentage of the forest products export tonnage with a general cargo

hand-ling capability* Both engineering and economic considerations have

been closely coordinated throughout the course of the study. Existing

ports which presently handle general- cargo were examined for their

suitability as the site for'a port,development project* Each was

evaluated regarding such characteristics as existing cargo facilities,

land availability for new or expanded facilities, highway and 'rail

access, depth of water and availability of othf@r port related services.

These investigations revealed that Portland and Searsport ate the

most suitable as a site for a cargo port development project whether

it be new facilities or an expansion of existing facilities. The eco-

nomic analysis has determined that food products and'related materials

as well as forest products constitute a large portion of Maine's ex-

port and import traffic. However, as previously stated, a significant

percentage of this traffic particularly export traffic is presently

moving through ports other than Maine including St. Joh n, N.B., Boston,

MA, and New York, NY. Within Maine, Searsport was found to handle

far more general cargo (excluding bulk petroleum) than any other port

in the State including Portland.

The potential for Maine ports to attract traffic from other origins

outside of the State (Hinterland) has been examined and determined that

for all practical purposes Maine ports will be limited to those cargoes

originating or terminating within the State at least initially, if new

or improved facilities are provided. The report also finds that in the

long term, unless such facilities are provided, the existing level of

cargo handling activity will decline to the point where it will be

practically nonexistent because of the obsolescence of facilities. It

should be pointed out, however, that this does not take into considera-

tion the development of property in Portland by Paul Merrill.

Within Maine, the Port of Searsport offers a three to one advantage

over Portland on a geographical basis in the amount of cargo that could

reasonably be attracted by new or improved facilities.

(e) Fish Handlina Facilities

The fishing industry clearly presents one of the most promising
opportunities for developm ent along the Main'e coast. Th e effects of the

200 mile limit and the exclusion of the foreign fleet from the George's

Bank area contribute greatly to this opportunity. It appears however

that the existing physical facilities, primarily piers are generally in-

adequate for the industry to effectively respond to this opportunity.

The recommendation of specific development strategies should be made

after further studies of the economics and practices of the industry

and the requirements that the 200-mile limit will impose upon us.

Such a study has been undertaken and will be reported upon separately.

The generally poor availability and condition of the physical

facilities that the industry depends on for,its existence does not

reflect the importance of maintaining a prosperous fisheries economy

in Maine. kdequately equipped piers that are in good structural

condition are very costly with only a limited number of publicly owned

piers available in relation to present and anticipated future demand.

Private piers are sometimes used as leverage to influence trade

patterns Of fishermen. In addition the planning, funding, and operation

of fish piers involve a high level of cost which the fishing industry

has had difficulty meeting becauseof wide fluctuation in profits.

It also appears that the inadequacy of pier facilities is increas-

ingly becoming an obstacle in transporting fi sh to processors or

markets from the boats, This condition is also hampering gear handling

and other necessary'vessel services*, Further, it is und6rstood"that-

larger boats are being built or planned at this time which will employ

the latest technology for harvestingfish and will require adequate

docking-facilitiese As a consequence of the expanded opportunity 9

substantial increases in production are anticipated, somewhere in the

order of three to four times the current level. Therefore, one of the

most important issues facing the industry-is the early assessment of

the impact that the 200-mile limit will have upon Mainels'fish handling

facilities*

A number of communities have already taken steps to acquire positions

of adVantage-for the anticipated growth. Portland is'actively studying

the development of a large fish pier* Plans for cooperative fish piers

are being considered at Kittery, Cape Porpoise, Stoningtont Lubec, and

-Eastport,

M Tnstitutional Changes in State Government

In order to assure that potential opportunities are seized, and

that the problems which accompany port development are minimized, there

is a need to make some changes in the institutional structure which

currently handles ports. This conclusion is part of a specific study

of the institutional problems in state government-made by the State

Planning Officeo Such changes should demonstrate clearly the State's con-

cerns for all aspects of its ports, and the commitment to.seeing that

future port needs will be met,, Changes. are-also necessary because

existing laws and practices do not fully reflect the importance of

ports in the Statets economic system*

There are five basic changes which it is de.sirable to mak.e,in exist-

ing institutions and enabling law to insure that there is:

(1) An agency with full, statewide authority for all aspects

of port planning and development.
(2) An agency with flexible capabilities in the. areas of funding

of new port facilities, including the power to.issue revenue

bonds or, if necessary, recommend the issuance of general

obligation bonds,,and to provide matching shares for federal

grants.
(3) An agency with ties to other agencies of state government con-

cerned with ports, including the Departments of Marine Resources,

Environmental Protection, Conservation, and the State'Develop-

ment Office.,

(4) Specific.,authorization'to allow the agency to assist.communi-

ties with engineering and economic assistance in various port

development projects initiated at the community level*
(5) Adequate staff and funding to enable the agency to assist

communities, develop overall port plans for the-State, and

to desiga, construct, and operate such facilities for general

cargo handling or fishing as may be determined to be necessary.

(g) Other Co*ncbm's-and Opportunities Requiriiig'Further Study

The Planning Volume also contains a deta iled exp lanation of the

follo,viing areas in which further studies appear to be required as a

result of the Phase -I effort* These include:

(1) Dredging Spoils Dis2osal-

The selection and recommendation of dredging spoil disposal

sites. This study is recommended as a result of what appears

to be a fairly extensive amount of maintenance or new dredging

requirements in most Maine ports to accommodate larger fishing

vessels and larger and more recreation type boats. Disposal

sites, however, are very difficult to select on a project by

project basis. The objective of the proposed study would be

to identify a number of sites along the coast that most coastal

interests could agree to in advance.

(2) Coastal Cruise Ship Operations

An identification of the port facilities necessary to encourage

the growth of recreational cruise ship operations on the Maine

coas t.

Ferry_Service

This study would include an evaluation of present and future

ferry service needs in areas such as scheduling, fare structure

revisions, analysis of existing vessels and a vessel replace-

ment program.

ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION:

(a) Cargo Handling Facilities

Based upon the engineering and marketing analysis, five alternative

courses Iof action have been considered.

(1) A 'n'ew facility in the Searsport area.
(2) Upgrading the existing facilities at Searsport.
(3) new facility at one of two locations in Portland.

(4)' Upgrading of the existing Maine State Pier in Portland, and
(5) The "no build" or "do nothing" alternative.

The consultant has recommended the construction of new facilities

at Searsport with the preferable location being on Sears Island..

The two sites considered in Portland for new construction were the

present Portland Terminal Wharf No. 3 site which is located on property

roughly between the Million Dollar Bridge so-called and the U.S. Route 1

or Veterans Memorial Bridge along the Fore River. The other site is the

former Canadian National Pier site, on land which is now owned by the

Maine Department of Transportation.

It was determined that the Searsport location offers substantial

advantages over the Portland area and other ports considered in this

study in regard to market potential. Searsport presently handles sub-

stantially more non-petroleum cargoes than Portland and has a fairly

solid cargo base upon which to build.

On a geographic basis, Searsport appears to have a three to one ad-

vantage over Portland in potential import and export cargoes originating

from or destined to points in Maine. That is to say, it is,more centrally

and advantageously located in regard to exporters and importers. Port-

land's traffic base andits location in regard to the paper industry is

less advantageous. In 1976, for example, approximately 70 percent of

the State's waterb.orne forest products exports, tha t is to s ay paper

and other products, came from Penobscot and Washington Counties, while

nearly all of the forest products imports were destined to Penobscot

County.

The Sears Islandlocation has immense.development opportunities

for cargo handling facilities as well as the location of other industries

which may have a.need-or,desire for a location close to-waterfront-fa ci li-.

ties, Over 300 acre.s-Qf land are available,on the Island for such,purposes

and are exclusive,of the.land to be used by Central Maine Power Company

in the development of its coal fired generating station. The sites in

Portland, on the other..handl.do not offer such lon rangegrowth poten-
9

tiale They are morelimited in sizel,,bein.g:approximately 50 acres each

much of which is water area and are further constrained from expansion

by various types of adjacent development. While Portland's sites..would

be adequate to serve today's needs, their long range expansion potential

appears to be far'more restrictive, perhaps even prohibitive, than the

Sears -Island siteo

Another primary advantage of the Sears Island location is the deep

water available along side the berth which is approximately 40 to 45

feet* These depths could not be obtained in.Portland without dredging,

This advantage is imp ortant as the trend is to a deeper draft cargo-

vessel and dredging is becoming more and more difficult under existing

government policies.

.In addition to the other advantages, a facility at Sears Island is

estimated to-cost approximately $41M which is significantly less than the

cost estimated for the construction of a comparable facility at the
Canadian National/14DOT site in Portland of approximately $90M*- The cost

of constructing a facility at the Portland Terminal No. 3 site:of $30M

to $35M is in addition.to.significant,,off-sit.e...c,osts. Furthermore,

Portland Terminal No* 3 site.is.,considered to have phy-sical.and opera-

tional disadvantagps,when compared-,with,Sears Islands

-'17

(b) Institutional Changes in Maine State Government Agencies

There are two basic options for establishing an agency which would

meet anticipated port planning and development requirements. The first

is to use the existing structure within the Department of Transportation

with appropriate modifications to the laws establishing the Department

and the Maine Port Authority. This option would assign the development

and operating functions for all facilities to the Bureau of Waterways.

The current Port Authority would be expanded to be representative of

other areas ofthe state (besides Portland and South Portland) and

would continue to have its basic function of deciding where and when

to fund facilities. The Port Authority would be given specific authori-

zation to recommend general obligation bonds to the Legislature and the

Governor, and to provide the State's matching share of federal grants.

Option 2 is to create a separate agency, to be called the Maine

Port Authority, which would have a11 the function of the current Maine

Port Authority and Bureau of Waterways combined and would be separate

from the Department of Transportation. The Port Authority would have a

staff of its own assigned to the various roles in port planning, develop-

ment, and operations which the Authority would undertake in assisting
communities and developing its own facilities as required. The Port

Authority Board would have essentially the same powers as the Board

under Option 1.

Option 1 has the advantage of being somewhat lower in cost, since

there would be some savings on administrative overhead and other special-
ized services (legal, right of way appraisal,etc.). However, keeping

the ports' function within DOT has the disadvantage of maintaining two

- 18 -

agencies dealing with ports and consequently potential confusion as to the

clear central responsibility for portse Creating a single port agency
(Option 2) would make the com mitme nt to ports unequivocal and provide a.

single agency with a single responsibilitye Howeverv such an agenc y

would be somewhat more expensive since administrative overhead would

have to be provided and specialized services would have to be contracted

foro

50 RECOMEM ATIONS

(a) Ca go Handlilg Facilities,

The@Consultant_Fay, Spofford and Thorndikep Engineers,, make the follow-

ing findings and recommendations based upon the feasibility study of new or

expanded cargo handling facilities in Maine-,

Thatv unless new or improved cargo handling facilities are provided

increased cargo activity cannot be expected to occur and the existing

level of such activity will decline over the years,. practically to'

the point of nonexistence because of obsolete facilitiese

That provided adequate financial arrangements can be madep a major

new cargo handling facility be constructed on the southwest quadrant

of Sears Island in the'Port of Searsport that is capable of.handling

both containerized and break-bulk cargoes with.transit and storage

shedsq. wide working apron and.both rail and truck,access estimated
construction cost $41 Million (1977 dollars)-

That such construction not be undertaken unless a financing package

can be developed by the Maine Department of Transportation that may

include a combination of general obligation bondsp revenue bondsq.
EDk grant and/or loan and long term,leases or other financial

commitments from major port users and operatorse

19 -

In addition, the following recommendations are made.-

That any alternative or subsequent general cargo port development

having state financial involvement be confined to two'or possibly

three port areas*

That general 'cargo port handling facility planning and construction

that is developed in whole or in part with state funds be undertaken

by the Department of Transportation.

That all cargo port handling facilities requiring public investment

be subjected to cost effective analysis in order that public financ-

ing sources will have a clear picture of the type of investment re-

quired*

(b) Institutional ChW&eZ in Ujine, @St&te Government

It is recommended that the required changes*be made in existing laws

so that the port planning and development functions remains within
the Department of Transportation (Option 1)o It is believed that the

functions of an expanded port agency canbe adequately performed by

DOT and that the lower costs for this option make it the more desirablee

Throu ghout the study it has repeatedly been made clear that the coastal

municipalities want and expect to be the initiator of and make their own

decisions about port and harbor development projectse These municipalities

also indicated that they would welcome technical and where available financial

assistance from the Statee Accordingly, it is recommended:

That the 1vbine Department of. TransiDort.ation.iiiitiate..a.-.,Community-

assistance program to provide technical assistance upon request of

the community.in the:development of portimprovement projects and

the processing of such projects iTith the necessary,,State and,Federal

agencies.

(c). Fish HandllLiZ Facilities

The following strategies for the development of fish handling-facili-

ties are offered for consideration:
0 'Physical facilities, espeIcially pier f acilities, play a crucial

role in the operation of the commercial fishing industry not

unlike the relationship of airports to aviation.

0. Pier facilities currently. represent a major- problem @to the

development ofthe industry*

0 The nature of pier facilities in terms of cost and usage make

them a likely candidate for the type of public support generally

made available to other public facilities such as airports, cargo

piers, etc. in the areas of planning, construction (funding), and

operationse

(d), Recreation and PassenAgr Facilities

The following strategies for the development of recreation and passen-

ger handling facilities are recommended.-

9 That the towns continue to be the primary planner-initiator of

port improvement projects involving recreational facilities*

The Department of Conservation, ' Bureau of Parks and Recreation con-
tinue to acquire, develop, and operate access sites in coastal

communities in accordance with its 1976 "Public Facilities for

Boats Plan".

The Bureau of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Transporta-

tion cooperatively provide technical assistance to communities upon

request in the development of data to support the construction of

new or a modification of existing facilities and harbor improve-

ment projects.

That an effort be made by the State Development Office or other

appropriate agencies to encourage the development of privately

owned recreation facilities in those coastal communities that now

have a high level of recreation activity and those communities who

wish to encourage this type of development.

PREPARED BY
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BUREAU OF PLANNING

Augusta,Maine
3 6668 14102 7245_