To:  Board of Environmental Protection

       Attn:  Jennifer Cayer

       106 Hogan Street

       Bangor ME 04401

Re:  Applications by Downeast LNG Inc. and Downeast Pipeline LLC for a Liquefied Natural Gas

Terminal and Pipeline Project

Robbinston, Calais, Baring Plantation, Baileyville and Princeton, Washington County         

These comments are submitted to the Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) on behalf of the Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club, and its approximately 4,000 members statewide. The Sierra Club is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization, whose purpose is to protect the wild places of
the earth, to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; and to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment.  We place a high priority on public policy and actions that address global climate change and promote a clean energy future.  Our comments therefore focus on our concerns for the unique ecosystem of Passamaquoddy Bay, sustaining the environmental quality of the region, and environmental justice for local residents, including Native Americans.  We ask that the Board assure not only that conflicts with current uses of the area are avoided and minimized, but also that future uses are not precluded.  Regulatory decisions, particularly those of such magnitude, must not operate at cross purposes to the state’s new emphasis on capping emissions and promoting clean, renewable alternatives.

GENERAL COMMENTS
The Sierra Club believes that the protection of the environment, human life, and public welfare are essential factors to be considered by all levels of government when making siting decisions. We believe that siting decisions for energy facilities should be made only as part of the overall land-use planning and should include protection of air and water quality. Such facilities should be excluded from certain categories of land, and should proceed only after a need for them has been demonstrated. They should be located near load centers and, when possible, on or near existing industrial facilities.

Moreover, in light of events of recent years, security concerns regarding accidental and intentional incidents must receive special attention.  We stress that the ecosystems and the residents of Passamaquoddy Bay deserve the same full consideration as those of more populated areas, and no effort should be spared on any basis to address concerns for health and safety and to answer the question of “who is going to pay the bills” -- literally and figuratively.  Indeed, because services and infrastructure for dealing with accidents or intentional harm are lacking in this largely rural area, much more would have to be required and provided for by project proponents. 

Siting of industrial-scale facilities should not preclude small-scale renewable energy alternatives.  There is active interest in tidal, wind, and other renewable energy projects in the Passamaquoddy Bay area.  The Maine Coastal Program can provide information about an assessment of Maine’s potential for wind, wave, and tidal projects conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and current experimental and other applications for the state’s submerged lands.

NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The siting of large facilities such as LNG terminals should not proceed unless a definitive need for them has been demonstrated, through open public disclosure and certification of need.  We have supported the call by others for a regional assessment for New England and urge that BEP support this approach in order to avoid further unnecessary costs to taxpayers, project proponents, and citizens. We have also called for proactive and comprehensive review and ranking of eligible sites for the entire Maine coast so that the
public may consider all available information.  All details of any individual proposal (funding, mitigation plans, identification of responsible parties, operation) must be made available early enough to facilitate a comprehensive, not piecemeal review.  This is even more relevant in light of Maine's commitment to reduction of greenhouse gases and the multiple actions to that end that have recently been undertaken by the state and region, including initiatives by local communities (e.g., "Cool Cities"), but unfortunately has yet to be done.

In general, economic studies prepared by industry tend to “juice up” the benefits and avoid giving full consideration to the costs, particularly the costs of disrupting existing marine and shore transportation and
tourism and fishing.  These studies ascribe the most optimistic multipliers to the respending of plant employee income and stop short of making the distinction between direct jobs and indirect and claim the whole thing as the entire net economic benefit.  More recently the energy industry, while continuously repeating the refrain about the need to reduce dependence on "foreign oil" (subtext: we should open up all domestic areas to drilling) has stopped making the argument that LNG will bring about lower prices. That is because LNG is only economic in a narrow price range bounded by domestic supply at the low end. In short, LNG is a big roll of the dice economically.  Parenthetically, we commend Governor Baldacci for his statements in recent years that clearly rank restoration of Maine's fisheries as a top priority and his unequivocal opposition to offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Maine.

It is our contention that siting an LNG terminal in Passamaquoddy Bay is to "do it the hard way" -- import gas from as yet unidentified sources (Qatar?), using energy to transport it past the primary market in southern Maine and Massachusetts, via an arguably dangerous route, and to transform Maine's least industrialized coastal areas irretrievably.  We urge BEP to give preference to the vast opportunity for conservation and efficiency, starting with combined electric/gas efficiency retrofits in large commercial buildings where gas use is driven skyward by poor insulation. There is no reason to put LNG ahead of that in the queue.

LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
Decisions about the siting of energy-related facilities can only be made in the context of sound overall land-use planning. LNG terminals should be evaluated not just as simple terminals but as part of a system for
delivering natural gas, including but not limited to pipelines and other associated infrastructure and spin-off facilities in support of this delivery function.
.
At a minimum the following categories of land should be explicitly excluded from consideration as sites for LNG terminals or associated infrastructure systems, including pipelines:

a)  Land included in federal, state, or local park or natural area systems, or in wildlife refuges, or in such proximity as to threaten the environmental quality of protected areas.  This means that Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge must be OFF LIMITS as a location for pipelines and related infrastructure.  If no alternative is offered, BEP should recommend denial.

b)  Areas reserved for ecological, scenic, natural, wildlife, geological, educational, or scientific value.  This would clearly apply to Mill Cove with its living resources.

c) Wild, natural, scenic or pastoral portions of coasts or shores, including bays, estuaries, wetlands, lakes and rivers.

d)   Coastal or riverine areas, especially those designated as Essential Fish Habitat.  This is particularly important in light of growing evidence that Gulf of Maine waters are warming to the detriment of lobster populations, fundamental to the state’s economy, and highlights the need for extra protections for the entire range.

e)  Habitats of rare, endangered, or threatened plant or animal species.  This includes rivers and other waters that provide habitat for Atlantic salmon, as well as species that may or may not be officially "listed" under the Endangered Species Act but whose populations have been reduced significantly in recent years.  We do not want to have to "list" every species before we take care of them.  Many species are already affected by multiple stressors and we must not shut out future potential for their recovery by adding to these (light, noise, water and air quality problems).

f)   Areas containing outstanding examples of plant communities.

g)  Valuable archeological or historic sites and sites held sacred by indigenous people.

h)  Prime agricultural and forest lands.

i)   Lands that play a vital role in the hydrologic cycle such as aquifer recharge areas and wetlands.

j)  Land and offshore areas characterized by adverse geological or geophysical characteristics such as earthquake zones, floodplains, or erosion-prone zones; these last must also be evaluated in the context of
anticipated climate change effects such as sea level rise, utilizing the most recent projections.  Occasional small and moderate earthquakes occur along the Oak Bay fault.   

LOCATION
LNG terminals and delivery systems should be located as close as possible to load centers to avoid unnecessarily intrusive disruptions; to encourage conservation and pollution abatement by linking the environmental burdens of power generation with its benefits; and to maximize efficient use of energy
through utilization of energy for beneficial purposes rather than its transport.  Emphasis should be placed on reducing the emission of pollutants rather than relying on remote siting. Since airborne pollutants have been found to cause damage to the natural environments far from their source, remote siting will not prevent environmental degradation.  Any tradeoff between impacting urban and rural/wild environments should be discussed explicitly. In general, new energy facilities should be located on land that has little
other productive value, and be sited in such a way as to be compatible with and encourage the development of renewable energy resources.

ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The need to protect other important resources, such as water resources and quality, and air quality should be carefully considered in the planning for and siting of energy facilities.  We note that at a hearing on July 13, the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) ruled that a new pipeline extension which will carry natural gas from an LNG import terminal in Mexico to Southern California must not increase emissions of pollution in the South Coast Air Basin, and we urge BEP to take the same approach to capping pollution for Passamaquoddy Bay.

a)  Air quality. Three scales of impact on air quality must be considered:

Local scale: Environmental Protection Agency ambient air quality standards and non-degradation standards must be met and potential future growth must be allowed for. Sub-regional scale: Cumulative impacts on the order of air quality control regions or air basins must be considered such as result from persistent air flows.   Regional scale: Long-range transport of pollutants must be considered on the order of several states or air basins. In addition, impairment of visibility must be assessed in preventing degradation of air quality.

b. Water resources (marine and freshwater)
There should be no net depletion of groundwater.  Stream flow should not be depleted so as to alter ecosystem dynamics, harm aquatic species, or alter the scenic or wild character of rivers. Alternate requirements for water must be considered and priorities for use set.

c. Water quality
Sites for disposal of waste products should be free of all flood potential and should not lead to runoff or leaching to surface or groundwater.  In siting along a shoreline or river, both cumulative and interactive
effects of discharges must be considered in terms of thermal effects and destruction of aquatic life.

Baseline studies and long term monitoring must be required, and the Best Practices for Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service implemented in full.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The Sierra Club contends that the Earth's wild places should be protected and the Earth's ecosystems and resources should be used responsibly and sustainably so that all people and future generations may share nature's bounty; that the natural and human environment should be restored to the benefit of all people and for other living things, and their future generations; and that no community should bear disproportionate risks of harm because of their demographic characteristics or economic condition. Environmental decision-making must include the full range of alternatives to a proposed action or plan, including rejection of the proposed action or plan. Barriers to participation (cultural, linguistic, geographic, and economic) should be addressed.   Local residents, including Tribal members, are entitled to enjoy the sustainable aesthetic, recreational, cultural, historical, scientific, educational, religious, sacred, sustenance, subsistence, cultural, and other environmental benefits of natural resources.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
When an activity potentially threatens the environment and human health, safety and well-being, the proponent of the activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof as to the harmlessness of the activity. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty must not be used as a reason for postponing measures to **prevent** environmental degradation.

While Maine’s marine and coastal areas are becoming increasingly crowded with demands on space for development, to exploit resources, and for other purposes, our common goals must be a clean, healthy, biologically diverse, safe, and productive environment.  This means confronting the policy shifts needed in the face of global climate change,  redirecting our energy policy by replacing, not adding to fossil fuel use with clean and renewable energy production, working with the ecosystems not against them, and adapting policy accordingly (including subsidies and regulation).

In conclusion, BEP's review of the Downeast LNG proposal should incorporate the principles detailed above and should be made in the context of their long-run implications. Full consideration must be given to the impact of all phases, including transportation and waste disposal.  A full record should be developed in order for the least environmentally damaging alternative to be selected.  We believe that based on the merits of the case as well as the larger ecological context, rather than on extraneous economic and political sales pitches, this could only lead to a rejection of the Downeast proposal.  We do not want to add Passamaquoddy Bay to the nation’s list of “sacrifice areas” to meet an alleged energy demand that can be reduced and addressed in less destructive ways.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Vivian Newman
Marine Issues Chair, Maine Chapter
Sierra Club
P.O. Box 388
South Thomaston ME 04858
207-594-7534
newviv@roadrunner.com

20 July 2007