Saturday, October 31, 2009

What's happening with the Downeast LNG FERC Application?


FERC > FERC LNG Project Review Process > eLibrary Dockets > Docket Numbers — Prefiling & Formal Filing > Formal Filing Docket Comment Submissions > Downeast LNG — CP07-52 > 2009 > October
Oct 30
  • Downeast LNG — Deficiency Letter/Data Response. Filing contains calculations of the Thermal Hazard around the proposed LNG terminal — data that was due 2009 July 6Even this filing does not contain all of the Thermal Hazard data requested by FERC.
    As of this filing, DOWNEAST LNG IS NOW 115 DAYS LATE providing information FERC requested by the 2009 July 6 Draft EIS Comment deadline. DeLNG knew it could not meet FERC's July 6 deadline, but objected to Save Passamaquoddy Bay's request for a 90-day deadline extension. DeLNG has already delayed the process by more time than requested by Save Passamaquoddy Bay, and DeLNG still has not provided all of the data requested by FERC.
  • Downeast LNG — Deficiency Letter/Data ResponsePrivileged and Confidential Appendix D of the above filing.

Save Passamaquoddy Bay

Thursday, October 22, 2009

NOT SO "Innocent Passage"

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Our american Friends love to talk about "innocent Passage" and their right to pass through Canada's inland waters at Head Harbour Passage to reach their proposed LNG terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay..

I thought you all might be interested in the good word from the UN. So much for the "innocent" rights of our American friends.

Here it is:

Updated 12 February 2009

Status of the Convention and its implementing Agreements

Link to the Oceans and Law of the Sea: Status of the Convention and the implementing agreements
In its resolutions on oceans and the law of the sea, the General Assembly continuously stresses the importance of increasing the number of States parties to the Convention and the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention in order to achieve the goal of universal participation. The General Assembly also reiterates its call upon all States that had not done so to become parties to these instruments.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was open for signature on 10 December 1982 and entered into force on 16 November 1994. Out of 159 original UNCLOS signatories, 29 have yet to ratify. From among 38 States that did not sign UNCLOS or were not independent States at the time of its opening for signature, 17 have acceded or succeeded to it. Certain coastal States have not yet expressed their consent to be bound by the Convention. These were,  as at 30 September 2005: five in the African region (Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Morocco); 10 in Asia (Cambodia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Niue, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey and United Arab Emirates), one in North America (United States of America) and six in Latin America and the Caribbean (Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru and Venezuela). It appears, however, that in certain States non-parties, internal procedures are under way to enable them to become parties to UNCLOS. Developing landlocked States in Africa and Central Asia should also ratify or accede to UNCLOS, as Part X of UNCLOS dealing with access to and from the sea and freedom of transit provides the basic legal framework for the negotiation of modalities of such access and transit.

The Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention was adopted on 28 July 1994 (General Assembly resolution 48/263) and entered into force on 28 July 1996. The Agreement is to be interpreted and applied together with the Convention as a single instrument, and in the event of any inconsistency between the Agreement and Part XI of the Convention, the provisions of the Agreement shall prevail. After 28 July 1994, any ratification of or accession to the Convention represents consent to be bound by the Agreement as well. Furthermore, no State or entity can establish its consent to be bound by the Agreement unless it has previously established its consent to be bound by the Convention or unless it establishes such consent to be bound by the Agreement and the Convention at the same time.

Not all States parties to the Convention are parties to the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI. A number of States which became States parties to the Convention prior to the adoption of the Agreement on Part XI have yet to express their consent to be bound by the Agreement (see the table).These States should take the necessary steps in order to accede to that Agreement and thus to put their participation in the work of the International Seabed Authority on a sound legal footing.

The Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (the 1995 Agreement on Fish Stocks) was adopted on 4 August 1995 by the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Unlike the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention, there is no direct linkage between the 1995 Agreement on Fish Stocks and the Convention with respect to establishing the consent to be bound.

The Agreement was opened for signature until 4 December 1996 and received a total of 59 signatures.  The Agreement entered into force on 11 December 2001, 30 days after the date of deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification or accession. Although the Agreement provides, in its article 41, for the possibility of its provisional application, no State or entity has notified the depositary of its wish to do so.


If you are interested in more on existing recent boundary treaties between Canada and USA as related to the UN and UNCLOs, these might prove to be a fun read. Enjoy!!

 Treaty to submit to binding dispute settlement the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, 29 March 1979
 Special Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America to submit to a Chamber of the International Court of Justice the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, 29 March 1979
 Case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) International Court of Justice, 12 October 1984

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Bay of Fundy's Quoddy NIMBYs are BAD, BAD, BAD!

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

I'm sure that many of you folks who have been trying to preserve your jobs, homes, and way of life in the Bay of Fundy's Quoddy Region will be delighted to hear how unreasonable you all are according to spin-doctor  Al Maiorino!

October 8, 2009 


Beyond the Backyard -- The NIMBY of Today

by Al Maiorino, Public Strategy Group Inc. 
"Not in my backyard," or NIMBY, is a term used to describe a person or a group of people who strongly oppose new development in their communities. Whether it's a new housing complex, retail development, casino or power plant, NIMBYs – as they are commonly referred to – will actively organize to communicate their opposition to a local project in an effort to curb development.

These days, the “backyard” in NIMBY has grown so vastly that residents often oppose airplane flight paths, offshore wind and liquefied natural gas terminals.

More often it seems that NIMBY activists are simply in it to win it. They speak out, without taking the time to educate themselves with accurate information pertaining to the development at hand. While NIMBY groups may protest loud and proud, their motives often stem from misinformation and poor communication between project representatives and the community.

You can read the entire article here ... and it will ring bells believe me!!!

Friday, October 16, 2009

"Listen up" Governor Baldacii - Passamaquoddy Bay is a coastal estuary.

Seems New England Governors will commit themselves to "safeguard coastal and estuarine lands". If this is the case, why did Governor Baldacii's advisors not tell him that the proposed sites of the LNG terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay are on "coastal and estuarine land". I know this, every citizen of Quoddy knows this, the IJC knows this, the Government of Canada knows this, numerous state and federal agencies know this ... it's no secret. Perhaps you can have it two ways at the same time? Kind of a bipolar government?

My thoughts tonight.

Thanks Vivian


"A Lasting Legacy", the just-released recommendations of the "Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Land Conservation" ordered by the New England Governors Conference (NEGC) and accepted by them at their Sept. 15 meeting in New Brunswick. 

The Commission ... recommends five compelling goals for regional collaboration across New England, a set of policy priorities upon which to build a regional conservation strategy. These are:
1. Keep Forests as Forests,
2. Keep Farmlands in Farming,
3. Connect People to the Outdoors,
4. Protect Wildlife Habitat, and
5. Safeguard Coastal and Estuarine Lands.

The full "
Report of the NEGC Commission on Land Conservation" (5 MB) can be downloaded from the N.E. Governors' Conference website:

Get the pictures and subscribe at:
Photo Credit: Art MacKay 
Note: Proposed Calais LNG site is up the estuary near Devil's Head

Upcoming conference on Maine Maritime Boundary Delimitation - Is anyone from Quoddy participating?

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

The following is coming up November 13 - 14,  2009: "Conference on the Gulf of Maine Maritime Boundary. Delimitation: Law, Science and Policy of Marine Transboundary Management", Portland, Maine - for information, email

It's important that representatives from the Quoddy community consider direct involvement in issues that will affect them directly. Boundary law has enormous implications for Canadians as outlined in this article which defines other disputed areas as follows:

At least part of the Canadian economy is tied to the people who make a living from the resources of the sea, be they fishermen or oil drillers. These resources need protection from foreign exploiters; thus, the need for national jurisdictions. But with national jurisdictional claims, comes the overlap with claims of other nations. For Canada, these overlaps occur:

· off the mouth of Juan de Fuca Strait;
· in, and seaward of, Dixon Entrance on the Pacific Coast;
· near Machias Seal Island on the Atlantic coast;
· in the Beaufort and Lincoln Seas in the Arctic.

Special problems occur because of the already negotiated or arbitrated boundaries in Baffin Bay and Nares Strait and in the Gulf of Maine. The ownership of two islands, Machias Seal and Hans Island in Kennedy Channel is still disputed.

Winner of the I Love Quoddy Wild Contest to receive new book about Quoddy - Enter today!

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Send your spookiest photo to artmackay.ilqw @ and you could win this book which covers the 15,000 years from Laurentide glacier to the issues today. Learn about Quoddy's beauty, diversity, eco-economy, people, history, and current challenges. A unique and important new publication to be issued in time for Christmas.

Time to vote for the Bay of Fundy again! Do it now, it's quick and easy!

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

The third phase of the New7Wonders of Nature is now underway, and you can vote on your choice of seven natural wonders from the selection of 28 Official Finalist Candidates. If you cast your vote during the nominee phases, you can vote again now during this finalist phase. 

Vote now

Thursday, October 15, 2009

No such thing as free energy

Art MacKay sent you the following article

Tidal Power - the thin edge of the wedge

No such thing as free energy

Article online since October 14th 2009
By Heather Killen Spectator Not everyone is pleased the province is moving forward to test tidal power turbines in the Bay of Fundy. The Department of Environment recently announced a new tidal power demonstration project to test underwater turbines in hopes of converting......

@ All rights reserved Media Transcontinental

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Why we won't save the world.

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

As General Electric — sometimes viewed as a US national champion despite the fact that 53% of its assets reside elsewhere — told Congress this week
Such measures would be counterproductive from the point of view of combating climate change because they would deter innovation and technology deployment.  In addition, they would be severely detrimental to US export interests … Companies will be careful to avoid licensing technology or even selling products to customers in countries where those customers could reverse engineer, take and use the intellectual property rights.
 Read the entire article:

Monday, October 12, 2009

"Screw Canada" comment poll gets startling results.

Our poll asked for your response to the Bangor Daily News comment "screw Canada".

3 out of 5 respondents chose "Huh?" indicating they couldn't figure out how you could do this act in the first place, while 2 out of 5 respondents indicated that they couldn't figure out why you would wish to do this act in the first place ... with or without a screwdriver!

This poll is accurate 5 times out of 5, 100% of the time, except on Halloween.

Wow ... we'll have to do this again some time!!

Art, Decibel Research

If I was a paranoid, Baldacii's wish to dominate Canadian water might be ...

Never has this process (manipulation of the population) been as blatant and overt as in recent years when the time has come for America to legitimize the idea of global domination. A Department of Defense report titled Joint Vision 2020 calls for the US military to be capable of "full spectrum dominance" of the entire planet. That means total domination and control of all land, sea, air, space and information.
For Columbus Day, read the full article and see if your neck hairs stand up straight like mine did. Enjoy.


Thanks Vivian

Saturday, October 10, 2009

For the Record - Approaches to Canaport LNG compared to approaches to proposed Passamaquoddy LNG terminals

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Proponents of LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay continue to compare these developments with Canaport LNG in Saint John. Hopefully, the following will demonstrate the difference.


LNG at Saint John vs LNG at Passamaquoddy Bay

We believe that Passamaquoddy Bay is the wrong place for LNG facilities. We have taken no position on LNG at other locations. However, we keep hearing criticism from folks who can't see any difference between LNG at Saint John Harbour and LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay. Apart from the richness of the Quoddy Region and the financial losses that will occur, the approaches are so different that it is clear that these critics have not bothered to do a little reseach.

Access to Saint John Harbour is characterized by a direct, safe, unobstructed route from the Outer Bay of Fundy to the Harbour. Traffic lanes have been moved to avoid principal Right Whale areas. The Harbour has been active since the City was founded and has modern navigation, security, and safety systems in place.

Approaches to Saint John Harbour
(Click image for full sized view)

In contrast, the route to Passamaquoddy Bay passes through a Right Whale Sanctuary, vital fishing and aquaculture grounds, and the primary tourist area for the Bay of Fundy (see the slide show at It follows a difficult, narrow, and dangerous passage through upwellings, extreme currents, the Old Sow Whirlpool, and into Passamaquoddy Bay, a vital area for tourism, endangered species, research, education and the home of numerous historic and protected sites including St. Croix island an international historic site and F.D. Roosevelt's summer home and the park at Campobello. There are very limited navigation, security, and safety systems in place.

Additionally, the proposed terminals are all sited along the Canada and US Border, increasing security risks in an area which should act as a buffer zone. This is not an area where foreign ships and crews should be passing between our two countries under current circumstances.

A quick look at the Google aerials should be adequate to satisfy the most difficult critic.

Approaches to Passamaquoddy Bay
(Click image for full sized view)

Product Surge at Canaport LNG causes huge flare and evacuation.

Ahh, just the kind of tension we need down here in Passamaquoddy Bay. Excitement, danger, fear....!!! I actually saw this today on my way to SJ ... impressive to say the least.



Flare problems force evacuation of LNG site
Last Updated: Saturday, October 10, 2009 | 8:08 PM AT Comments6Recommend7
CBC News

Saint John fire Chief Rob Simonds says there was a problem with the flaring system. (CBC)Saint John fire Chief Rob Simonds says there was a problem with the flaring system. (CBC) The Canaport liquefied natural gas terminal in east Saint John was evacuated Saturday at about 12:30 p.m. AT.

Emergency crews responded to a report of a fire at the terminal, located on Red Head Road.

Fire Chief Rob Simonds said there was a problem with the flaring system used to burn off secondary gases.

The flame was three times larger than its normal size and was visible from uptown Saint John, Simonds said.

"There was a very large volume of fire coming out of the flaring system, which is an indication that there was a surge of product going through that."

Workers at the scene told CBC News the flare appeared to have gotten out of control and it created a great deal of heat. They were forced off the job for about an hour.

No one was injured.

Some of the workers were ordered out of the Canaport LNG terminal Saturday. (CBC)Some of the workers were ordered out of the Canaport LNG terminal Saturday. (CBC) "The notification thresholds and protocols that have been put in place have worked seamlessly," said Simonds.

Workers cut back the fuel supply to the flare and the plant's warning system alerted emergency responders.

Four fire trucks and several police cars responded to the problem. One fire truck was expected to remain there until the flare tower cooled and ensure none of the sensors that detect emergency situations were damaged, the chief said.

Earlier in the day, hundreds of laid-off tradespeople gathered to protest being replaced by out-of-province workers at the liquefied natural gas terminal project.

Most of the protesters are union members who were laid off after building the first two enormous containment tanks at the Irving-Repsol owned terminal.

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Photo Credit: CBC NB

Governor Baldacci declares Maine's right to transit Candian waters in the Bay of Fundy ... and where else in Canada?

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

The LNG tanker route at Head Harbour Passage. Brian Flynn photo.

Maine must not cede rights to maritime transit

By John E. Baldacci
Special to the BDN

There is much that binds Maine and New Brunswick together. We have a long and shared history, common borders and many joint economic opportunities. During my term as governor, I have worked hard to increase cross-border cooperation on a number of issues critical to both sides.

And we have made great progress by recognizing that our region is stronger when New England and eastern Canada are able to work together.

But these strong relations do not guarantee that we will agree on all issues.

Right now, Maine and the United States are in a heated dispute with Canada and New Brunswick over shipping in Passamaquoddy Bay, the St. Croix River and through Head Harbor Passage.

Passamaquoddy Bay and the St. Croix River are boundary waters between the United States and Canada.

According to international law, treaties between the U.S. and Canada and current practice, ships headed to port in Maine have as much right to use the passage as ships headed to Canada. The U.S. State Department has taken a strong and consistent position that all vessels enjoy a nonsuspendable right of innocent passage into and out of Passamaquoddy Bay through Head Harbor Passage. This is guaranteed by the International Law of the Sea Convention.

Canada disagrees and has asserted, without evidence, that the river and bay are “internal” Canadian waters, and commerce there can be controlled and regulated by Ottawa.

In the simplest language possible, that’s wrong.

Ships heading for Maine and the United States and Canada have the right to travel up the river, as they do now.

The issue of right of passage has been tied up with two current proposals to develop liquid natural gas terminals in Maine. Canada, which has an LNG terminal of its own, is attempting to block the developments on our side of the border.

While I support the development of LNG facilities in Maine as long as they meet all environmental and safety requirements and have the support of the host communities, the issues along the St. Croix, Head Harbor Passage and Passamaquoddy Bay go much deeper than these two proposed projects.

Today, Canada and New Brunswick have made the decision that it is in their best interest to attempt to block LNG tankers from reaching port in the United States.

Tomorrow, the decision could be made that other types of commercial traffic should be blocked. As Maine works to develop and grow exports, there is great potential for wood pulp, biofuels, wood chips and any number of other products to be shipped down the St. Croix to markets around the world.

Annually, more than 100 deep draft cargo ships visit the ports of Eastport in the U.S. and Bayside in Canada already, and the U.S. Coast Guard uses the waterway to reach the ocean. If Canada’s claim is left unchallenged, that traffic will also be left to the discretion of Ottawa.

Whether a person supports LNG in Calais or Robbinston, this question is much larger.

It is not appropriate for the Canadian government to hold control over commerce in Maine and the United States.

As to the specifics of the LNG proposals, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a process in place to judge whether the locations are appropriate, and New Brunswick is rightly participating in that process as are supporters and opponents of the developments.

FERC is the best venue for the issue of LNG terminal location to be resolved.

There are legitimate concerns about the projects, and opponents should have the right and the opportunity to be heard. Questions have been raised about the safety of LNG tankers in Head Harbor Passage, Western Passage and Passamaquoddy Bay. According to the United States Coast Guard, which studied the issue, those areas are suitable for tanker traffic. In addition, the communities in Calais and Robbinston have supported the projects.

The proposals deserve a chance to be judged on their merits, not on the disposition of the Canadian government.

I have met with the Obama administration and with the U.S. State Department, and both have reiterated their support for the right of innocent passage through Head Harbor Passage.

Whether LNG terminals are developed in Washington County or not, we cannot cede control of commerce in Maine to another country, no matter how well we are able to cooperate on other issues.

John E. Baldacci is the governor of Maine.

11 comments on this item
Yes ole great baldi, but it seems to me while our rights are being protected dealing with Canada, that maybe we could be moving forward in finding another more suitible place for the dang tankers to off load. I really don`t know if we need one since they are already a short distance north and south of us . But I will respect the opinions of others that are more in the know.
If Canada prevails on this matter, we should demand an accounting of what the ships that go to Bay Side terminal in New Brunswick are carrying. Are they carrying hazerdous materials that could lead to a natural disaster? Endangering the ecological balance of Passamoquody Bay?

What if the US Navy decided to bring Nuclear Submarines to Eastport? What could or would Canada do to stop their passage?
Governor Baldacci and the US Department of State ignore the ongoing US refusal to ratify membership to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As UNCLOS makes perfectly clear, sovereigns must have agreed to the terms of (ratified) the treaty in order to enjoy its benefits. Without ratification, the US has no recourse, as even admitted in the Bangor Daily News by US Coast Guard attorney CAPT Charles Michel, Chief, Office of Maritime and International Law.

The Governor's support for LNG, so long as host communities support the project, contradicts his own premise, since the vast majority of people -- in the thousands, as opposed to the fewer than 300 who have voted in favor of the two projects -- in the Passamaquoddy Bay community oppose these projects.

Additionally, Gov. Baldacci's support contradicts his own Energy Plan. His plan requires a year-long "dialogue" on LNG to determine if it is a good fit for Maine -- a process that has not yet begun.

The Governor's attempt to assert Canada has an agenda other than safety of its citizens and environment is unfounded and unsubstantiated. Innocent passage is the issue, as even the world LNG industry indicates. The Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO), representing virtually the entire world LNG industry, has published best practices for LNG terminal siting. LNG terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay cannot be made to fit those best practices. Canada's prohibition is in perfect agreement with the industry on this matter. The US, on the other hand, brushes aside those best practices, rationalizing that they are not law.

Canada voiced its prohibition of these projects in 2007. The real puzzle is why Governor Baldacci and the LNG developers refuse to relocate these projects in industry-compliant locations instead of using a flawed argument to pick an unnecessary and winless fight.
I have been informed by the US Coast Guard they are currently investigating the issue of ammonium nitrate shipments to Bayside, NB. For the same reason as Canada's ban on LNG transits into Passamaquoddy Bay, the US would be within its authority to ban ammonium nitrate transits in US waters.
"Canaport LNG, a partnership between Irving Oil (25%) and Repsol YPF (75%), is constructing a state-of-the-art LNG receiving and regasification terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick that will begin operations in late 2008. It will be the first LNG regasification plant in Canada, sending out natural gas to both Canadian and American Markets. The LNG have a send-out capacity, or the ability to distribute via pipeline, 1 billion cubic feet (28 million cubic meters) of natural gas a day after it has been regasified from its liquid state.[8]...",_New_Brunswick

Is Canada possibly trying to protect its economic interests under the guise of environmental concerns, or are there genuine (excessive) environmental risks/concerns in Maine's proposal?
Canada and New Brunswick have both repeatedly stated they do not oppose LNG development in Maine. They simply oppose LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay, due to it being an unsafe fit.
Can the validity of their concerns be accurately and non-subjectively assessed?
The LNG industry terminal siting best practices indicate...
• long, winding, inland waterways, with high tides and fast currents;
• with existing conflicting uses; and
• >>> where LNG vapors from a release could affect civilian populations <<<
...are unfit for LNG facilities.

The Passamaquoddy Bay proposals would require thousands of civilians in New Brunswick and Maine be subjected to LNG ships' Federally-defined 2.2-mile-radius Hazard Zones. There is no question that Passamaquoddy Bay does not conform to LNG industry best practices.
Note that Canaport LNG is in a rural industrial area, adjacent to an oil refinery, 5 miles across the water from Saint John, NB -- well outside US Federal Government-defined Hazard Zones.
Thanks for the information.
Please go to .The first article by Cliff Goudy of MIT shows how ridiculous the "innocent passage" position really is. Two google map representations show the difference between the approaches to Saint John and the approaches to Robbinston and Red Head in Passamaquoddy Bay via Head Harbour Passage. Huge difference wouldn't you say?

Also, the area supports a long-time sustainable industry based on tourism, fisheries, aquaculture, education, research, etc. that brings in between a half billion and one billion dollars each year. These businesses will be seriously disrupted by the exclusion zone that will exist around LNG tankers (2 miles ahead, one mile behind, and 1000 yard on each side - underway, at port, or during layover as I recall). These resource-based industries depend on an ecosystem that supports the highest biodiversity on the Atlantic coast of Canada, if not north of Cape Cod. This has been proven and substantiated scientifically. The reports are on the record at FERC.

Finally, the citizens of Quoddy, both Canadian and American, are the ones that wish to protect their homeland and the thousands of jobs that depend on this unique environment. It really has nothing to do with politics or Irving other than the Prime Minister, Premier and others have agreed to support our position in this serious matter. We pitched them and they are standing up for their electorate and Canada's rights.

To learn more about about why this place is so special, go to to see a presentation that was prepared over 2 years ago but is still valid today. Also shows the importance of Head Harbour Passage to whales, birds, fish, and humans right now. Several dozen endangered species, including the North Atlantic right whale, finback, and Harbour Porpoise, are in our trust. You will be astounded by the life that has been reported in Head Harbour Passage and vicinity this summer.

All of the scientific publications supporting these statements are in the public domain. It is sad that the Governor and others in Maine have not taken the time to learn for themselves how important Head Harbour Passage, West Isles, and Cobscook Bay really are. What's worse is the demonization of those of us here who are simply trying to protect our homes, jobs, and the environment that supports them ... for me that includes many generations from both sides of the border.

Finally, the contention that Head Harbour Passage is internal Canadian waters is supported by law, treaty, and definition. It's all in the documents folks. But, I admit it really does take patience and time to wade through to find the answer. It's really much easier to toss of words like "innocent passage", "NIMBY" and to use threats and insults.

Oh, by the way, if the Americans that control the Bayside port want to pack up and go home., that's okay by me ... and most of the citizens over here as well! What they have done and wish to do to our coast is and will remain, a moral sin and represents everything that you can expect from the LNG developments in Passamaquoddy Bay ... a future of destruction.

Third border bridge at Calais - St. Stephen set to open late next month

Get the pictures and subscribe at:
 Published Saturday October 10th, 2009
Derwin Gowan

ST. STEPHEN - A new era for St. Stephen and Calais, Maine, might begin in another six weeks, a Maine government spokeswoman said this week.
1 of 2
Click to Enlarge
Click to Enlarge
Derwin Gowan/Telegraph-Journal
The new bridge linking St. Stephen to Calais, Maine, across the St. Croix River will tentatively open to traffic Nov. 21. The third crossing at St. Stephen/Calais will divert trucks and other through traffic from the centre of the border communities. This photograph shows the entry portals and other facilities at the Canadian end of the bridge. The trees on the horizon are in Calais. 
Officials on both sides of the border are still sorting out schedules to get everybody together to cut the ribbon to open the new international bridge linking the two communities across the St. Croix River.

However, it will likely happen next month, people on each side of the river say.
"We are tentatively looking at a date of Nov. 21," Maine Department of Transportation spokeswoman Meg Lane said Thursday. "That's how it appears now."

"They're talking about some dates towards the end of November," said Andrew Holland with the New Brunswick Department of Transportation.

Opening the third bridge will divert large trucks and other through traffic, forcing businesses downtown businesses in St. Stephen and Calais, Maine, to adapt.

Some businesses will miss the drive-by traffic. However, long line-ups of transport trucks backed up Milltown Boulevard - like the one Friday morning - to clear United States customs and immigration will become a memory.

Local traffic will still use the two old bridges - at Ferry Point linking Milltown Boulevard, St. Stephen, to Main Street, Calais, and the Milltown Bridge not far below the new bridge.

Read complete article at:

Friday, October 9, 2009

Finally - US Policy concludes Canada has the right to manage its resources in Head Harbour Passage.

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

As the United States Struggles to reshape its ocean policy as outlined in the article below, interesting little tidbits emerge. Like this statement defining "Federal Waters":

Federal waters, which include the territorial sea and the Exclusive Economic  Zone (EEZ), reach from the 3- or 9-nm (nautical mile) borders of state  waters out to the 200-nm outer boundary of the EEZ, an ocean area in which  the United States has rights to explore, exploit, and manage living and nonliving resources (5-7).

So, let's see the United States has the right to manage its living and nonliving resources out to the end of the 200 mile limit, but Canada doesn't have those rights in the internal Canadian Waters of Head Harbour Passage. Well, I guess that settles the argument!! So the Passamaquoddy Bay LNG terminal developers can go home now, or go back to the Maine Legislature. How does one continue in government while promoting an LNG development. I think that might be considered a conflict of interest in most civilized countries. Would it?

Here's the entire article. Thanks Vivian.

***********************;324/5924/183 (AAAS Members
Legal Bedrock for Rebuilding America's Ocean Ecosystems
Mary Turnipseed,1* Larry B. Crowder,2 Raphael D. Sagarin,3 Stephen E.
10 April 2009
[Vol. 324. no. 5924, pp. 183 - 184]
Recent discussions about ocean policy reform have focused on ecosystem-based
management, which fully incorporates humans and considers the cumulative
impacts of their activities on ecosystems and the services they provide (1).
This approach is logical given the highly interconnected social-ecological
systems of the ocean (2) and may be best realized through comprehensive
marine spatial planning and ocean zoning (3). But U.S. ocean governance as
currently configured cannot easily accommodate ecosystem-based management
Federal waters, which include the territorial sea and the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ), reach from the 3- or 9-nm (nautical mile) borders of state
waters out to the 200-nm outer boundary of the EEZ, an ocean area in which
the United States has rights to explore, exploit, and manage living and
nonliving resources (5-7). Because of the United States' extensive
coastlines and territorial holdings, these waters cover 3.6 million nautical
square miles (11.4 km2), an area that is larger than the combined land area
of the 50 states. Over 20 federal agencies operating under dozens of laws
regulate activities, support ocean-based commerce, and protect marine
species and habitats in the territorial sea and EEZ (8) (see figure, right).
These agencies separately manage parts of marine ecosystems, without any
systematic effort to coordinate their actions for the public good (9).
Uncoordinated sectoral ocean governance.
A cacophony of activities, most regulated by separate federal agencies,
crowd ocean waters in the Gulf of Maine. A federal public trust doctrine
extended to all U.S. ocean waters would identify these agencies as trustees
of the U.S. ocean public trust, unifying them for the first time under a
common mandate to manage marine resources sustainably. LNG, liquified
natural gas; OPAREAs, Operating areas.
With new leadership in place in Washington, U.S. ocean policy is poised for
a long-overdue transformation. Since two national ocean commissions
highlighted the need for dramatic reform 5 years ago (8, 10), progress has
been made toward understanding how to rebuild ocean ecosystems [e.g. (11,
12)]. But implementing a new, ecosystem-based policy regime for federal
ocean waters will require a solid legal foundation that provides the
authority for, and imposes responsibility upon, disparate federal agencies
to collaborate in their management of ocean resources. The public trust
doctrine would provide this critical foundation.
The doctrine is a simple but powerful legal concept that obliges state
governments to manage certain natural resources in the best interests of
their citizens (13). More generally, a "trust" is a legal relationship in
which a person or entity (the "trustee") manages a property or resource for
the benefit of another person or group. The trustee is legally bound to
preserve the assets of the trust, allowing only judicious use of the assets
and repairing the trust should it be harmed. The trustee must also manage
the trust exclusively in the interests of the beneficiaries (14). The
beneficiaries of states' public trusts include living and future citizens
(15). Thus, inherent to the doctrine is the idea of intergenerational
equity; trustees must manage trust assets so that needs of current
beneficiaries are met without sacrificing needs of future beneficiaries. A
federal public trust doctrine, if formally extended from state waters to the
outer edges of the EEZ, would identify federal agencies as having
responsibility for marine resources as trustees of the U.S. ocean public
trust and U.S. citizens as the sole beneficiaries.
Many analysts, including the presidentially appointed U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, have assumed that the doctrine already encompasses the vast
space of the territorial sea and EEZ (8) [supporting online material (SOM)
text]. But our recent review (16) reveals that the legal authority and
responsibility of the federal government to manage marine resources in the
best interests of U.S. citizens as a trustee under a federal public trust
doctrine have not been formally articulated by the courts or established in
statutory law. Instead, the doctrine is well established in the United
States only at the state level (15), where courts have consistently held
that the public trust doctrine requires state agencies and attorneys general
to seek legal action against private parties infringing on the public trust.
Furthermore, state trustees cannot abdicate their responsibility to manage
the trust; if they do, the doctrine enables citizens to seek judicial review
of their actions [or inaction (SOM text)]. In some states, courts have used
the public trust doctrine to protect coastal ecosystem services (17, 18),
and Massachusetts recently passed the first state law mandating a
comprehensive ocean management plan "to ensure its effective stewardship of
the ocean waters held in trust for the benefit of the public" (19). Although
states do work cooperatively with federal agencies on issues such as coastal
zone and fisheries management, they alone cannot protect U.S. ocean
resources and the services they provide. Ocean ecosystems are interconnected
across state and federal political lines, and states have limited authority
in federal waters (SOM text).
In addition to providing a consistent framework for federal ocean agencies
implementing ecosystem-based management, a public trust doctrine for U.S.
federal waters would be a policy backstop for these agencies to enforce the
public trust against infringing parties. The doctrine would also extend
greater standing to U.S. citizens to protect their interests in the
management of ocean trust resources in the instance of abuse or neglect of
the trust (SOM text). And, with the current scientific understanding of the
necessity of coordinated, comprehensive action to stem the widespread
decline of U.S. marine ecosystems (9), it would be difficult for a federal
agency operating under a public trust mandate to avoid working cooperatively
with agencies that manage other components of the ocean ecosystem.
Therefore, explicitly mandating the common responsibility of these agencies
to protect the ocean public trust could catalyze interagency ecosystem-based
management in U.S. oceans.
A federal public trust doctrine for U.S. ocean waters could be established
in a number of ways:
Executive order: The president could make expanding the doctrine a signature
of his administration through an executive order that directs all federal
ocean agencies to apply their resources toward cooperatively and sustainably
managing the ocean public trust (SOM text).
Judicial interpretation: Federal judges could extend the doctrine into the
territorial sea and EEZ by invoking the same instruments relied upon by
state courts to enlarge the reach of the doctrine--judicial precedents,
language in existing statutes, and the common law (SOM text).
Congressional mandate: The Congress could unambiguously write the doctrine
into federal oceans law. As one example, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) could be given the following directive: "NOAA's
mission is to manage and protect public trust resources within the waters
and atmosphere of the U.S. with the cooperation of other federal and state
agencies." Once mandated, the doctrine could be put into practice via agency
memoranda--a top-down approach to implementing broad changes in agency
practice for which there is ample precedent [e.g. (20)]--directing all
workers to carry out the legislated work of their agencies under their newly
articulated duties as trustees of the ocean public trust.
Just as assets in our economy are inextricably linked, assets in our ocean
trust portfolio are linked with one another. To move past the failing status
quo in U.S. ocean management and to build a vigorous mandate that provides
both the authority and the responsibility for federal agencies to jointly
work to manage U.S. oceans as whole ecosystems will require that we answer,
as soon as possible, two critical questions: For whom should our country's
oceans be managed, and for what purpose? The public trust doctrine answers
both of these questions. By insisting that federal agencies manage the U.S.
ocean public trust for the long-term benefit of all American citizens,
citizens and the governments they elect can begin to harmonize the concepts
of representative democracy and sustainable resource use and stewardship.
References and Notes
1.K. L. McLeod et al., Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine
Ecosystem-Based Management (Communication Partnership for Science and the
Sea, 2005).
2.J. S. Shackeroff, E. L. Hazen, L. B. Crowder, in Ecosystem-Based
Management for the Oceans, K. L. McLeod and H. Leslie, Eds. (Island Press,
Washington, DC, in press).
3.F. Douvere, Mar. Policy 32, 762 (2008).
4.P. A. Parenteau, D. C. Baur, J. L. Schorr, in Ocean & Coastal Law &
Policy, D. C. Baur, T. Eichenberg, M. Sutton, Eds. (American Bar
Association, Chicago, IL, 2008), chap. 19.
5.State waters of Texas and off Florida's western coast extend to 9 nm
offshore. The territorial sea lies seaward of state waters out to 12 nm.
6.Presidential Proclamation 5030, "Exclusive Economic Zone of the United
States of America," 48 Fed. Reg. 10605 (1983).
7.Global Maritime Boundaries Database, August 2007 version;
8.U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century:
Final Report (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC, 2004).
9.L. B. Crowder et al., Science 313, 617 (2006).
10.Pew Oceans Commission, America's Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea
Change: A Report to the Nation (Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA, 2003).
11.A. A. Rosenberg, J. H. Swasey, M. Bowman, Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 303
12.National Research Council, Dynamic Changes in Marine Ecosystems: Fishing,
Food Webs, and Future Options (National Academies of Science, Washington,
DC, 2006).
13.Though these resources initially only included the lands and living and
nonliving resources submerged under navigable and tidal waters, states'
doctrines today typically cover wetlands and terrestrial wildlife, among
other natural resources.
14.Restatement (Third) of Trusts 2 (2003).
15.J. H. Archer et al., The Public Trust Doctrine and the Management of
America's Coasts (Univ. of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA, 1994).
16.M. Turnipseed, S. E. Roady, R. Sagarin, L. B. Crowder, Ecology L. Q. 36,
1 (2009).
17.J. B. Ruhl, J. Salzman, Southeast. Environ. Law J. 15, 223 (2006).
18."[O]ne of the most important public uses of the tidelands .is the
preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve
as .environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life?.
." Marks v. Whitney, 491 P.2d 374, 380 (Cal. 1971).
19.Massachusetts Oceans Act, 4C(a) (2008).
20.Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Memorandum to the
Regional Administrators, Guidance for Developing Environmental Impact
Statements for Essential Fish Habitat per the American Oceans Campaign v.
Daley Court Order (NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, 22 January 2001).
21.We are grateful to N. Baron, M. Barrett, A. Dave, S. Gary, M. Gopnik, L.
Joppa, A. Schick Kenney, D. Klinger, B. Simler, M. Wright, S. Lozier, K.
Rumble, and three anonymous referees for their comments on earlier versions
of this article. We especially thank C. Good for contributing the figure.
The Nicholas Institute and the Nicholas School provided support. L.B.C.
thanks the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for support during this
research. R.D.S. acknowledges support from the David and Lucile Packard
Supporting Online Material 10.1126/science.1170889

1Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
2Center for Marine Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke
University, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA.
3Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University,
Durham, NC 27708, USA.
4Duke University Law School, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA, and
Earthjustice, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
*Author for correspondence. E-mail:
### (AAAS Members Only)

Public Trust Doctrine: Too Limited
2 October 2009
[Vol. 326. no. 5949, p. 44]
As someone who has long advocated a coherent national ocean policy, I agree
with M. Turnipseed and her colleagues that properly framed public trust
concepts regarding the United States's marine environments could be an
important component of federal oceans law ("Legal bedrock for rebuilding
America's ocean ecosystems," Policy Forum, 10 April, p. 183). However, the
public trust doctrine-described by Turnipseed et al. as a "legal concept
that obliges state governments to manage certain natural resources in the
best interests of their citizens"-is not necessarily the "legal bedrock"
that the authors portray it to be, particularly if the goal is broad-based
ecosystem management.
The authors rely heavily on California's public trust doctrine, which is one
of the two most expansive and ecologically protective versions of the public
trust doctrines in the United States (Hawaii's is the other). Each state has
its own version of the doctrine, and most have not been nearly so willing to
extend their public trust law to aquatic ecosystem protection.
Indeed, as framed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the seminal case of Illinois
Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892), the public trust
doctrine has two main components. First, it prevents states from giving
private persons control over the beds and banks of navigable waters, and
hence control over the waters themselves. Thus, the resources protected
under the doctrine include only bed-based natural resources such as oil and
gas, gravel, and occasionally shellfish.
Second, the public trust doctrine classically preserves only three public
uses of the navigable waters themselves: navigation, commerce, and fishing.
This last use underscores the need to carefully construct any public trust
doctrine for the United States's marine waters. Many marine fish populations
are in dire trouble (1-4), and enshrining a right to fish in federal law
would undermine, rather than promote, effective ocean ecosystem management.
Robin Kundis Craig1
1 The Florida State University College of Law, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1601,
1. D. Pauly et al., Science 302, 1359 (2003).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. C. Costello, S. D. Gaines, J. Lynham, Science 321, 1678
(2008).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. B. Worm et al., Science 325, 578 (2009).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. E. Stokstad, Science 324, 170 (2009).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
###;326/5949/44-c (AAAS Members

Public Trust Doctrine: Too Broad

2 October 2009:
[Vol. 326. no. 5949, pp. 44 - 45]

In their Policy Forum ("Legal bedrock for rebuilding America's ocean
ecosystems," 10 April, p. 183), M. Turnipseed et al. claim that extending
the "public trust doctrine" to all U.S. ocean waters would more effectively
promote cooperation in ocean governance than the "failing status quo."
However, the authors fail to consider viable nonregulatory solutions to
ocean management, such as long-term leases, second-bid auctions, and other
public-private contractual arrangements-alternative governance mechanisms
that are now commonly used to manage a wide variety of common-pool natural
resources, including public lands, fisheries, and water resources (1).
In addition to conservation goals, federal ocean agencies must balance an
array of competing uses of ocean resources, including energy, fishing,
shipping, tourism, and military. With so many competing stakeholders in
play, the public trust doctrine is too broad to provide effective guidance
in ocean management. Instead of a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach,
Congress should confer on U.S. ocean agencies the legal authority to
experiment with alternative mechanisms to determine which solutions best
promote efficiency and equity among these myriad competing uses.
F. E. Guerra-Pujol1
1 Pontifical Catholic University School of Law, Ponce, Puerto Rico 00717,
1. R. Grafton et al., J. Law Econ. 43, 679 (2000). [CrossRef] [Web of
###;326/5949/45-a (AAAS Members

Public Trust Doctrine: In Need of Integration

2 October 2009:
Vol. 326. no. 5949, p. 45

The Policy Forum "Legal bedrock for rebuilding America's ocean ecosystems"
(M. Turnipseed et al., 10 April, p. 183) brings much-needed attention to
ocean policy reform. The authors address the problem of too many agencies
having management authority with little overall coordination. The authors'
focus on the public trust doctrine as a solution seems misplaced, however.
Most of the agencies managing resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
already work under a public-benefit mandate. The problem is that these
agencies do not coordinate or integrate their work. It is unclear how the
extension of the public trust doctrine out to the EEZ through executive
order, legislation, or judicial interpretation would lead to more integrated
Before we introduce new laws and regulatory bodies or give existing agencies
further mandates, we must research the success (or failure) of existing
legislation that aims to protect the public trust. I worked for 8 years
implementing the Massachusetts regulatory program that administers the
state's Public Waterfront Act of 1866. The Act protects the public's right
in tidelands for "fishing, fowling, and navigating" and draws its legal
basis from the public trust doctrine (1). Many properties within the
jurisdiction of this program are not in compliance. The problem is not the
lack of a legal basis but rather the limited resources allocated for
compliance and enforcement with the law's mandate (2).
To jump-start integrated management in the EEZ, we need much more than
legislative, judicial, or executive backing of fundamental principles. We
need regulatory mechanisms that have been proven to be effective in other
comparable contexts, as well as recognition of the regional benefits of the
wise use of the sea.
Michelle E. Portman1
1 Marine Policy Center of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods
Hole, MA 02543, USA.
1. Massachusetts General Law (MGL), Chapter 91, The Massachusetts Public
Waterfront Act [codified at 310 CMR 9.01(2)(a) and 310 CMR 9.02] (2008).
2. M. E. Portman, J. Env. Pol. Plan. 8, 293 (2006). [CrossRef]

"Our" Bay of Fundy right whales are threatened in Florida

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Taking the Wrong Path
on Protecting Right Whales
Take action today!
North Atlantic right whale with calf (Credit: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/NOAA).
Scientists believe only 300 to 400 right whales remain. Warfare training exercises in the only known right whale calving grounds would jeopardize their survival.
Dear J.,
Endangered right whales are swimming right into plans by the U.S. Navy to develop an Undersea Warfare Training Range 50 miles off the coast of Florida. Your help is needed to protect this prime whale calving ground.
Right whales, which can grow up to 59 feet long and weigh up to 100 tons, have been listed as an endangered species since 1973. But since then, their numbers have not significantly increased. Scientists believe only 300 to 400 right whales remain.
Warfare training exercises in the only known right whale calving grounds would jeopardize their survival. Some of the biggest causes of right whale deaths are ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. The Navy's training area will include underwater cables, high-speed ship maneuvers, aircraft and submarines.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has said that the "loss of even a single individual right whale may contribute to the extinction of the species." But despite this scientific evidence, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration allowed the Navy to proceed.
Tell NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco that you want her agency to make decisions based on sound science and the law. Let her know that protecting right whales and other endangered species is important to you:
Because the earth needs a good lawyer