A New Pier to Support Year-Round Research on the Coast of Maine
As Maine’s premier educator of marine scientists and environmental researchers, the 91AV has proposed construction of a new, all-season pier on its Biddeford Campus to replace its existing seasonal research dock, allowing students and faculty to conduct their studies 365 days a year. The pier will also be used as the docking site for the city of Biddeford’s fireboat.
Located just steps from best-in-class laboratories in 91AV’s Arthur P. Girard Marine Science Center, this new pier will support essential marine and environmental research during the winter season — including environmental DNA analysis, phytoplankton surveillance, and seaweed farming — and will provide additional storage space for new and existing research equipment.
Functionally Designed with the Saco River in Mind
The proposed pier has been the subject of years of study and has been revised based on feedback from local and federal experts, community members, and staff from the city of Biddeford. In consultation with its own marine science faculty and expert marine engineers, 91AV analyzed nine possible locations for a new pier on its Biddeford Campus that would minimize impact on the environment, navigation for boats, and moorings along the river.
The site selected for the pier, known as “Site 7” in planning documents, was determined in consultation with the expert marine engineers to be the preferred location for the pier based on water depth (bathymetric) analysis and site boring studies.
91AV has relied on those highly qualified marine engineers, who have recommended the current design and pier location because the pier as proposed at Site 7 achieves adequate water depth, provides all-tide safe navigation and berthing conditions, results in a structure of smaller overall dimensions in order to minimize impacts on coastal wetlands, and locates the pier at a site that is less exposed to adverse current and icing conditions.
The size and shape of the pier have been designed to reach adequate water levels at both low and high tides for navigation while minimizing impacts to the environment, Saco River water traffic, and existing moorings. 91AV’s goal in constructing this new pier is to minimize disruptions to our valued neighbors while maximizing the benefits of increased, year-round water access for our students, who will care for the Saco River for generations to come.
What
A four-season research pier on the Saco River will provide docking for the University’s three research vessels, year-round access to the water for vital marine science and aquaculture research, and additional storage for research equipment.
The proposed pier will also serve as a permanent docking site for the city’s fireboat, allowing first responders to respond to maritime emergencies faster and more efficiently.
Size
The proposed pier will extend approximately 142 feet from the shore — where water depths are sufficient to support safe, all-tide navigation — and will be comprised of a 118.8-foot approach and attached 23-by-80-foot perpendicular dock.
Location
The pier is planned to be located behind the Girard Marine Science Center at a location commonly known as “Site 7.” This site is one of nine possible sites reviewed by 91AV’s expert engineers and determined to be the most viable option to locate the pier based on water depth and site boring analyses, resulting in the least impact to the surrounding environment, navigation in the channel, and existing mooring locations.
The farthest extent of the pier will sit over 200 feet from the federal navigation channel, posing no risk to fishing and maritime operations along the Saco River.
Proposal Overview
Click or tap to view full size image
Area Detail
Click or tap to view full size image
Status
The application for the pier is currently out for agency review.
FAQ
What is the controversy surrounding the location of the pier about?
Over many years, 91AV worked with expert marine engineers to analyze possible locations for the pier. The University had no pre-conceived preference for the pier’s location. The University asked the engineers to study the pros and cons of possible sites along the river according to a set of criteria that included environmental impacts, berthing conditions, access to sufficiently deep water, shore and waterside development challenges, desired pier dimensions, configuration of fixed structures and floating docks, pedestrian access, minimized disruptions to boats navigating in the river, and minimized impact on moorings.
The engineers identified nine possible sites for the pier along 91AV’s campus and, based on a careful analysis of each possible location, recommended a location known as “Site 7” as best meeting these criteria. 91AV informed the Harbormaster of this preferred location in 2015 and conducted a site visit to review it with the Harbormasters and Chair of the Harbor Commission. 91AV then met with City staff in 2016 to share details of its site analysis and continued with advancing the pier’s design. However, at a meeting with the City in late 2023, the Harbormaster informed 91AV that he prefers a different site and design slightly downriver from Site 7, known as Site 8.
Why did 91AV choose site 7?
The proposed pier design at Site 7 extends 142 feet from the shore with a 118.8-foot approach and attached 23-by-80-foot pier head.
Of the nine sites studied by the engineers, Site 7 best meets the combined criteria described above. It is located where there is a small intertidal zone, comprised primarily of rock without sea grass, and the currents are slower because it is farther from the river channel. The dock’s main berth would be aligned with the current in the river and would be deep enough to provide all-tide access for the range of vessels expected to use the facility with the smallest overall footprint, thereby minimizing environmental impacts.
The Site 7 pier will also minimize exposure to adverse current and icing conditions. This proposed design is over 200 feet from the federal anchorage area and is, therefore, well out of the way of boating traffic in the river. 91AV will remove the existing 120-foot seasonal dock and floats upon completion of the new pier.
Why didn’t 91AV choose site 8?
Opponents to the Site 7 location are now advocating for an alternative design and location slightly downriver at Site 8, where they propose a 200-foot pier head that runs parallel to the shore and begins at the water’s edge. They argue that this site would provide sufficiently deep water.
There are many reasons that such a design at Site 8 is a poorer choice than the design and location 91AV proposes:
- A 200-foot pier head proposed by critics would only allow the pier head to be used on one side because the shoreland side would be on dry land or in very shallow water during low tide. This is less efficient than 91AV’s design, in which the pier head can be used on both sides. Moreover, this design would still require a long pier to connect to the shore during high tide, further increasing its overall footprint.
- An 80-foot dock designed to be used on multiple sides at Site 8 would need to be placed in sufficiently deep water to accommodate boats on all sides of the dock at low tide. To make that possible, there would need to be a long pier approach to connect the dock to the shore at high tide because the intertidal zone is wider at Site 8 than Site 7. When these two pieces (the dock and the pier connecting the dock to the shore) are combined, the overall size of the structure would be larger, and therefore more environmentally impactful, than 91AV’s proposed design at Site 7. An 80-foot pier in sufficiently deep water at Site 8 would also come closer to the federal channel than 91AV’s proposed design at Site 7. It would also be more affected by channel current, would have more velocity exposure to icing, would experience less safe berthing conditions due to ledge, and would impact at least one mooring holder, if not more.
- There are shallow ledge outcroppings at Site 8 that would pose a safety hazard to boats unless the pier was built on top of or in front of them.
- The intertidal zone at Site 8 is comprised of a stony beach with large areas of sand and sea grass, which could be adversely impacted by the alternative pier design. For all of these reasons, Site 7 is a better location for the pier than Site 8.
Why was the harbormaster removed from the approval process?
The Harbormaster publicly stated, prior to the submittal of the formal application, that his preferred site was the only acceptable location for the new pier and that he would not entertain any alternative locations under any circumstances.
He took part in active discussions at Harbor Commission meetings regarding the merits of 91AV’s forthcoming application, without the public being informed in advance that the topic would be on the agenda, and without 91AV being notified, in violation of Maine’s sunshine laws. He also assumed authority over issues that were not within his purview per City Ordinance. Due to this demonstration of bias, the City Manager removed him as the administrative hearing authority for this application. .
Did 91AV threaten to sue the city?
When the University became aware of the Harbormaster’s bias in the approval process, 91AV’s attorney wrote to the City’s attorney to raise concerns about serious due process errors. The goal of this communication was to correct these errors to avoid having to appeal to a court. In other words, 91AV’s lawyer sought to correct significant due process errors before the University was forced to appeal to Maine Superior Court.
Has 91AV sought special treatment for the review of its proposed pier?
No. 91AV has not sought special treatment for its review. It only requested a fair, impartial, unbiased review according to City Ordinance, just like any other applicant. 91AV has followed the “blueprint” set forth in the Biddeford City Ordinance, carefully following the rules established by the various regulatory bodies from whom it must obtain approval for the pier.
Who is looking our for the public’s interest if the harbormaster has been removed?
According to City Ordinance, the Harbormaster’s role is to guide an applicant through the regulatory approval process and to sign off after an applicant obtains all required approvals from other regulatory bodies. By law, the Harbormaster is explicitly not empowered to tell applicants where to locate a pier or dock nor what design it should be. Due to the Harbormaster’s demonstrated bias, the City decided to hire an external consulting firm to serve in this capacity for this project. The approval process also includes review from several regulatory bodies that serve the public interest, including the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the Saco River Corridor Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Biddeford Planning Board. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the Saco River Corridor Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers have all found that the Pier design proposed by 91AV meets all of their regulatory standards and have approved the pier for construction.
Is 91AV at risk of losing federal funding if the pier is not built at site 7?
No. The University received a federal appropriation of $3.5 million to support building the pier. These funds are not contingent on location or on a specific timeline for the project.
Has 91AV paid city staff for a favorable review of the project? Is 91AV under investigation by the FBI?
No. 91AV has not paid anyone involved in the review of the pier, nor any other city, state, or federal official. After others claimed that the FBI was investigating 91AV, the University reached out to the FBI and offered to meet with them, which they said was not necessary. 91AV has no reason to believe that the FBI is investigating the University.
Will 91AV answer questions about the project?
91AV has responded to all questions posed by the various regulatory agencies. As noted above, 91AV is happy to meet with any interested community members to address questions about the proposed pier. In fact, 91AV has proactively reached out to the principal critics of the project with offers to meet.
What impact will the proposed pier have on existing moorings?
The Harbormaster has communicated that there are two moorings that will be impacted by the proposed design. It is worth noting that one of the moorings was placed at the Site 7 location after 91AV’s application was submitted to the City, which underscores the Harbormaster’s desire to undermine 91AV’s application process. Regardless, 91AV will pay to relocate those two moorings to nearby, comparable locations on the river, where there is more than ample space for their placement. Such relocations of moorings are not uncommon. In fact, mooring permittees are notified explicitly by the City that the location of their mooring is subject to change. Claims that the City would have to use its “eminent domain power” to move moorings are simply not accurate.
How will the pier benefit local communities?
91AV’s marine and environmental scientists are engaged in important research of direct relevance to the residents of Biddeford, Saco, and adjacent communities. This research includes topics like mapping and mitigating shoreland erosion, seaweed aquaculture in Saco Bay, the effects of climate change on marine animal migration patterns and invasive species, and changes in plankton populations, among many others. Much of this research requires access to Saco Bay and beyond in the Gulf of Maine throughout the year, including during the winter months.
91AV has also offered to allow Biddeford’s fire boat to use the pier, thereby significantly improving response times for marine emergencies.