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 on the Saco River and the Gulf of Maine 365 days a year.
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, among many other topics — and will provide docking for the University’s research vessels and 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 impacts 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 based on water depth (bathymetric) and water current analyses, land side topography, and site boring studies, as well as impacts to the environment. The pier as proposed at Site 7 achieves adequate water depth, provides all-tide safe navigation and berthing conditions, and results in a structure of smaller overall dimensions to minimize impacts on coastal wetlands. This location is also less exposed to adverse current and icing conditions than other possible locations along 91AV’s shoreline.
The proposed pier will extend at an angle approximately 142 feet from the shore into a cove-like area with a 118.8-foot approach and attached 23-by-80-foot perpendicular dock. The farthest extent of the pier will sit over 200 feet from the federal anchorage, and approximately 400 feet from the federal navigation channel, posing no risk to maritime operations along the Saco River. Once completed, the proposed pier will extend into the river to a similar distance as the existing seasonal pier, which will be removed once the new pier is completed.
The size and shape of the pier have been designed to reach adequate water levels at both low and high tides while minimizing impacts on 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 and Gulf of Maine for generations to come.
Project Status
Plans for the proposed pier have been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Saco River Corridor Commission, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, and the Biddeford Planning Board.
Proposed Pier Vicinity Map
Click or tap to view full size image
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 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 Harbormaster and Chair of the Harbor Commission. 91AV personnel then met with City staff in 2016 to share details of the 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 didn’t 91AV choose site 8?
Opponents to the Site 7 location are 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. The opponents have asserted on the one hand that they have not suggested what the pier should look like, but, in fact, the primary opponent published a video in which he showed a representation of a 200-foot pier along the water’s edge in a location that he represented as the “Harbormasters Approved Location.” They argue primarily that Site 8 would provide better water depth. However, Site 7 is a sheltered area with a protective nature, provides sufficient water depth even at low tide, has less tidal current, and has a lower exposure to icing. 91AV’s pier design with a shorter pier head at Site 7 is, in fact, more out of the way of navigation than it would be at Site 8.
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 and therefore its environmental impact.
- 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, and would experience less safe berthing conditions due to ledge.
- 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.
What impact will the proposed pier have on existing moorings?
The Harbormaster has identified the names of the two mooring owners whose moorings would need to be relocated when the pier is installed. While other mooring holders have expressed their belief that the pier will impact their moorings, it appears that their concerns are based on a misunderstanding of where the pier will end. According to the City’s mooring map, other than the two directly affected moorings, out of the other permittees who have expressed concern, the mooring that is closest to the end of the pier is in the federal anchorage area over 200 feet away and therefore will not be impacted. 91AV offered to pay to relocate the two moorings to nearby locations on the river that are similar in depth and accessibility to the original sites, ensuring there is ample space for their placement. The Planning Board then made this offer a condition of its approval. 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 not accurate.
Why were the Harbormaster and the Harbor Commission 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.
In addition, the Harbormaster took part in active discussions at a Harbor Commission meeting regarding the merits of 91AV’s forthcoming application. The particular Harbor Commission meeting violated Maine’s public meeting sunshine law because it was not appropriately publicly noticed, and there was no publicly available agenda prior to the meeting. Also, 91AV was not provided any notice of the meeting despite the fact that 91AV’s pier project was going to be discussed. The subject of the Harbor Commission meeting was also improper because the Harbor Commission is the body to whom one must appeal an adverse action by the Harbormaster. The Commission should not make predeterminations about an issue before that issue is brought before it.
The Chair of the Harbor Commission created minutes of the meeting and attached them to an email addressed to a significant number of people. Within the meeting minutes, it was reported that the Harbormaster stated he had twice denied 91AV’s application for the pier, even though 91AV had not yet submitted an application. In other words, the Harbormaster made it clear that any future application was dead on arrival, regardless of its merits. Within his message, the Chair of the Harbor Commission endorsed the Harbormaster’s position and criticized 91AV’s proposal even though the University had not yet even submitted the application, and without 91AV being provided an opportunity to be heard. When people claim that the process was “bungled,” it is important to understand that before the formal process began, the Harbormaster and the Harbor Commission had tainted and bungled their role in the process, requiring the City to take action to remedy their errors.
Subsequently, the City’s lawyer concluded that the Harbormaster’s and Harbor Commission’s consideration and predetermination of 91AV’s future application was “tainted” and that “evidence of bias, violation of due process, and general unfairness are established in the record.” The City’s lawyer advised that the Harbormaster be recused and that, if there was an appeal of a harbormaster decision, the City should create new Harbor Commission because the “the current Harbor Commission has tainted its ability to independently review any decision on the 91AV pier application.” As a result, the former City Manager followed the advice of the City’s lawyer and removed the Harbormaster and the Harbor Commission as the administrative hearing authorities for 91AV’s application. .
Has 91AV threatened 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 to silence those who oppose the pier project?
No. 91AV has followed the processes of the various regulatory agencies that required it to obtain approval. Some of those agencies held public meetings, and some did not, but that was the choice of the various agencies, not the University. 91AV attended or participated in those public meetings and never once objected to the taking of public comment, which was extensive at times. Again, the various agencies followed their processes, and 91AV abided by and respected those processes.
Once a regulatory body makes a decision, however, the law limits who can appeal its decision. In other words, as much as some people would like to continue to be heard, it is the law, and not 91AV, that dictates who can continue to be heard in the regulatory process once a decision is made. While some people may be frustrated that the law did not give them the right to continue their opposition within the regulatory process, that is the legal process, which 91AV has respected.
Who is looking our for the public’s interest if the Harbormaster has been removed?
As detailed below, there are many regulatory entities, not just a single individual, who are looking out for the public interest in a project of this type. According to City Ordinance, the Harbormaster’s role is to guide an applicant through the process for receiving regulatory approval from other regulatory agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Protection and the Biddeford Planning Board. After an applicant receives all required approvals from others, the Harbormaster then “signs off” to recognize that all required approvals have been received. The Harbormaster does not issue a permit himself, and, by law, the Harbormaster is explicitly not empowered to tell applicants where to locate a pier or dock, nor what the design should be.
During a meeting on August 7, 2023 with the City Council’s Policy Committee when he discussed his own revisions to the City’s Harbor Ordinance, the former Head of the Harbor Commission, who has now become a primary opponent of the pier project, explained the role of the Harbormaster as follows per the meeting transcript: "All the harbormaster is, he makes sure that there is an application that has been approved by the Army, an application that has been approved by the DEP, and an application that has been approved by Codes." When pressed by the Policy Committee chair as to whether the Harbormaster is the one that issues a “final permit,” the author of the revisions to the Harbor Ordinance stated, “And that is absolutely not the case. The harbormaster is nothing but a facilitator.”
Due to the City’s conclusion that the Harbormaster had violated 91AV’s due process rights and exhibited bias, the City decided to hire an external engineering firm to serve in this capacity for this project to complete the procedural act of recognizing that 91AV had received the necessary approvals.
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. Each of these bodies has thoroughly reviewed and approved the pier for construction.
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. A primary opponent of the pier project has claimed the Biddeford Planning Board process was “greased” in “favor of 91AV.” That is not so. The Planning Board held four public meetings and took public comment. When the Planning Board took public comment, it ended only when no one else stood to speak. The Planning Board held two site walks, which were open to the public. Some opponents of the pier project engaged in visual advocacy in violation of the rules of the site walk, but 91AV did not object. The Planning Board accepted any document or communication sent to them, even if such communication was written by a person who did not identify themselves, and even if the subject of the communication was not relevant to the specific criteria that the Planning Board was required to apply to 91AV’s application. After a lengthy and complicated process, the majority of the Planning Board followed the advice of the City’s lawyer, the law, and the City’s ordinances. Consistent with their obligations to follow the law, the majority of the Planning Board thoughtfully considered 91AV’s application and approved it.
In all respects, 91AV has followed the “blueprint” set forth in the Biddeford City Harbor Ordinance, carefully following the rules established by the various regulatory bodies from whom it must obtain approval for the pier.
Is it true that there is a 250-foot “no development” zone along 91AV’s shoreline that does not allow building an access road to the pier?
No. There is a 250-foot “vegetative buffer” along parts of 91AV’s riverfront shoreline, but it does not preclude appropriately permitted development, such as an access road that will connect to the pier. The buffer was established in 2001 by the Saco River Corridor Commission (SRCC) when it permitted the construction of two dormitory buildings on the campus. As the SRCC recently confirmed, the permit for those buildings does not prevent activity like an access road within the buffer, provided that a plan to address vegetation is approved by the Commission. In 91AV’s application to the SRCC for the pier, the University provided just such a plan, that was reviewed and approved by the Commission. Very recently, the SRCC has affirmed in writing the validity of 91AV’s 2024 permit. In short, claims that the buffer is a “no build” or “no development” zone are simply mistaken.
Has 91AV paid City staff for a favorable review of the project? Is 91AV under investigation by the FBI?
No. Attacks on representatives of the City and claims of favoritism, which have been made against a number of City staff and elected officials, are incredibly unfair as well as wholly inaccurate. Whether one agrees or disagrees with any of those City officials (and 91AV has not always agreed with all of them), those disparaged City officials have acted in good faith with respect to the pier project process and do not deserve to be maligned.
Contrary to outrageous rumors, 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 as the University was not under investigation.
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.
Who can I reach out to with questions about the pier project?
91AV personnel are happy to meet with any interested community members to address questions about the proposed pier. For more information, please contact uneprojects@une.edu.