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






                      Maine Coastal Program


                                                          
                 Final Section 309 Assessment



                                    January 16, 1992








                                                              






                                        Submitted to:
                      The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
                       Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management
                                      Washington, D.C.
oil




            HT         Program
            393       Planning Office                          Augusta, Maine 04333
            .M2
            M3      Station No. 38                                   Tel. (207) 289-3261
            1992
 








                    M A I N E   C 0 AST A L P R 0 G RAY


                          FINAL SECTION 309 ASSESSMENT




                                January 16, 1992


   C-4















                                  Submitted to

               The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
                 Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management
                          Washington, D.C.   20235






                          rVZOperty Of CL@C Library




       Maine State Planning Office                Augusta, Maine 04333
       State House Station No. 38                 Tel. (207) 289-3261

















                            Final Section 309 Assessment






                                       CONTENTS


                                                                        Page


                   INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY                                  1


                      Introduction                                           1

                           Maine Coastal Program                             I

                           Coastal Zone Enhancement Program                  1

                           The Public's Role in the Assessment Process       2

                           Response to Comments                              3

                     Summary of Priority-Needs   and Program Changes        10

                           Goal                                             10

                           Objective: Protecting sensitive coastal
                                       areas                                10


                                  Priority Needs                            10
                                  Program Changes                           10
                                  Potential Projects                        10

                           objective: Minimizing pollution of coastal
                                       waters                               11

                                  Priority Needs                            11
                                  Program Changes                           11         67
                                  Potential Projects                        11

                           Objective: Watershed, embayment and
                                       estuarine planning                   12

                                  Priority Needs                            12
                                  Program Changes                           12
                                  PotentiaY Projects                        12










                         Objective: Considering cumulative impacts
                                      in environmental permitting       12

                                Priority Needs                          12
                                Program Changes                         13
                                Potential Projects                      13



                  SECTION 309 ASSESSMENTS                (separate papers)

                  1.   OCEAN RESOURCES PLANNING


                  2.   MARINE DEBRIS REDUCTION


                  3.   PUBLIC ACCESS


                  4.   COASTAL HAZARDS


                  5.   ENERGY GOVERNMENT FACILITY
                       SITING & ACTIVITIES


                  6.   COASTAL WETLANDS MANAGEMENT


                  7.   ADVERSE CUMULATIVE & SECONDARY
                       IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT

10                8.   SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING






















         309intro.rpt
















                              INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY



          INTRODUCTION


              Maine Coa stal Program

              Congress in 1972 enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act
          (CZMA) to forge a partnership between federal, State and local
          governments to improve coastal resource management. Maine
          received federal approval of its Coastal Program pursuant to the
          CZMA in 1978.

              In 1986 the Legislature reaffirmed the State's strong
          commitment to conservation, beneficial use and management of
          coastal resources with enactment of nine coastal management
          policies in the areas of port and harbor development, marine
          resources management, shoreline management and access, hazard
          area development, State and local cooperative management, scenic
          and natural areas protection, recreation and tourism, water
          quality and air quality.

              Since 1978, Maine's Coastal Program has received federal
          funding assistance for awide range of coastal management
          activities. Federally-approved activities at the local level
          have included small-scale waterfront acquisition and construction
          projects, and preparation by coastal towns of comprehensive
          plans, growth management and land use regulations', and harbor
          plans. State and regional planning agencies have received grants
          to provide technical-planning assistance to towns.

              At the State level, Maine receives CZMA assistance for
          enforcement of environmental laws in the coastal area, informing
          the public of priority coastal issues, and policy development
          regarding issues ranging from coastal access to growth
          management, ocean use, and.protection of estuarine fish and
          wildlife habitat.

              Coastal Zone Enhancement Program

              Federal Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants were established by
          Congress in 1990 to provide States with additional incentives to
          address emerging national coastal problems. The grants are
          intended to encourage states with federally-approved coastal
          management programs to undertake improvements addressing one or
          more of eight specified coastal issues.









                To establish Maine's eligibility to receive Coastal Zone
          Enhancement Grants, the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal
          Resources Management (OCRM) requires submittal of this Section
          309 Assessment report, and a Section 309 Strategy to be submitted
          in March, 1992. The Strategy is to identify projects which
          address priority needs agreed upon by the State and the OCRM, and
          which will lead to formally adopted changes in Maine's Coastal
          Program.

                Federal approval of Maine's Section 309 Strategy will
          release $100,000 through July, 1992, for projects identified in
          the Strategy. Preliminary figures for August 1, 1992 through July
          31, 1993, range between $102,000 to $238,000, plus a potential of
          up to $300,000 additional depending on the outcome of a
          federally-sponsored coastal states competition.

                The Public's Role in the Assessment Process

                In May 1991, in order to determine the level of public
          concern for fresh and tidal water pollution along with each of
          the eight Section 309 issues, surveys were mailed to all 144
          coastal municipalities and to over 400 additional environmental
          groups, land trusts, coastal newspapers, Cooperative Extension
          offices, regional planning agencies and State agencies.

                About 15% of the surveys were returned. Three issues were of
          highest concern, both coastwide and region by region: Fresh &
          Tidal Water Pollution, Coastal Wetlands, and Cumulative Adverse
          Impacts of Growth. Water pollution, of course, is a key aspect
          of both wetlands amd cumulative impact issues, and wetland
          protection is a primary though not the only concern of cumulative
          impact analysis. More than 17% of the survey respondents
          indicated strong concern that the public needs to be better
          educated on coastal issues.

                A summary of "Results of Initial Public Participation in the
          Assessment Process," August 8, 1991, is available. The summary
          reproduces all written comments received, and was submitted to
          OCRM.

                In late November, more than 600 copies of a summary of the
          draft assessments in newsletter format, entitled 'Maine Coastal
          Futures,' were mailed to groups and individuals along the coast,
          including editors of coastal newspapers, coastal land trusts,
          chambers of commerce, rotaries, marine-related organizations,
          coastal town officials, and state, local, and federal agencies.
          This mailing announced the beginning of a formal 30-day public
          review period extending from November 26, 1991 to December 28,
          1991. It announced availability of detailed draft assessments for
          public review, requested comments, and included a return
          questionnaire.


                                             2









                A total of 26 responses were returned. Of these, 7 were from
           coastal and municipal planners, 2 from town officials, 7 from
           state agencies, 6 from private conservation and landowner rights.
           groups, 2 from private individuals and 2 from Maine offices of
           the USFWS.

                Supplementing the request for comments in the newsletter,
           draft assessment papers were reviewed and face-to-face
           discussions were held with numerous staff in state agencies
           (Departments of Marine Resources, Environmental Protection,
           Conservation, Inland Fish and Wildlife, Economic and Community
           Development, and Transportation) and members of nonprofit
           interest groups (Maine Conservation Rights Institute (MECRI),
           Maine Audubon Society, Maine Coast Heritage Trust, Vinalhaven
           Land Trust, and the Constitutional Advancement, Literacy League
           of Maine (CALL ME) and Natural Resources Council of Maine.
           Additional comments were provided by the federal Office of Ocean
           &.Coastal Resource Management (OCRM).

               On December 10, 1991, the assessments were presented and
           discussed in a meeting with the DECD's Office of Comprehensive
           Planning and the regional Coastal Co-ordinators representing the
           various coastal regional planning councils. The group indicated
           the need for Coastal Program support for local comprehensive
           planning efforts along the coast and agreed that adverse
           cumulative impacts of development and the protection of coastal
           wetlands were priority issue areas. They also identified a need
           to develop island policies to address the unique pressures facing
           island ecosystems and communities.

               On December 13, 1991, the assessments were discussed by the
           Marine Policy Committee of the Land and Water Resource Council,
           which is charged with policy coordination regarding natural
           resource issues among state agencies. The committee includes
           representatives from state agencies with responsibilities related
           to the marine environment and is chaired by the Commissioner of
           the Department of Marine Resources. Since many of its members
           were involved in the preparation of the draft assessments, there
           was general agreement with the findings. The group expressed
           special interest in ocean resource planning options in
           particular, and offered to assist in drafting the Section 309
           strategy.

               Response to Comments

               Most comments received through the public review process,
           including those from OCRM, were incorporated into the final
           assessments documents. The majority of respondents endorsed the
           assessments and the options. Comments are reviewed below for each
           issue area. The Maine Coastal Program response is in italics.



                                          3








                         Cumulative Impact Of Development

              Reviewers generally identified the cumulative impact of
        development on the coastal environment as a priority issue, One
        perceived as relating in some aspects to all the other issues.
        The options: "to establish a program of comprehensive watershed
        planning and protection....",,"to protect natural areas that are
        sensitive to the impacts of growth and development," "to identify
        areas in-the marine and estuarine environment that are priorities
        for protection," and "to develop special area management plans"
        were most cited as priority options.

              The need to connect natural resource protection with
        sustainable economic growth and prioritize uses of coastal
        resources was mentioned by several reviewers. one reviewer noted
        that while development is the source of many problems,
        development can expand public access opportunities and sustain
        important industries (fishing, shipping, tourism... ) which rely
        on the natural resources of the coast.

              The Maine Coastal Program agrees that these options are
        priority needs, and supports the development of creative plans
        and programs to sustain both ecological integrity and the human
        use of marine and estuarine environments.

              Many respondents cited the impacts of development on Maine's
        shellfish industry. They'expressed concern that coastal water
        pollution causes the closure of nearly 30 percent of Maine's
        softshell clam flats and impacts local ec.-.)nomies dependent on
        fisheries. Other comments focused on the need to fund water
        quality monitoring programs, standardize water quality testing
        methodologies and pollution prevention efforts. Most respondents
        supported the assessment of impact fees on point and nonpoint
        source dischargers of pollution.

              The Maine Coastal Program recognizes the importance of
        shellfish management, particularly as it relates to expanding
        employmenbt opportunities at the local level. While shellfish
        management (e.g. supporting shellfish ordinances and wardens, and
        reseeding clam flats) is not an eligible use of Coastal Program
        funding, the program does support interrelated activities. The
        Partners in Monitoring Program and the Shore Stewards Trust Fund
        overseen by the Coastal Program, for example, seek to facilitate
        and fund volunteer water quality monitoring activities.

              Cumulative impact guidelines and education of local planning
        boards were mentioned as necessary to avoid negative cumulative
        impacts resulting from permitting decisions at the local level.
        Many reviewers mentioned the need to support local comprehensive
        planning as a means to anticipate and prevent the cumulative
        impacts of development.


                                         4








                The Maine Coastal Program supports local comprehensive
           planning and agrees that local planning boards need additional
           assistance in order to fairly and consistently include concern
           for cumulative impacts in local permit review.

                                     Coastal Hazards

                Incorporat
                           ion of shoreline erosion data into shoreland
           zoning regulations was considered by some reviewers to be a
           priority option for enhancement.

                The Maine Coastal Program agrees that shoreline erosion data
           needs to be available for permitting decisions in order to
           anticipate the cumulative impact of development, sea level rise,
           and change in shoreline habitats.

                                      Marine Debris

                The option proposing a model marine debris recovery and
           recycling project was supported by several reviewers.

                The Maine Coastal Program does not recognize "marine diebris"
           as a priority issue area for 309 funding at this time. Through
           coordination of annual Cleanups and.Coastweek activities, the
           Maine Coastal program will strive to reduce the impact of marine
           debris by focusing and redirecting education efforts.

                                      Public Access

                Land acquisition and  protection of visual access were
           mer@tioned as important by a Waldoboro resident who wrote "It is
           vital that we find ways to set aside areas of undeveloped or
           lightly developed land... in order that in 100 years we still   have
           some green natural areas to look at. People need to see
           wildness." The reviewer supported establishment of a voluntary
           registry program for landowners to agree to limited public use of
           private lands, as well as low-impact access sites.

                The option "to  identify areas and negotiate easements where
           traditional access is threatened or cut-off by development" was
           cited by many reviewers as a priority. Establishment of a real
           estate transfer tax was suggested as a source of revenue for
           public land acquisition by communities or the state. One reviewer
           commented that protection of access for traditional activities
           such as fishing and hunting should be a priority concern.

                The Maine Coastal Program continues to be committed to
           expanding public access opportunities to the coast, though other
           issues currently have higher priority for limited Section 309
           funds. Recent comprehensive planning efforts, supported by the



                                            5









         Maine Coastal Program, have laid the groundwork for
         identification of access needs in coastal communities for funding
         at a later date.

              Respondents from MECRI and CALL ME indicated a concern that
         the private property rights and rights to local self-government
         of Maine's coastal citizens may be targeted for a "radical
         taking" by the Maine Coastal Program, NOAA and other federal
         agencies. one reviewer wrote: "You have neglected to incorporate
         the supreme role of our government into any of your proposed
         policies and that is to Protect the Rights of the Individual."
         Others objected to the brevity of the 30-day comment period and
         the portrayal of private property rights as problems.

              The Maine Coastal Program recognizes the concerns of private
         property owners regarding regulation of land development;
         however, we believe that protection of natural resources through
         regulation protects the collective interests of society, and any
         regulatory or land acquisition programs will be conducted in full
         accord with existing law. The 30-day review period was
         established by federal rulemaking.

                    Siting of Energy and Goverrment Facilities

              Several reviewers cited the need to develop formal
         procedures for requiring alternatives to coastal locations of
         proposed energy and federal facilities.

              This issue area is not a priority area for funding unler the
         309 Enhancement Grant Program at this time.

                              Ocean,Resource Planning

              Public comments showed strong support for ocean resource
         planning. The Planning Director of the Town of Eastport
         identified ocean resource planning as the key coastal management
         issue because: "Economic growth founded upon resource-based
         development can ensure a stable foundation for Maine workers and
         industry. New approaches to-the management of Maine's ocean
         resources are needed to achieve the wisest use.of these assets.
         *** A comprehensive plan which deals with the best use of marine
         resources would act as a guide for various levels of (government)
         which must make decisions concerning impact of development.
         Comprehensive planning is not only critical for small
         geographical units such as towns and cities. It is also of prime
         importance for large regions such as the State of Maine or the
         Gulf of Maine."

              The Maine Coastal Program has supported and will continue to
         support ocean resources planning with Section 306 rather than
         limited Section 309 funding. Regional plannin g and the need for


                                         6









           coastal plans to include adjacent estuarine and marine areas also
           are acknowledged, along with the need for locally-derived plans
           that reflect regional and local differences.

                The need to protect sensitive estuarine and marine habitats
           was cited as a priority concern by many reviewers. A wildlife
           biologist, noted that 11 ... Ocean Resource Planning must happen to
           develop the "vision" for the Maine Coast ... and (to) address
           inherent conflicts among and between (existing) individual
           (coastal) policies ... it.

                Reviewers supported the creation of a "coastal coordinating
           committee" of state and federal agency staff to coordinate
           strategies and policies, and development of a "multiple-use"
           policy for marine and estuarine waters. The need to improve
           inventory and mapping of marine resources was also cited as a
           priority for action.

                The Coastal Program is aware that Maine's coastal policies
           contain potential conflicts, and intends to develop guidelines to
           clarify legislative intent. The existing Marine Policy Committee
           of the Land and Water Resource Council serves to coordinate state
           management of marine resources. The Maine Coastal Program
           supports the formation of a task force.to guide marine planning
           efforts.

                One reviewer urged a review of the present system of
           classifying coastal waters and a rigorous application of
           standards which call for "maintaining existing biological
           structure and function." He also noted that commercial fishing
           and aquaculture are significant activities within the scope of
           coastal management, yet were not mentioned in the summaries. In
           particular, he suggested evaluation of the "impacts of
           aquaculture and certain fishing methods on coastal ecosystems"
           and environmental impact assessments for net-pen aquaculture.

                Since the standards for classification of estuarine and
           marine waters are included within the core laws of the Maine
           Coastal Program, changes to the classification would constitute a
           "program change" and be eligible for 309 funding. The Maine
           Coastal Program agrees that the present classification system
           deserves review.

                Commercial fishing and aquaculture activities were discussed
           in the full assessment report on Ocean Resource Planning.- The
           Maine Coastal Program funded an analysis of the environmental
           impacts of netpen aquaculture, and the Gulf of Maine Program
           recently published a report on "The Environmental Impacts of
           Finfish Culture," which is available from the Maine Coastal
           Program. The federal Environmental Protection Agency is preparing
           a General Permit for finfish aquaculture which includes
           environmental parameters for permit review.

                                            7










                                 Coastal Wetlands

              Coastal wetland definitions and exemptions of certain small
         freshwater wetlands from regulation were cited by many
         respondents as priority concerns. The need to expand and
         implement the significant habitat provisions of the Natural
         Resource Protection Act was also cited as a priority option by
         several respondents.

              Many reviewers supported options that suggested convening of
         an interagency group to identify wetland restoration priorities,
         promotion of a coastal conservency, and improved protection of
         wetlands owned by state agencies.

              The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in Bangor, noted the need
         to identify coastal wetlands with artificial restriction of
         natural tidal flow. They suggested documenting the extent of
         phragmites reed in coastal wetlands as an indication of stressed
         areas and recommended restoration of marshlands behind the
         tidegates on the Pleasant River in Addison.

              The above comments have been incorporated into the
         assessments.

              A city planner from southern Maine commented that the most
         important issue on the Maine coast was the difficulty in
         obtaining permits for harbor and channel dredging.

              Dredging is an important coastal issue which has been
         addressed in a DredcTing Management Strategy prepared by the
         Coastal Program and recommended by the Marine Policy Committee
         for adoption by the Maine Land and Water Resources Council,

                         Special Area Management Planning

              Several reviewers commented on the need to focus resources
         on selected special areas of state significance and to increase
         involvement of local and state organizations working with state
         agencies in conservation efforts.

oi@           Maine Coast Heritage Trust and other reviewers supported
0        special area management plans along the coast that promote
V        sustainable use and protection of coastal resources. Many
         respondents suggested that special area management planning in
         some form would be an effective tool for managing the cumulative
         impacts of development.

              Reviewers at the Land Use Regulatory Commission (LURC) noted
         that 305 islands are within LURC jurisdiction and called for the
         development of 'island policies' which would provide consistency
         and direction to the management of Maine's coastal islands.


                                         8









               The Maine Coastal Program supports the concept of special
          area management planning as a tool to manage the cumulative
          impact of development in certain areas. We believe that special
          area management planning efforts in Maine must be linked to
          ongoinglocal comprehensive planning efforts.

               Maine islands are special features of our coast subject to
          unique problems because of geography. At this time, island areas
          are subject to the same regulation and protection as mainland
          areas. The Section 309 Enhancement Grants Program may provide an
          opportunity to improve management of these areas of biological
          and cultural significance.

                                  General Comments

               Many reviewers mentioned a need to improve enforcement of
          existing environmental regulations. Several reviewers suggested
          flexible, non-confrontational approaches that focus on education
          and prevention rather than reliance on legal action.

               One reviewer wrote that too many agencies are involved in
          coastal decisions. Several reviewers noted the need for improved
          coordination between the Maine Coastal Program, the Department of
          Environmental Protection and The Department of Marine Resources
          regarding water quality information, community education, and
          other coastal management activities.

               The Maine Coastal Program agrees that enforcement of
          existing regulations is a priority. We anticipate continuing to
          use Section 306 funding for the Code Enforcement officer Training
          Program in the DECD to improve enforcement at the local level,
          and for State-level staff in the Dept. of Environmental
          Protection and Dept. of Marine Resources.

               The Maine Coastal Program is a networked program composed of
          several state agencies concerned with coastal management. This
          decentralized approach has drawbacks and benefits. The Marine
          Policy Committee of the Land and Water Resource Council is an
          important new mechanism to improve coordination between agencies.

               Finally, one last reviewer comment deserves quoting

               "We need a true commitment to improving our coastal
               environment and a willingness to bear the cost before
               anything will change. We will know that commitment exists
               when our government is willing to raise tax dollars to
               support these efforts, and when our people are willing to
               give up small measures of personal freedom for the greater
               good. Until that time, all of your studies, plans, and
               guidelines will amount to no more than a sand castle at the
               low tide line."



                                          9











        SUMMARY OF PRIORITY NEEDS AND PROGRAM CHANGES

             Priority Issue: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT

             Indirect and secondary effects of land and water activities
        on the health of the coastal ecosystem are a priority concern of
        coastal residents, interest groups, and government agencies with
        responsibility in the coastal region. Such activities are
        necessary for the enjoyment of the coast and for Maine's economic
        well-being, but they need to be conducted in a way that does not
        jeopardize the resources on which they depend.

             The greatest threats are losses of function of tidal
        wetlands, estuaries and marine waters, such as loss of habitat,
        loss of flood storage, loss of protection which wetlands provide
        from erosion, loss of fisheries, etc. Pollution and other
        cumulative effects of shoreland and marine development are the
        causes of such losses.


        GOAL


        To identify and protect sensitive natural coastal areas and
        resources from adverse cumulative impacts of growth and
        development, using an eco-system approach, and by supporting
        state, regional and local planning, management, regulatory
        activities, public education and other means.

        OBJECTIVE


        Identify and protect natural coastal areas that are sensitive to
        the impacts of growth and development.

             Priority Needs: Identify areas in marine and estuarine
             environments that are subject to rapid growth and priorities
             for protection; assess anticipated impacts; develop policies
             and land use controls for coastal watersheds, estuaries,
             embayments and islands of concern (AOC).

             Program Changes: Amend NRPA to expand or alter significant
             habitat provisions; incorporate additional policies into
             MCP; designate Areas of Concern; amend State model shoreland
             zoning ordinance to reflect shoreline erosion rates.

             Potential Projects: Study economic value of natural
             resources in AOC's.


             Develop alternative strategies for land protection by
             private landowners.

             Accelerate GIS mapping of marine areas.

             Develop an estuarine/marine habitat classification system.

                                       10









              Develop maps/criteria for NRPA habitat provisions

              Determine erosion rates of shoreline and tie rates with
              shoreland zoning setbacks.

              Update state inventories of fresh and tidal wetlands in
              coastal watersheds; map and classify estuarine and marine
              wetland habitats; amend existing rules or legislation to
              improve protection, enhance enforcement of existing laws.

              Convene an interagency group to identify wetland restoration
              priorities.

              Develop model wet'land ordinances for local municipalities.

              Network existing environmental enforcement personnel in
              state agencies and at the local level to achieve more
              efficient enforcement of environmental laws.

              Develop guidelines for dredging and dredged material
              disposal in coastal waters.

              Develop guidelines for evaluating the ecological function of
              wetland types.

              Evaluate the need to increase protection of unregulated (by
              the state) wetlands and forested wetlands.

              Develop a wetland protection plan for wetlands owned by
              state agencies.

         OBJECTIVE*

         To reduce and ultimately eliminate harm from point and nonpoint
         sources of pollution to Maine coastal waters, including
         pathogens, toxic contaminants, and sediment.

              Priority Needs: Through a cooperative intergovernmental
              watershed planning process, target priority estuaries and
              embayments; develop education and prevention programs
              including volunteer water quality monitoring efforts;
              develop or enhance state programs or regulations which
              control NPS's of pollution. Establish baseline information
              on the pollutant levels in key estuaries and embayments.

              Program Changes: Possible changes to state plumbing code;
              NPS priority watershed plans; siting standards; BMPs for
              forestry operations in coastal basins; Coastal Monitoring
              Program.

              Potential Projects: Nonpoint source inventory & plans for
              priority estuaries & embayments.









            Study of effectiveness of current subsurface sewage disposal
            standards in coastal areas. Study should include evaluation
            of current procedures, criteria for systems, setbacks,
            identification of sensitive areas where more stringent
            regulations should apply ... etc.

            Development of marina siting standards to prevent
            restriction in use of commercial and recreational shellfish
            beds.

            Study need for "no discharge" or "no anchorage" areas.

            Study effects of forest practices on estuaries.

            Formalize cooperative agreement to share information on
            sources of pollution and pollutants of concern between DMR,
            DHS, DEP, and municipalities.

            Study adoption of uniform NPDES permit renewal dates by
            watershed unit.


       OBJECTIVE

       To strengthen watershed, embayment and estuarine planning and
       management efforts, including pollutant reduction and prevention,
       habitat protection, harbor management, water use and supply, and
       public education efforts.

            Pri.ority Needs: Develop new local growth management
            legislation, provide small matching grants to towns to
            implement existing plans and develop plans and ordinances
            with a new watershed focus.

            Program Changes: Add revised growth management legislation
            to the MCP. Adopt regional SAMPs to integrate local plans
            and ordinances.

            Potential Projects: Establish a schedule of fees to be paid
            by point and nonpoint dischargers into bays, estuaries, and
            the ocean for use in watershed planning, water quality
            monitoring, and remediation and prevention projects.

       OBJECTIVE

       To improve consideration during environmental permitting, and in
       land acquisition and infrastructure programs, of the cumulative
       impacts of development in coastal areas, especially with regards
       to habitat, water, air, and scenic quality.

            Priority Needs: Develop guidelines for use in local and
            state permitting review. Amend relevant legislation to
            include clear definitions of cumulative impact.

                                       12









              Program Changes: Amendments to NRPA, mandatory shoreland
              zoning guidelines, cumulative impact guidelines for planning
              boards and state agencies.

              Potential Projects: Research how other states have included
              consideration of.cumulative impacts in legislation. Develop
              proposed changes to Maine laws.

              Develop guidelines for local planning boards (booklet),
              guidelines for state permits.

              Complete a coastal scenic assessment to implement scenic
              provisions of NRPA.





















        309intro.rpt


















                                        13




















                               Section 309 Assessment







                            1. OCEAN RESOURCES PLANNING








                   Advisory Committee: Marine Policy Committee

                   Agency Contacts:

                   William J. Brennan, Commissioner, Department of Marine
                   Resources
                   Rob Elder, Department of Transportation
                   Anne Hayden, State Planning Office
                   Dr. Joseph Kelley, Maine Geological Survey/DOC
                   Steve Oliveri, Bureau of Public Lands/DOC
                   Fran Rudoff, Department of Economic and Community
                   Development
                   John Sowles, Department of Environmental Protection
                   Steve Timpano, Department of Inland Fisheries and
                   Wildlife


                   Interest Group Contacts:

                   Friends of Casco Bay
                   Island Institute
                   Maine Audubon Society
                   Maine Fishermen's Cooperative Association
                   Maine Harbor Masters Association
                   Maine Lobstermen's Association
                   Maine Marine Trades Association
                   Maine Pilot's Association
                   Maine Sardine Council
                   Marine Law Institute










                                 Ocean Resources Planning


                                          CONTENTS




           1.0 SUMMARY

           1.1 Maine's   Key Coastal Management Policies

           1.2 Federal   CZMA Legislative Objective

           1.3 Federal   CZMA Assessment Characterization

                      1.31    Scope & Definitions
                      1.32    Available Information/Studies
                      1.33    Inventory of Ocean Resources and Uses

           1.4 CZMA Programmatic Objectives

                      1.41    Existing Laws, Regulations, Programs
                      1.42    Assessment of Problems, Issues and Effectiveness
                            of Current Laws and Programs

                            a.   No comprehensive state policy for use of
                                 state coastal waters
                            b.   No comprehensive planning for the use of
                                 Maine's coastal waters
                            c.   Lack of adequate criteria for resolving
                                 conflicts among competing uses-
                            d.   Lack of a marine habitat protection program
                            e.   Inadequate state agency coordination
                            f.   Lack of adequate information for decision
                                 making

           1.5 Ocean Resources Planning

                      1.51    Options for Improvement

           1.6 Available Information/Studies














           [jr.seal 1/15/92










        1.0 SUMMARY

          Commercial fishing, shipping, recreational boating, whale -
        watching, aquaculture, and waste disposal are just a few uses of
        Maine's coastal waters. These waters support a rich diversity of
        marine life; some of the most biologically productive marine
        environments in the world are found in the Gulf of Maine. It is
        becoming increasingly difficult both to accommodate multiple uses
        and protect the marine environment.

             As use of marine resources increases and problems become
        more complex, coordination among the numerous state and federal
        agencies becomes more important. Declines in fishery landings and
        extensive shellfish closures suggest that intensifying use of the
        state's coastal waters is threatening its productivity and.
        environmental health. New approaches to the management of
        Maine's marine resources are needed.


        Accomplishments

             An interagency Marine Policy Committee'of the Land and Water
             Resource Council has been established.

             The international Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine
             Environment was established in 1989; the council recently
             adopted a long-term Gulf of Maine Action Plan and
             Environmental Quality Monitoring Plan.

             A revised Dredge Management Strategy has been developed by
             the Maine Coastal Program for action by the state.

             The Casco Bay Project, a National Estuary Program, was
             established in Casco Bay and is developing a regional
             management plan for the area.

        Problems

             There are signs of degradation of the marine environment.
             For example, about 30 percent of the state's shellfish beds
             are closed or restricted for harvesting due to bacterial
             contamination.

             No comprehensive state policy exists for the use of state
             coastal waters. Several agencies are involved in decisions
             which affect the marine environment, yet they pursue
             differing and sometimes conflicting mandates.

             No comprehensive planning process exists for the use of
             Maine's coastal waters.





                                        1









               Competition among marine-related uses is increasing, yet no
               mechanism exists to resolve these conflicts. Competition
               between water and non-water dependent uses is also on the
               rise.

               The state has no marine habitat protection program.

               Coordination between state agencies is inadequate.

               Adequate natural resource information for decision making
               does not exist.




















































                                          2











             Maine's Key Coastal Manacfement Policies (38 MRSA 1801)



                  MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. Manage the marine
             environment and its related resources to preserve and
             improve the ecological integrity and diversity of
             marine communities and habitats, to expand our under-
             standing of the Gulf of Maine and coastal waters and to
             enhance the economic value of the State's renewable
             marine resources.

                  WATER QUALITY. Restore and maintain the quality
             of our fresh, marine and estuarine waters to allow for
             the broadest possible diversity of public and private
             uses.


                  PORT AND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT. Promote the mainte-
             nance, development and revitalization of the State's
             ports and harbors for fishing, transportation and
             recreation.

                  SHORELINE MANAGEMENT & ACCESS. Support shoreline
             management that gives preference to water-dependent
             uses over other uses, that promotes public access to
             the shoreline and that considers the cumulative effects
             of development.

























                                        3









           1.2 CZMA Lecrislative Oblective

           ï¿½ 309(a)(7) P2anning for the use of ocean resources.'

           1.3 Federal CZMA Assessment Characterization

           Characterize current & prospective ocean resources & uses of
           state concern, & specify existing & future use conflicts.

                * Xnventoxy ocean resources that are important to the
                state.

                  Zdantify current and probable near-tezza and long-term
                ocean uses. Descx1be the intensity of those uses and
                the extent and severity of conflicts (both current and
                anticipated) among the various activities.)

           1.31 Scope & Definitions

                Maine's marine waters support a tremendous diversity of
           marine life and economic activity. Some locations contain the
           highest diversity of marine life reported in the coastal waters
           of the United States. These waters are home to at least 1600
           different type@s of bottom-dwelling organisms, about 100 types of
           birds, 73 different types of fish and 26 different kinds of
           whalest porpoises and seals . 2This high diversity of sea life is
           supported by a variety of marine and estuarine habitat types.
           Salt marshes, eel grass beds, muddy and sandy sediments, gravel
           beds, rocky substrates, sheltered coves, high energy environments
           and variable levels of salinity and temperature are all present
           in Maine's coastal waters.


                Maine's coastal waters and the Gulf of Maine traditionally
           have supported a wide variety of uses, most notably fishing and
           commerce. Over 5,000 years ago prehistoric peoples fished these
           waters for cod and haddock. The first Europeans, who settled
           along the coast in the 1600s, were drawn to this area because'of
           the plentiful stocks of fish. More recently, foreign fishermen
           from many nations fished those Gulf stocks, which eventually
           caused a major decline in the region's fisheries. Shipping and
           ship building have also played major roles in the state's econo-
           my. Today, in addition to those traditional uses of the sea,
           Maine's marine waters also support relatively newer uses, such as
           recreational boating, aquaculture and waste disposal.



             ' Italicized text is excerpted from federal guidance for Section 309 assessments.

              2U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service, An Ecological Characterization of Coastal Maine Volume
           Two, 1980.

                                           4









             Ocean resources planning involves the policy, planning, and
        regulation of all uses of Maine's coastal and marine waters and
        their interaction. Management of individual uses is not as much
        of a concern as is the management of all the uses in a comprehen-
        sive and integrated manner. Issues of concern in Maine include
        dredging and dredge spoil disposal, net-pen aquaculture, sub-
        merged lands management, oil transportation, mobile and fixed
        gear fishing, and habitat protection. Oil and gas development on
        Georges Bank and sand and gravel mining are issues of potential
        future interest to the state.

        1.32 Available Information/Studies

             Numerous studies have been conducted on various ocean
        resources in Maine. The topics covered include oil spill preVen-
        tion and response, net-pen aquaculture, marine policy, marine
        research, dredging management, and marine water quality. These
        studies have covered these issues in fairly comprehensive detail
        and further assessment work is not needed. However, implementa-
        tion of the numerous recommendations contained within the reports
        is necessary. These recommendations will be important components
        of the ocean resources planning strategy. Issue areas that are
        in need of further assessment include identification and protec-
        tion of critical marine habitats and marine wildlife.


        1.33 Inventory of Ocean Resources and Uses


             A. Aquaculture

             To supplement the harvesting of marine resources from
        natural populations, aquaculture, or the "farming" of the sea,
        has become common practice worldwide. Maine's coastal waters
        provide a prime environment for the culture of fish and shellfish
        because of the numerous protected coves and bays, high flushing
        rates, relatively clean waters, and proximity to markets.

             Maine's aquaculture industry, virtually non-existent 20
        years ago, is emerging as a significant and growing use of the
        state's coastal waters. Both finfish and'shellfish are produced
        in coastal waters which are leased by the state to private
        operators. Species under cultivation include mussels, clams,
        oysters, salmon, and trout. Shellfish are generally produced by
        bottom culture and salmon are raised in floating net pens.

             Growth of the industry has increased rapidly throughout  the
        1980s, with continued rapid growth projected for the future.
        Currently there are 86 fish and shellfish leases totalling over



           3
           See, State Planning Office, An Aquaculture Development Strategy for the State of Maine.
        (State Planning Office, Augusta, ME, 1990).

                                        5









          1,100 acres of coastal waters. Leases are located along the
          entire Maine coast with 45 percent located east of Bar Harbor.
          Other clusters of leases are located along the Blue Hill peninsu-
          la, near Damariscotta and Bristol, and in southern Maine from
          Freeport to York and Kittery.

               The number of sites leased for salmon farms in Maine's
          coastal waters has increased from zero to 41 in just four years.
          Currently, salmon farms are exclusively located east of Penobscot
          Bay, with the majority located in Cobscook Bay, because of favor-
          able water temperatures. With the advent of new technology,
          however, the possibility exists that salmon aquaculture could
          develop in the mid- and southern coast areas as well.

               The "Maine Aquaculture Strategy" (SPO,1990) projected
          meteoric growth in the finfish aquaculture industry over the next
          decade. Demand for aquaculture leases will continue as wild
          stocks decline. The areas with water quality suitable for aqua-
          culture activities and supportive of wild species will depend on
          the ability of the state to control and monitor bacterial and
          other types of pollution in nearshore waters.

               B. Marine Transportation

               Overall, commercial vessel traffic along the Maine coast has
          increased slightly over the past 15 years and it appears that
          this trend will continue into the future. Maine's major
          commercial ports include Portland, Searsport/Bucksport, and
          Eastport. During the past ten years, the amount of dry cargo
          (primarily lumber) transported through Maine ports has nearly
          tripled to about one million tons. Oil, bulk goods, wood
          products, frozen foods,-passengers, and tourists-all move through
          Maine's coastal waters by ship. Passenger ships serve as
          important links to Maine's many offshore islands, to Canada and
          to a growing tourist trade.

               In 1988, 51 percent of Maine sea ca rgo passed through
          Searsport, while 35 percent was handled by Portland, 13 percent
          by Eastport and one percent by Winterport. In recent years there
          has been a steady increase in the amount of oil flowing through
          the state's ports. Since 1986, oil shipments have increased 64
          percent. Indications are that this trend will continue as demand
          increases in Canada and Maine, as production decreases in western
          Canada, and as oil fields are developed offshore Newfoundland,
          Can. The Portland Pipeline, which transports the vast majority
          of oil brought into Portland to Montreal, expects a doubling of
          oil traffic over the next two to five years.' Jet fuel is
          transported via pipeline in Harpswell to the Brunswick Naval Air


             'Ralph Wink, Poriland Pipeline, personal communication, March 15, 1990.

                                          6








          Station and via pipeline in Searsport to Loring Air Force Base.
          Additional traffic off the Maine coast is bound for Portsmouth,
          N.H. and St. John, New Brunswick.

               Maine ports average about 65 cruise ship arrivals per year
          with 250 to 1200 passengers on each ship (and with crew sizes
          ranging from 75 to 500). Maine ports can expect to handle over
          90 ship calls in the summer of 1991. Portland, Roothbay Harbor,
          camdo@n,, and Bar Harbor are miA'Qr de.5tinatiQnz fQz- crui5e 5hip5.

               Maine's coastal waters are also used by ferries serving
          Canada and Maine's numerous offshore islands. More than 60 boat
          cruises, excursions and charters also operate along the coast.
          Ferry traffic serves commuters, tourists, and provides goods to
          island communities. Ferry ridership has steadily increased
          throughout the last decade largely due to tourism, which results
          in a seasonal pattern of ridership with peak travel occurring
          from late spring to early fall and then falling off to relatively
          low levels throughout the remainder of the year. Islands served
          by ferries include Vinalhaven, North Haven, Swan's Island,
          Islesboro, Long Island, Monhegan, and Matinicus in the Penobscot
          Bay/mid-coast region and Little Diamond, Great Diamond, Long
          Island, Peaks, Cliff, Cousins, and Great Chebeague Islands in
          Casco Bay. In addition, international ferries provide services
          from Portland and Bar Harbor to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and from
          Eastport to Deer and Campobello Islands in New Brunswick.

               C. Marine Recreation

               Maine's coastal waters have seen tremendous growth in recre-
          ational activity including pleasure boating, tourism, recreation-
          al fishing, whale watching, sea kayaking and other activities.
          The number of boats registered in the state that use Maine's
          coastal waters has nearly tripled from about 21,000 in 1970 to
          56,000 in 1989. An additional 2,000 boats are documented with
          the U.S. Coast Guard and may not necessarily be registered with
          the state. These figures, however, do not include a possibly
          substantial number of boats which.use Maine's coastal waters but
          are registered in other states.

               Another indication of the level of recreational boating
          activity is the number of moorings and waiting lists for moorings
          in Maine's harbors. There are about 11,000 moorings in the
          state's coastal waters according to a survey conducted in 1989 by
          the Department of Economic and Community Development.5 An addi-
          tional 1,110 people are on waiting lists for moorings in various


            5This information was collected from 78 harbors. No information was received for 50 coastal
          communities, of which 18 have significant harbors. see, Harbor Ordinance and Mooring Survey,
          September 11, 1989, Department of Economic and Community Development.

                                            7









          coastal towns. In addition, there are about 125 marinas in the
          state with several thousand slips. Marinas in Portland and South
          Portland contain roughly 1,500 slips.'

               Whale-watching and other wildlife sightseeing cruises (e.g.
          for seabirds and seals) off the Maine coast are other activities
          that have grown substantially in the past ten years. On Mt.
          Desert Island, for example, the number of people using whale-
          watching services (from Bar Harbor, Northeast Harbor and Bass
          Harbor) jumped from about 30 people per day in 1985 to about 600
          people per day at the height of the season in 1990.7 Whale-
          watching boats leave principally from Kennebunkport, Boothbay
          Harbor, and Bar Harbor, while other coastal and marine wildlife
          sightseeing trips leave from numerous spots on the coast, includ-
          ing Portland, Camden, New Harbor and other towns. About 11
          companies now ferry tourists and researchers to sites offshore in
          search of humpback and fin whales.

               Recreational fishing is another popular use of Maine's
          coastal waters. Of the numerous species sought after by
          recreational fishermen, the most popular are bluefish, mackerel,
          groundfish, and tuna. Accurate figures on the number of recre-
          ational fishermen using Maine's coastal waters are not available,
          however, since the state does not require a recreational saltwa-
          ter fishing license. The National Marine Fisheries Service
          estimates a total of about 267,000 recreational fishermen used
                                          8
          Maine's coastal waters in 1987.


               D. Waste Disposal

               Industry, municipalities, vessels, and dredging of the
          state's ports and harbors produce wastes, some of which are
          disposed of in the marine environment. In addition, runoff     from
          the state's cities and farms also contributes pollution to the
          ,coastal waters.

               Dredge Spoil Disposal--- Ocean disposal of sediments
          dredged from channels, harbors and other marine areas, may be
          contaminated with pollutants such as PAHs, PCBs, and metals.
          Dredging activities disperses the pollutants into estuarine or
          ocean sites potentially causing ecological problems in those


            'Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 1989. Agenda for Action: Casco Bay
          (Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta, ME).

            "Robert Bowman, College of the Atlantic, personal communication, November 19, 1990.
            'U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National'
          Marine Fisheries Service, September, 1988. Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey.,
          Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 1987 (National Maxine Fisheries Service: Washington, DC).

                                           8









         areas. The natural hydrology of estuarine areas may also be
         modified by the removal of bottom sediments.

              Decisions on the location of disposal sites for dredged
         material are based principally on economic considerations, such
         as the cost of hauling the material to the site and, in the case
         of a land-based site, any fees required for its use. In Maine's
         case, the vast majority of dredged material has been disposed of
         in estuarine or marine waters. Given scarce land areas for
         disposal of dredged material and increased pressure to create
         more marinas and to increase activities in the state's commercial
         ports, the need for ocean disposal will likely increase.

              Between 1950 and 1989 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
         conducted 98 dredging projects in Maine, removing some 4.5
         million cubic yards of dredged material (SPO,1991). Currently,
         79 coastal towns have had some degree of dredging by the Army
         Corps and numerous other coastal towns have private dredging
         projects. Just under 600,000 cubic yards, or 13 percent of the
         material dredged between 1950 and 1989, were dredged between 1982
         and 1989.   Disposal of the material occurred as follows:

                   Ocean sites           41%
                   Estuarine sites       36%
                   Upland sites          15%
                   Unidentified           8%

              Dredged material is disposed  of either in permanent, EPA
         approved-ocean disposal sites, or  in ad'hoc Corps nearshore
         disposal sites if the dredging project is located too far away
         from an EPA site. Officially designated ocean disposal sites are
         located off Cape Arundel in southern Maine, Portland, and
         Rockland. The Cape Arundel site, located several miles offshore
         the southern Maine coast, is used by the Port of Portsmouth and
         several small harbors in southern Maine. The Portland site,
         which receives dredged material from Portland harbor, is located
         just outside western Casco Bay, about seven miles offshore at a
         depth of about 150 feet. The Rockland site is located offshore
         Rockland and serves Rockland harbor and several other small
         harbors in Penobscot Bay. Numerous other sites along the coast
         are used on a project-by-project basis.

              Point-Sou.rces - Nearly 60 municipal sewage treatment plants
         discharge directly into marine or estuarine waters. Thirteen
         plants which discharge into estuarine and marine waters only
         provide primary treatment. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant and
         fossil fuel-powered electrical generating plants use tidal waters
         to cool turbines. Almost 3000 residential overboard discharge
         licensees exist along the Maine coast. In 1987, the Maine
         Legislature prohibited the construction and use of new overboard
         discharge systems and required the gradual phaseout of most of
         the existing systems.    Forty-five industries are licensed to

                                           9









          discharge wastewater to Maine's coastal watersheds. These indus-
          tries include pulp and paper mills, tanneries, metal finishing
          operations, textile manufacturing, and chemical companies.

               As population increases along the coast, greater volumes of
          wastewater will be discharged to tidal waters unless alternative
          systems are developed. With increased volume of automobile
          traffic and road and residential construction activities, in-
          creased volumes of surface waters will run-off to near-shore
          waters as well as increased loadings of pollutants associated
          with development and population growth.

               E. Commercial Fishing

               The Gulf of Maine supports a significant commercial fishery
          for finfish and shellfish. In 1990, the state's landings were
          170 million pounds, consisting of over 40 species of fish, shell-
          fish, and other sea creatures, with a landed value of about $130
          million. Maine's commercial catch is dominated by Atlantic
          herring, lobsters, groundfish, and menhaden by weight and lob-
          sters, clams, scallops, and groundfish by landed value. Lobsters
          are economically the most important fishery in the state.

               About 14,000 licenses were issued to commercial fishermen in
          the state of Maine in 1990. The number of licenses issued
          increased dramatically from 1950 to 1974, from just over 8,000  to
          just under 19,000 -- a 138 percent increase. The number of
          licenses has been declining steadily since that time, however,
          with a slight increase the last two years. Despite fewer li-
          censed fishermen, greater effort is being expended to catch fewer-
          fish. For example, there were 6,660 licensed lobster harvesters
          in 1960. Their numbers climbed to a peak of 10,500 in 1974 then
          decreased to 6,600 in 1990. Despite this trend, the number of
          lobster traps deployed in Maine's coastal waters has actually
          increased from roughly 700,000 in 1960 to more than two million
          in* 1989.9 while effort has increased substantially, the land-
          ings have remained relatively constant.

               In the last decade, overall fish and shellfish landings
          fluctuated greatly and are currently in a.downward trend. Total
          landings of both fish and shellfish in Maine have declined by
          over 44 percent since 1980 -- from 244 million pounds in 1980 to
          169 million pounds in 1990. Several species, such as lobster,
          continue to bring in strong landings. Landings of haddock, ocean
          perch (redfish) and flounder have experienced the greatest


            'Kenneth Sherman, Edward B. Cohen, Richard W. Langton, 1989. "The Northeast
          Continental Shelf. An Ecosystem at Risk," in The Gulf of Maine: Sustaining Our Common
          Heritage Conference Proceedings, ed., by Victor Konrad, et. al (Augusta: Maine State Planning
          Office). pg. 129.

                                         10









        decline. Total nominal landed value, on the other, hand has
        grown steadily from a 1980 value of $108 million to a 1990 value
        of $129 million. Discounting for inflation, however, the total
        value-has actually decreased by 24 per cent.

             Two political events have profoundly affected Maine's
        commercial fishing industry. The first was the passage of the
        Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which granted
        the United States jurisdiction over fishing within 200 miles of
        its shores. This act effectively eliminated foreign fishing
        fleets from the Gulf of Maine and spurred a tremendous expansion
        of the commercial offshore fleet -- as evidenced by the number of
        commercial fishing licenses and the amount of fish landed in
        Maine in the mid- to late- seventies. The second event was the
        1984 World Court decision on the U.S./Canadian maritime boundary.
        This boundary effectively cut off valuable fishing grounds to
        Maine fishermen who had traditionally used these areas and has
        contributed to the decrease in landings in several species of
        finfish.


             F. Energy and Mineral Resources

             Over the years there have been a number of proposals to
        explore for oil and gas in the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank region.
        However, currently there is no active exploration for energy or
        mineral resources in Maine's coastal waters or the broader Gulf
        of Maine. In the late 1960s, the Maine Mining Bureau (predeces-
        sor to the Maine Geological Survey) granted oil and gas explora-
        tion rights off the Maine coast to King Resources." The compa-
        ny was granted rights to a 3.33 million-acre area running roughly
        from Kennebunkport to Bar Harbor. At the closest point, the area
        was 11 miles off the coast, and 80 miles at its furthest. The
        area proved not to be promising for development. In 1981 and
        1982, five American companies drilled eight wells on Georges
        Bank, but discovered no economically exploitable quantities of
        oil or gas. Industry interest in the region persists, but
        environmental concerns have indefinitely delayed any prospects
        for drilling on Georges Bank.

             Lease sale cancellations by the Department of the Interior
        exclude the Georges Bank region from lease activities from 1992-
        1997. The Department of the Interior announced that no lease sale
        will be held until after the year 2000 and "then only if studies
        show that the development is warranted because of resource



           "Resources from the Sea and Federal Limitations on State Control: Maine Law Affecting
        Marine Resources, Vol. Four. Report carried out under the joint sponsorship of. The School of
        Law of the University of Maine and the National Science Foundation, Office of Sea Grant
        Programs, 1970.








           potential and is environmentally safe.0111

                 In prior policy statements, the state of Maine has
           recommended that the Gulf of Maine not be considered for oil and
           gas development and that only the most promising areas on Georges
           Bank should be offered for lease. The state has advocated a
           cooperative arrangement between Canada and the U.S. to address
           joint planning and management of oil and gas resources on Georges
                 12
           Bank.

                 Minerals other than oil and gas are of potential future
           interest in the Gulf of Maine. An intertidal mine located in
           Harborside on Cape Rosier in Penobscot Bay operated for a'number
           of years in the late 1960s and 1970s and ceased production in
           1977. Copper, lead, and zinc were taken from this mine. In the
           future, interest may turn to the large quantities of sand and
           gravel that lie on the seabed of the Gulf of Maine. The economic
           feasibility of developing these resources, however, has not been
           examined. Other than the Harborside mine, no mining has occurred
           directly in the state's coastal waters but it is possible it will
           become economically feasible to exploit these resources at some
           future time.
                 Sand from dredging opera@ions has been used in beach renour-
           ishment projects in southern Maine. Although removal of sand and
           aggregate from glacial deposits is a major activity on uplands in
           coastal counties, no operations have been proposed to commercial-
           ly remove the resources from submerged or intertidal lands,
          .except as a by-product of dredging projects to improve navigation
           channels or harbors.

                 A potential future use of tidal waters is for energy produc-
           tion either by large or small-scale tidal generators, or thermal
           generators that convert the difference between surface and bottom
           water temperatures into electrical current.

                 G. Submerged Land Activity

                 Estuarine and marine intertidal and subtidal lands are used
           for the harvest of shellfish and the placement of fishing and
           aquaculture gear, moorings, docks, and wharves near shore or
           along the shoreline. About 700 leases and easements are in place
           on Maine's submerged lands. This activity has been increasing


              "The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Fact Sheet: Presidential Decisions
           Concerning Oil and Gas DeveloDment on the Outer Continental Shelf, June 26, 1990.

              "Letter from Governor John R. McKernan, Jr. to Secretary of Interior Manuel Lujan, Jr. on
           the Department of the Interior's Draft Proposed Comprehensive Outer Continental Shelf Natural
           Gas and Oil Resource Management Program for 1992-1997.

                                             12









         sharply since the submerged lands leasing program was first
         established in 1975. In the last ten years, the number of leases
         has increased 500 percent.

              Thousands of bushels of shellfish (primarily mussels, ocean
         quahogs, and scallops) are dragged from bottom sediments by
         commercial fishermen each season. While dragging and digging
         activities are transitory disturbances to ocean lands, the
         construction of tidal impoundments (to hold lobsters and in years
         past, to power saw mills), seawalls and placement of riprap are
         examples of permanent alterations or modifications of intertidal
         and subtidal lands common to the coast.

              Incremental development of submerged and intertidal lands
         with docks, piers, and other localized alterations will continue,
         especially as the demand and value of shoreland rises. As
         population increases along the Maine coast, use of the marine and
         estuarine water resources will likely increase. Denser settlement
         will require residential wastewater collection and treatment in
         sewage plant rather than in-ground disposal. Surveys of mooring
         fields and marina developments in Maine harbors over the past
         f@ive years indicate an increase in recreational boating and
         demand for shoreside services associated with the recreational
         boating industry.

              H. Protected Marine Species

              While clearly not a "use" in the same sense as those de-
         scribed above, several species of marine wildlife are afforded
         special protection by state and federal law and thus affect the
         manner in which other uses may operate. These species include
         marine mammals, endangered and threatened species of seabirds and
         shorebirds and other coastal wildlife. Seabirds, shorebirds and
         marine mammals dominate the list of protected coastal and marine
         wildlife. This may be due more to the lack of information on
         other marine organisms than to existence of other endangered or
         threatened species.


         1.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective I -- Regulatory,
         Planning, and Intragovernmental Coordination

         Develop 6 enhance regulatory, planning & intra-governmental
         @oordinatlon mechanisms to provide meaningful state participation
         in ocean resource management & decision-malcing processes.

                Analyze existing laws, regulations, and programs
              affecting the management of ocean resources.

              * Develop or enhance mechanisms to ensure full state
              participation in existing planning and management
              programs, including coordination with federal agencies.

                                         13










          1.41 Existincr Laws, Regulati ons and Programs


               a.   Scope

               Numerous laws have been passed at the federal, state, and
          local levels which affect the use of ocean resources. Relevant
          federal laws include the Coastal Zone Management Act, Marine
          Mammal Protection Act, Fisheries Conservation and Management Act,
          Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, National Envi-
          ronmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Port and Tanker Safety
          Act, Oil Pollution Act, Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships,
          Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and others. This section will
          discuss the major state laws that affect activities in Maine's
         .marine waters and protect its habitat.

               b.   Malor State Laws

               The major state laws that affect the use of ocean r  esources
          include:

                Natural Resource Protection Act (38 MRSA 480 A-S, DEP Chs.
          310, 343-345, 355). The act regulates all construction, filling,
          or draining activities within or adjacent to coastal wetlands and
          "protected natural resource" areas (e.g. sand dune systems, and
          "significant wildlife habitats" such as habitats for endangered
          species, shorebird nesting, and critical spawning and nursery
          areas for Atlantic sea-run salmon). The term "coastal wetland"
          is defined to include all intertidal and subtidal lands. As
          such, the law covers essentially any development activity on the
          state's submerged lands. Provisions that are of particular
          relevance to "ocean resources" are: (i) a prohibition on activi-
          ties that would cause unreasonable harm to significant wildlife
          habitat and estuarine and marine fisheries; (ii) a requirement
          that the proposed activity cannot unreasonably interfere with
          existing uses including navigational uses; and (iii) requirements
          that call for dredge spoil disposal applicants to ensure that the
          transportation of dredge spoils minimizes adverse impacts on the
          fishing industry, and that the dredge spoils are tested within
          one year before submitting an application for disposal.

                Submerged Land Leasing law (12 MRSA 558-573) - The law
          grants the Department of Conservation's Bureau of Public Lands
          authority to lease submerged lands for dredging, filling, and the*
          erection of permanent structures (such as bridges, causeways,
          marinas, wharves, and pilings). Leases on submerged lands must
          not unreasonably interfere with navigation, fishing, or other
          existing marine uses, diminish the availability of commercial
          fishing services and facilities, or the ingress and egress of
          riparian owners.

               Aquaculture Leasing Act (12 MRSA 6072-6074, DMR Ch. 2) This
          act gives the Department of Marine Resources authority to lease

                                          14









         the submerged lands and water column for the culturing of marine
         organisms. A separate leasing system is established from that of
         the BPL. DMR may issue 10-year leases for five acre tracts, up
         to 100 acres per site and 150 acres per applicant. The act
         provides for extensive environmental controls of aquaculture
         sites.

              Marine Resources Law & Regulations (12 MRSA Chap. 601-627)
         The state's Marine Resource laws give the Department of Marine
         Resources authority to regulate the harvesting of any marine
         organism for commercial or recreational purposes. The law gives
         DMR the authority to regulate the taking of marine organisms by:
         time; method; number; weight; length; or location. The depart-
         ment has the power to close contaminated shellfish beds.

              Mining on State Lands (12 MRSA 541-550) This law gives the
         Maine Geological Survey authority to issue exploration permits
         and leases for exploration and extraction of minerals other than
         sand and gravel on state lands, including submerged lands. Bonds
         must be posted to ensure the reclamation of mined areas. Leases
         for sand and gravel mining would be granted by the Bureau of
         Public Lands. The Mining on State Lands statute, however, has no
         specific language concerning mining on the submerged lands. If
         seabed mining ever becomes a reality in Maine, this statute would
         have to be substantially revised.

              Coastal Management Policies (38 MRSA 1801-1803) The
         legislature adopted nine coastal policies and requires all state
         agencies to conduct their activities "consistent" with those
         policies. The Department of Economic and Community Development
         has prepared a handbook suggesting how local officials may
         incorporate the coastal policies into local comprehensive plans
         and land-use ordinances. The former Coastal Advisory Committee
         prepared "guidelines" to assist state agencies implementing the
         policies. Neither the guidelines nor the handbook, however, are
         enforceable.

              Protection and Improvement of Waters (38 MRSA 361-434, 464-
         470, DEP Chs. 514-596) This is a broad statute that regulates
         discharges into ground water, fresh-surface water, and marine
         waters. The act directs the DEP to monitor groundwater, marine
         and estuarine water quality; provide financial and technical
         assistance for municipal pollution abatement plans and
         construction projectsl@ license all direct or indirect discharges
         of pollutants; and establish a water classification system for
         all fresh, salt and groundwater.

              Oil Discharge Prevention and Pollution Control (38 MRSA 541-
         560, DEP Chs. 600-680). This law regulates the transport and
         transfer of petroleum products and assigns responsibility and
         liability for containment and cleanup of spills. The Department
         of Environmental Protection is authorized to license the opera-

                                         15









          tion of any oil terminal facility or vessel used to transport
          oil; approve local oil spill contingency plans for all licensed
          oil terminals; undertake and ensure that clean up is conducted by
          responsible parties; and administer the Maine Coastal and Inland
          Surface Oil Clean Up Fund to reimburse clean-up expenses.

               Endangered Species Law (12 MRSA 7151-7758, DIF&W Ch. 8)
          This statute gives the Department of Inland and Fisheries and
          Wildlife the authority to designate threatened and endangered
          species and to protect their habitat. No state agency or munici-
          pal government shall permit, license, fund, or carry out any
          project that will alter the habitat of or violate the protection
          guidelines for any endangered or threatened species. Hunting,
          trapping, possessing, feeding, baiting, processing, exporting,
          transporting, or harassing an endangered or threatened species is
          prohibited.

               C.   Malor Programs, Plans and Strategies

               Casco Bay National Estuary Project Casco  Bay was designated
          an estuary of national significance by the EPA in 1990. This
          designation set in process a five-year planning process to
          protect the bay. A Management Committee, co-chaired by EPA and
          the Department of Environmental Protection, was established to
          oversee the development of a comprehensive management plan for
          the bay.

               Coastal and Marine Sensitive Area Mapping Program This
          interagency effort is an outgrowth of a report from the
          commission to Study Maine's Oil Spill Cleanup Preparedness. The
          report recommended that such a program be established to
          identify, map, and prioritize areas that may be susceptible to an
          oil spill. The Department of Environmental Protection is
          coordinating this effort along with the Maine Geological Survey,
          Department-of Marine Resources, and Department of Inland
          Fisheries and Wildlife. This new program will be primarily used
          for oil spill purposes, however, the information generated will
          be useful for numerous other coastal management efforts.

               Dredge Management Strategy - This is a five-part strategy to
          improve dredging management in the state. The strategy calls for
          (1) coordination of dredging management by the Marine Policy
          Committee; (2) the development of a dredging management plan; (3)
          the federal government to base its dredging priorities on mea-
          sures of the overall need of each state as a whole, rather than
          on factors related to the size of individual ports; (4) the
          evaluation of the state regulatory process and recommend neces-
          sary changes; and (5) the establishment of an interagency dredg-
          ing management database and library. The Marine Policy Committee
          has recently adopted the strategy for approval by the Land and
          Water Resources Council.



                                         16










              Marine Research Board - The Marine Research Board consists
         of a broad spectrum of marine interests from throughout the
         state, the Commissioners of Environmental Protection and Marine
         Resources, and the directors of the State Planning Office and the
         Maine Geological Survey. The purpose of the board is to develop
         a biennial priority statement and action plan of marine research
         needs of the state. The purpose of the plan is to guide funding
         recommendations and activities of the board. In addition, the
         board is authorized to develop and administer a competitive,
         merit-based grant program to address marine research needs of the
         state.

              Gulf of Maine Program - The Gulf of Maine Council on the
         Marine Environment was created recently by the Governors and
         Premiers of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Brunswick
         and Nova Scotia to discuss and act upon environmental issues of
         common concern in the Gulf of Maine region. These issues include
         the protection and conservation of the ecological balance within
         the Gulf ecosystem, marine debris and medical waste, the rela-
         tionship between land use and the marine environment, the sus-
         tainable use of resources within the Gulf and cooperative pro-
         grams to better protect and conserve the Gulf's natural resourc-
         es. The  Council has prepared a 10-year natural resources action
         plan and a monitoring plan for the Gulf of Maine.     The Council
         is composed of two representatives from each of the Gulf states
         and provinces appointed by the respective Governors and Premiers.

              1.42 Assessment of Problems, Issues and Effectiveness of
                    Current Laws and Programs

              Activities in Maine's marine waters are becoming more
         intense and new uses have recently been introduced. Commercial
         fishing and lobstering, shipping, recreational boating, whale
         watching, aquaculture, and waste disposal all occur within the
         state's coastal waters. In some regions of the state it is
         becoming increasingly difficult to accommodate these multiple
         and often -- conflicting uses. As the uses of the marine envi-
         ronment increase and problems become more complex, coordination,
         among the numerous state and federal agencies becomes more
         critical, yet more problematic. State government must be able to
         respond effectively to resolve conflicts and minimize damage to
         the marine environment.

              No comprehensive State policy for the use of state
              coastal waters exists.

              While numerous state and federal laws and policies apply to
         specific uses of the marine environment, no comprehensive policy
         describes the state's overall goals and objectives in the marine
         environment. That is, policies tend to address specific uses of
         the coastal waters such as fishing, oil transportation, and waste
         disposal independently of one another -- despite the reality that

                                         17










           each of these uses can and does affect the other. The individual
           policies should be established within a broader context to ensure
           they are coordinated. The individual policies do not add up to a
           unified state agenda for the marine environment.

                No comprehensive planning for the use of Maine's
                coastal waters exists.

                Maine, like most coastal states, lacks a tradition of
           comprehensive planning for the use of the state's coastal waters.
           Land-use planning requirements generally stop at the water's
           edge, and the coastal waters are generally free for all to use.
           Problems resulting from oil spills, pollution, habitat
           destruction, use conflicts and others that have plagued coastal
           waters of other states demonstrate that it is much more difficult
           and expensive to restore the environment and resolve conflicts
           after the fact, than it is to plan for the orderly development of
           the environment in a sustainable manner. Since Maine's coastal
           waters have not reached a "crisis stage" yet state and local
           governments should be engaged in planning now.

                There are inadequate criteria for resolving conflicts among
                competing uses.

                Conflicts generally occur because of: (i) the need or desire
           to use the same space for two or more different and incompatible
           purposes; or (ii) real or perceived'environmental threats caused
           by one use affecting the environment's ability to sustain other
           uses. Despite the oceans' vast size, in fact, only limited      ' areas
           are desirable for lobster fishing, placing salmon pens for
           aquaculture, clam harvesting, anchoring boats, placing marinas
           and other uses. It should be emphasized that the perception that
           a conflict exists is as important as the fact that a conflict
           exists. Increased communication between the various interests
           should help to resolve real and perceived conflicts.

                When conflicts arise between uses of the marine      environment
           there is very little guidance in law or regulation to assist in
          @resolving those conflicts. For example, if a pending aquaculture
           lease conflicts or could conflict with a pending submerged land
           lease, the state's Aquaculture Lease law requires the Commission-
           er of Marine Resources and the Commissioner of Conservation to
           determine which project is "in the best interest of the
           State. ,13

                The legislature has provided limited guidance to resolve
           conflicts between users of different types of fishing gear. The
           Commissioner of Marine Resources has the authority to develop



             13 12 MRSA, section 6072, para. 14.

                                            18








         regulations to prevent conflicts among harvesters of marine
         resources. In developing such regulations the commissioner must
         consider (i) traditional uses of marine organisms; (ii) total
         economic benefits to the area in which the organisms are
         harvested; and (iii) optimum economic and biological management
                             14
         of marine resources.   The law also requires the commissioner
         to "accommodate the needs of all interested parties to the
         maximum extent possible, through provisions of joint use, alter-
         nate use or other methods." While this law applies only to
         resolving conflicts between harvesters of marine resources, such
         considerations could be adapted for guiding the resolution of
         other conflicts within the marine environment.

              There are jurisdictional gaps in existing state laws.

              State laws have not been enacted specifically to cover
         marine protected areas, seabed mineral mining, and marine sal-
         vage. The protection of coastal habitats has long been a
         priority of the Maine Coastal Program. The Department of Inland
         Fisheries and Wildlife, the Department of Environmental Protec-
         tion, and local governments carry out habitat protection programs
         under several mandates including the Natural Resources Protection
         Act, Endangered Species Law, and the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning
         Act. These and other laws, however, do not accord the subtidal,
         marine environment the same proactive protection that is given
         the coastal environment. For example, under the NRPA, IF&W is
         required to identify "significant wildlife habitats." A similar
         requirement does not exist for significant habitats in the marine
         environment. Similarly, the Shoreland Zoning Act covers areas
         within a 250 foot strip along the coast. Within this strip,
         communities are required-to adopt zoning and land-use controls.
         However, these zoning requirements do not extend into the coastal
         waters.


              As pointed out above, mining on state lands including
         submerged lands is covered by the Mining on State Lands statute.
         This law, however, does not specifically consider mining on
         submerged lands and the different circumstances under which such
         mining would occur. The state should consider the necessity of
         developing a specific statute for mining on submerged lands.

              Coordination between state agencies should be improved.

              Twenty-eight different state agencies and six different
         federal agencies have some decision-making or planning responsi-
         bility in the marine environment. While the number of agencies
         is not, in and of itself, a problem, the inadequacy of coordina-
         tion between and among the agencies is. Each of these agencies



            14 12 MRSA 6171-A

                                         19









          has its own mandates, goals, policies and procedures, which often
          conflict with one another. Separate agencies manage fisheries,
          marine birds, marine mammals, vessel traffic, and dredging and
          dredge spoil disposal. Inadequate coordination confuses the
          public, the regulated community, and the federal government as to
          which agency is responsible for policy and management decisions.
          Decisions regarding the use and protection of the marine environ-
          ment demand, by their very nature, consistent interagency coordi-
          nation. Few marine policy or management decisions affect only
          one use or value in the marine environment.

               There is a lack of adequate information for sound decision
               making.

               Planning and policy development can be only as goo d as the
          quantity and quality of information accessible to decision-
          makers. Indeed, it is imperative that we have a sound under-
          standing of the marine ecosystem and the dynamics of human use of
          that ecosystem.   More information and better methods for
          exchanging that information are needed for such items as:

               ï¿½ the location of ecologically important marine habitats;
               ï¿½ carrying capacity or tolerance levels of bays and other
                 semi-enclosed marine water bodies;
                 the natural variability of the marine environment;
                 physical oceanographic characteristics of Maine's coastal
                 waters;
                 socio-economic trends, in marine industries;
                 regional needs for various-types of marine infrastructure;
                 relative value of the uses of the marine environment; and
                 the true cost of using the marine environment for waste
                 disposal.


          1.5 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective II -- Comprehensive
          Ocean Resource Management Plan

          Where necessary and appropriate, develop a comprehensive ocean
          resource management plan that provides for the balanced use &
          development of ocean resources, coordination of existing.authori-
          ties, & minimization of use conflicts.

               1.51 Options for Improvement

               Develop a unified, coordinated, state-wide agenda for the
               marine environment that includes a coordinated effort to
               determine the state's collective needs and vision for use  of
               coastal waters of the state.

               Embark on a comprehensive planning effort in the marine
               environment that considers the following options: marine use
               designations; capability/suitability analyses; special

                                          20









              management areas; marine resource and habitat inventory and
              mapping; and designation of the Gulf of Maine as the primary
              management unit.

              Create an institut ional entity to coordinate state policy,
              planning, and management of the marine environment such as
              an interagency coordinating committee, a marine and coastal
              resources council, or consolidation of marine programs into
              one department.

              With substantial input from environmental, economic and
              recreational interests and the general public, consider
              designation of coastal water uses consistent with the
              existing state marine/estuarine water classification
              program.

              Expand marine habitat inventory efforts. Undertake an
              ecological research program focused on the uses and habitats
              of all the state's coastal waters.

              Suitability analysis or strategic planning to determine the
              suitability of a given region for a particular activity or
              activities, taking into consideration the human, physical
              and ecological constraints of that region.

         4    Designation of marine conservation areas as outstanding
              resource waters or marine ecological reserves.

         4    Improvement of the marine resource and habitat information
              base on the state Geographic Information System (GIS).

         1.6   Available Information/Studies

              Catena, J., 1991. "Policy and Planning Options for Maine's
         Marine Waters," (Draft) Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.
              Doggett, L. and J. Sowles, 1989. "Maine's Marine Environ-
         ment: A Plan for Protection, A Report to the 114th Legislature,"
         Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta, ME.
              Maine Department of Conservation (DOC), 1989. "Submerged
         Lands Study," Bureau of Public Lands, DOC, Augusta, ME.
              Maine State Planning Office (SPO), 1990. "An Aquaculture
         Strategy for the State of Maine", Maine Coastal Program, Maine
         State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.
              Maine Marine Infrastructure Task Force, (draft). "Maine
         Marine Infrastructure, A Report to the Governor."
              Marine Law Institute, 1991. "Comparative Assessment of
         State Laws Protecting the Marine Environment of the Gulf of
         Maine." Prepared for the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine
         Environment.
              McMahon,J., "An Ecological Reserves System for Maine:
         Benchmarks in a Changing Landscape, Report to the 115th Legisla-
         ture," February 1991. Maine State Planning Office.

                                        21









               Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, 1990. "Final Report of
          the Subcommittee to Study Salmon Aquaculture in Maine, report to
          the Joint Standing Committee on Marine Resources, October 1990,"
          Office of Legal and Policy Analysis, State of Maine 114th Legis-
          lature, Augusta, ME.
               Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, 1990. "Report of the
          Commission to Study Maine's Oil Spill Cleanup Preparedness,
          November 1990,11 Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, State of
          Maine 114th Legislature, Augusta, ME.
               Van Dusen, K. and A.C. Johnson Hayden, 1989. nThe Gulf of
          Maine, Sustaining Our Common Heritage," Maine State Planning
          Office, Augusta, ME.

          Other States

               Christie, Donna R., 1989. "Florida's Ocean Future, Toward a
          State Ocean Policy," March 1989, Office of Planning and Budget-
          ing, Tallahassee, FL.

               "Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan," January, 1991.
          Hawaii Ocean and Marine Resources Council, Honolulu, HI.

               McLaughlin, Richard and Laura S. Howorth, 1991.. "Mississippi
          Ocean Policy Study." Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Pro-
          gram, University, MS.

               "North Carolina and the Sea: An Ocean Policy Analysis Report
          of the Ocean Policy Committee of the N.C. Marine Science Council,
          Nov. 1984,11 Raleigh, N.C.

               "The Oregon Ocean Resources Management Plan," 1991. Oregon
          Ocean Resources Management Task Force, Portland, OR.






















                                          22


















                              Section 309 Assessment






                            2. MARINE DEBRIS REDUCTION








                   Advisory Committee: Marine Policy Committee

                   Agency Contacts

                   Jean Chenoweth, Public Information Coordinator, DMR
                   John Catena, Maine Coastal Program, SPO
                   Nancy Griffin, Coastweek Coordinator, SPO
                   Jackie Dingfelder, Maine Waste Management Agency
                   Steve Curtis, Director of Operations and Maintenance, BPR


                   Public Interest Contacts

                   Lt. S.B. Woodruff, Port Operations Officer, U.S.C.G.
                   Tim Zorach, Maine Audubon
                   Jeff Kaelin, Maine Fisheries Association
                   Maine Harbormasters Association










                                 Marine Debris Reduction


                                         CONTENTS




           2.0  SUMMARY

           2.1  Maine's  Key Coastal Management Policies

           2.2  Federal  CZMA Legislative Objective

           2.3  Federal  Assessment Characterization

                      2.31   Scope & Definitions
                      2.32   Available Information/Studies
                      2.33   Assessment of Problems & Issues

           2.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective -- Reduction of Marine
                Debris

                      2.41   Existing Laws, Regulations, Programs

                             a.  Recycling
                             b.   State consistency with*the Marine Plastic
                                 Pollution Research & Control Act
                             c.  Coastal Solid Waste Management Plans
                             d.  Educating the Marine Community

                      2.42   Options for Improvement

                      2.43   Baseline for Measuring Progress

           2.5 Available   Information/Studies






















           [jr.deb] 1/14/92










        .2.0 SUMMARY

             Marine debris is defined as any manufactured material that is
        accidently or purposefully disposed of in the sea. Marine debris,
        that accumulates on Maine shores and in tidal waters may persist
        for decades. More than 60% of the items collected in annual
        Cleanups are made of plastic.

             Marine debris endangers coastal and marine life. Seabirds and
        fish amass plastic in their digestive systems. 'Ghost' traps and
        nets entangle marine life including seals, sea turtles and
        porpoises. Debris may displace natural vegetation and alter
        habitats.

             The volume of trash in the marine environment continues to
        increase, despite annual state-sponsored cleanup efforts, stronger
        federal regulation of trash dumped at sea, and a public awareness
        of the need to remove debris from the marine environment.

        Accoml2lishments

             The Maine Coastal Prog.@am has sponsored annual Coastal
             Cleanups for the past seven years. The Cleanups remove tons of
             debris from Maine shores, involve thousands of volunteers and
             provide data on the amount and type of debris found on the
             coast.

             State legislation requiring deposits on certain containers and
             promoting community-based recycling programs has effectively
             reduced the amount of plastics and beverage containers in the
             waste stream.

             The U.S. Coast Guard in Maine enforces the MARPOL Treaty which
             prohibits ocean dumping of plastics, except for certain
             accidental loss of fishing nets and regulates the disposal of
             other solid waste. The U.S Coast Guard also inspects port
             facilities of a certain size to ensure that the facilities can
             accommodate solid waste from ships.

             At least 70 coastal towns have local harbor ordinances, most
             of which prohibit the dumping of waste or refuse.

        problems.

             Despite Coastal Cleanups and education efforts, marine debris
             continues to accumulate in coastal environments.

             Laws prohibiting disposal of litter at sea are difficult to
             enforce.











          2.1   Maine's Key Coastal Management Policies (38 MRSA 1801)





                     MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. Manage the marine
                environment and its related resources to preserve and
                improve the ecological integrity and diversity of
                marine communities and habitats, to expand our
                understanding of the Gulf of Maine and coastal   waters
                and to enhance the economic value of the State's
                renewable marine resources.

                     WATER QUALITY. Restore and maintain the quality
                of our fresh, marine and estuarine waters to allow for
                the broadest possible diversity of public and private
                uses.


                     SCENIC AND NATURAL AREAS PROTECTION. Protect and
                manage critical habitat and natural areas of state and
                national significance and maintain the scenic beauty
                and character of the coast even in areas where
                development occurs.

































                                           2










         2.2 Federal CZMA Legislative Objective

         ï¿½ 309(a)(4) Reducing marine debris entering the Nation's coastal
         and ocean environment by managing uses and activities that
         contribute to the entry of such debris.

         2.3 CZMA Assessment Characterization

         Identify the impact of marine debris on the coastal zone and the
         primary sources responsible.

              2.31 Scope & Definitions

              Plastic bottles, old lobster traps, pieces of net and rope,
         aluminum cans, and styrofoam chunks that accumulate on beaches
         and tidal waters are collectively referred to as marine debris.
         Marine debris includes any manufactured object of wood, plastic,
         glass, metal, cloth or other material that is disposed of in the
         marine environment, either purposefully or accidently.

              2.32 Available Information/Studies

              Marine debris in Maine has been informally surveyed through
         data collected as part of annual Coastal Cleanups since 1985.
         Coastal Cleanups are one-day trash collection events coordinated
         along the Maine coast each fall by the Maine Coastal Program of
         the State Planning Office. Volunteers record their finds on data
         cards supplied by the Center for Marine Conservation. Maine
         Coastal Program staff tally the Maine data and the Center for
         Marine Conservation compiles the results with other state totals.
         Survey results are approximate, since data collection is not
         rigorously controlled, but they are the best indication to date
         of the types, sources and volume of debris cluttering Maine's
         coast.


              2.33 Assessment of Problems & Issues


              a.   Impact of Marine Debris

              Marine debris is a persistent and growing problem in Maine
         waters. More than an unsightly mess or nuisance, marine debris
         can cause serious harm to the marine environment and poses risks
         to navigation, and human health. Marine debris degrades.coastal
         beaches and habitats and endangers the health of marine and
         estuarine plants and animals. Marine debris resting on beaches,
         tidal flats, and submerged bottomlands, covers and displaces the
         indigenous vegetation and habitat.

              Plastics are of particular concern because plastic products
         float and persist in the marine environment for hundreds of
         years. Plastic products and styrofoam do not degrade into


                 Italicized text is excerpted from federal guidance for the
                 309 assessments.


                                          3









          harmless products; they break into smaller and smaller pieces of
          plastic. Fish, birds, marine mammals (including seals and
          whales), and sea turtles, occasionally ingest or become entangled
          in plastic marine debris.

               Active and abandoned  fishing gear presents a hazard to
          marine wildlife. Lost traps, monofilament line, nets and other
          fishing gear may continue to entrap marine life for years after
          disappearing from the harvesters' care. Data on numbers of
          'ghost' traps and nets is unavailable; present estimates rely on
          Anecdotal evidence. Current regulations that require degradable
          vents on lobster traps will reduce the numbers of ghost traps.

               A National Marine Fisheries Study in Maine estimated that
          between 300 to 1,000 harbor porpoises and 50 harbor seals are
          entangled in active fishing gear along the coast each year (Van
          Dusen and Schauffler, 1988). These numbers have been challenged,
          and efforts are underway by marine observers on.fishing vessels
          to substantiate the NMFS estimates. The recent resurgence of the
          gillnet fishery may pose an increased hazard to marine wildlife.

               Marine debris is a visual eyesore affecting the   aesthetic
          value of shore areas. This visual impact may have an economic
          impact if local property values and use by residents and visitors
          declines. Marine debris also can foul nets and other fishing gear
          as well as damage boat props and engines, causing economic loss
          and safety hazards. Debris-related losses to Maine fishing
          vessels are unknown, but in 1987, commercial fishermen from the
          Port of Newport, Oregon reported losses of nearly $1,000 per
          vessel per year from damage related to marine debris.

               b.   Extent of Marine Debris in Maine

               During the 1991 Coastal Clean-up, an estimated 17 tons of
          trash was collected from 200 miles of shoreline. Debris was
          collected all along the coast from urban harbors to remote island
          shores. According to Maine's Coastal Cleanup Coordinator, the
          volume of debris has not dwindled with the annual pickups --
          beaches scoured clean one year are littered with trash the next.
          The table below suggests the persistence of the marine debris
          problem, despite yearly clean-ups.















                                          4










               Summary of Maine's Coastal Cleanup Results (1985-1990)

                         Miles of         Collected per Mile
                         Coastline         # of         # of
                         Covered          Pounds         Items



               1985           30             53           439
               1986           70             86           338
               1987           81             88           240
               1988           114           133           455
               1989           176           103           689
               1990           190           157           684



               C.   Debris Sources and Categories

               The major sources of marine debris in Maine are: boaters--
         recreational and commercial; sea-side visitors--including
         tourists, residents and recreational fishermen; run-off of
         surface waters--including waters from storm drains and CSOs;
         illegal direct dumping; and shipwrecks. Debris from foreign
         fishing and merchant vessels outside the Gulf of Maine does not
         appear to be a problem on the Maine coast. The amount of debris
         from military operations and vessels is undocumented in Maine
         waters.


               The breakdown of items found   during Maine's 1989 Coastal
         Cleanup, by type of material, was    as follows:

                         Plastic          41%
                         Styrofoam        16%
                         Glass            16%
                         Metal            11%
                         Paper             9%
                         Rubber            4%
                         Wood              2%
                         Cloth             1%

               Styrofoam and polystyrene, used as flotation for docks,
         buoys, and floats, comprise a significant portion of the marine
         debris found on the Maine coast. Styrofoam and plastic items
         accounted for 57 percent of the debris collected during the 1989
         cleanup and 61 percent in 1990.

               The 121,342 items collected in 1989 included 7,981 plastic
         bags; 4,550 styrofoam cups; 4,054 glass bottles; 1,192
         milk/water jugs; 498 six-pack yokes; 536 balloons; and 359
         tires and miscellaneous items (such as a bedpost, windshield,
         waterbed mattress, hair dryer. Not included in the count were 3
         dead herring gulls which apparently died from debris entanglement
         or ingestion and a bird whose head was caught inside a plastic
         jug.



                                            5









                Packaging debris such as oil cans, bleach bottles, beverage
           cans and bottles, styrofoam cups and plastic bags are common on
           Maine shores. Such debris is left by recreational and commercial
           boaters and by seaside visitors to beaches, parks and other
           public access points. An unknown amount of packaging debris
           washes off roads through combined sewer overflows and storm
           sewers during heavy rains. Coastal rivers transport trash from
           inland areas, particularly during spring floods and storms.

                In the summer of 1989, medical waste washed ashore on
           Crescent Beach State Park in southern Maine. This incident
           sparked concern for medical waste disposal, and the Department of
           Conservation developed a policy for handling medical waste items
           in the event medical waste is discovered on state managed
           beaches. The Crescent Beach event appears to be an isolated
           incident since no further medical waste has been discovered
           during coastal cleanups.

                Fishing and boating gear (nets, lobster traps, pieces of
           rope, rubber boots, plastic fish totes, and clamming gloves)
           account for approximately 9.6 percent of the marine debris
           collected during the 1989 cleanup in Maine. Commercial fishing,
           recreational fishing, and aquaculture activities account for most
           of this type of debris.

                Boat accidents and abandonments contribute marine debris to
           Maine waters. Recent efforts to salvage the Empire Knight, a
           vessel which sunk off the coast of Kittery in 1944 with military
           and civilian cargo, has focused attention on the potential for
           hazardous waste releases during salvage operations. Rotting hulls
           of schooners lie in many coves along the coast. While some view
           the boat skeletons as historic reminders of a bygone era, others
           view them as marine debris.


                d.   Prolections/Trends

                The table above from Maine Coastal Cleanups indicates that
           marine debris continues to accumulate on Maine shores despite
           yearly removal, and that the amount of debris is increasing.
           Marine debris will continue to impact Maine waters as use of
           coastal waters and shorelands intensifies.


           2.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective -- Reduction  of Marine
                Debris

           Develop or revise programs that reduce the amount of marine
           debris in the coastal zone.

                * Develop or enhance state and local programs that require
                recycling and reduce littering and wasteful packaging in the
                coastal zone.


                  Establish  state and local regulations consistent with the
                Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987
                and develop enforcement strategies and programs.

                                           6









                 Incorporate marine debris concerns into harbor, port,
              marina and coastal solid waste management plans.

                 Develop or enhance programs within the state which
              educate the marine community about debris, and state and
              local reduction requirements.

              2.41   Existing Laws, Regulations, Programs

              a.   Recycling and Litter Reduction

              Title 17, the Litter Law, sections 2264-2267, prohibit the
         disposal of litter on public land or private property not owned
         by the litterer and all waters and ice. The law further
         specifies that "no person shall throw, drop, deposit, discard or
         otherwise dispose of litter from any watercraft upon private or
         public property .... upon any public beach or into any waters
         within the jurisdiction of this State". All enforcement officers
         of the State (including State Police, local police, county
         sheriffs, Department of Marine Resource wardens and Department of
         Inland Fish and wildlife wardens) are authorized to enforce the
         litter laws.

              In 1991, six-pack rings were banned from use in packaging by
         the State legislature, with a provision that the Department of
         Food and Rural Resources could exempt six-pack rings that met
         certain criteria. A bill introduced in the same session to
         prohibit the outdoor release of helium-filled balloons failed
         passage.

              Effectiveness: Legislation to promote community-based
         recycling programs and the formation of the Maine Waste
         Management Agency has effectively reduced the amount of plastics
         and beverage containers in the waste stream and increased public
         awareness of waste disposal issues. The state bottle bill has
         undoubtedly decreased the amount of beverage containers left as
         marine debris. The Center for Marine Conservation reports that
         states with bottle deposit laws have significantly fewer beverage
         containers collected during cleanups (CMC 1989).

              b.   State Consistency with the Marine Plastic
                   Pollution Research & Control Act

              The federal government regulates the disposal of waste at
         sea outside of Maine waters (beyond the three-mile limit). State
         law regulates the discharge of waste into State waters and issues
         NPDES permits.

              Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention
         of Pollution of Ships is an international treaty ratified
         December 31, 1988, that prohibits ocean dumping of plastics
         (except for certain accidental loss of fishing nets) and
         regulates the distance from shore that other solid waste
         materials may be dumped. Known as the MARPOL treaty, Annex V


                                         7









          requires party nations to have adequate port facilities to
          accommodate ships' garbage. Debris from military vessels is
          exempt from MARPOL jurisdiction.

               The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of
          1987 (Public Law 100-200, Title II) was enacted by the U.S.
          Congress to implement the MARPOL Treaty. Title II required the
          U.S. Coast Guard to be responsible for enforcement. The Act to
          Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 USC 1901 et seq.) authorizes the
          Coast Guard to administer and enforce the provisions of Annex V
          and provides for civil and criminal penalties for willful viola-
          tors of the Act.

               Effectiveness: Enforcement of the MARPOL discharge
          provisions is difficult and the Coast Guard is concentrating on
          education and increasing the availability of port-side disposal
          facilities to ensure compliance. The Coast Guard requires ports
          which receive ships subject to Annex I and II of the MARPOL
          Treaty or which receive more than 500,000 pounds of fishery
          products to have a Certificate of Adequacy (COA). The COA assures
          that the port has adequate facilities to handle ship refuse. In
          addition, all marinas and recreational boating facilities with
          slips for over 10 boats are required to have adequate waste
          reception facilities (USDOC, 1990). In Maine, 46 port facilities
          have COAs for garbage and/or oily waste. Port facilities with
          COAs include power stations and shoreside industrial facilities
          (ie., BIW). All commercial vessels and recreational boats beyond
          a certain size are required to post placards with MARPOL
          regulations and procedures for trash disposal.

               Various state laws regulate the-discharge of substances into
          Maine coastal waters, but do not specifically mention marine
          debris. Sections of the Protection and Improvement of Waters
          (Chapter 3 of Title 38, Waters and Navigation Act) requires
          licenses for the discharge of pollutants to inland and coastal
          waters of the state. Section 423 prohibits the discharge of
          sewage, garbage and other pollutants from watercraft into inland
          waters, on ice or banks. Coastal waters are not included in the
          language of this section.

               C.  Coastal Solid Waste Management Plans

               Under Title 38, towns have the authority to adopt local
          harbor ordinances which may include sanitation regulations that
          prohibit the discharge of debris and other substances into harbor
          waters. Local harbor masters must enforce state statutes as well
          as locally adopted ordinances.

               Effectiveness: As of October 1991, 70 coastal towns (out of
          96 with significant harbors) have local harbor ordinances.
          Although the language of the ordinances varies, most include a
          standard provision prohibiting the dumping of waste or refuse.




                                         8










              d.   Educating the Marine Community

              In the past, coastal communities often located dumps on salt
         marshes and along bays. Old automobiles and tires were routinely
         disposed of in the ocean, ostensibly to provide artificial reefs
         for fish. Household trash was commonly dropped off the edge of
         the fishhouse dock each day before the fishermen boarded his
         boat. These practices were discontinued decades ago, although
         until recently, some island communities continued to dispose of
         municipal trash in the sea.

              State environmental regulations and educational campaigns by
         state agencies and private conservation groups have raised public
         awareness of the consequences of disposing of plastics and other
         debris in the ocean. In 1990, the Bureau of Parks and Recreation/
         Department of Conservation instituted a carry in/carry out policy
         at state parks that encouraged visitors to take their trash home
         for appropriate disposal. The program began in response to the
         mounting costs and time spent on solid waste disposal at state
         parks and historic sites. The program has been successful and
         reduced,rubbish at some areas by.80 percent.

              Yearly Coastweek and Coastal Cleanup events, organized by
         the Maine@ Coastal Program of the State Planning Office, have
         focused attention on marine debris and have been an effective
         vehicle to directly involve the public in conservation efforts
         and to generate publicity on marine debris issues. Maine
         Audubon, Maine Island Trail Association and other private
         conservation groups throughout the state have worked to reduce
         the amount of marine debris by participating in coastal clean ups
         and developing public education materials.

              2.42 Options for Improvement

                   The effectiveness of Coastal Cleanup efforts should be
                   reviewed and evaluated.

                   Develop a campaign to educate tourists about the
                   importance of proper disposal of trash while visiting
                   the coast and the problem of marine debris. Target
                   visitors who may not have bottle return or recycling
                   programs in their home states.

                   Propose legislation that places deposits on oil bottles
                   and boat-related products (toxic paints, cleaners,
                   etc.). Promote refillable bottles.

                   Extend local recycling programs to marinas, public
                   docks and commercial wharves.

                   Establish a model marine debris recovery and recycling
                   project in an active port. The pilot project would
                   explore incentives to promote compliance with debris
                   disposal .1-ews and funding strategies.


                                         9









                    Target education efforts at major marine user groups
                    such as, beach goers, commercial fishermen and
                    recreational boaters. Publicize local regulations and
                    federal laws prohibiting disposal of debris at sea.
                    Distribute information on recycling and marine debris
                    with boat licenses.

                    Develop incentives for proper disposal of boat waste
                    (and sewage pump-out) at marinas.

                    Expand the BPR/DOC carry in/ carry out program to
                    include recycling efforts at state parks and
                    campgrounds.

               2.43 Baseline for Measuring Progress

               Coastal Clean-up Data Collection -- Monitor track specific
          stretches of shore in diverse areas of the coast for change in
          composition or volume of trash over a number of seasons and
          years.

          2.5 Available Information/ Studies

               Debenham, Patty and L.K. Younger. 1991. "Cleaning North
          America's Beaches, 1990 Beach Cleanup Results," Center for Marine
          Conservation, Washington, DC.
               Griffin, Nancy and K. Van Dusen. 1990. " Report on
          Coastweek/Cleanup 1990," Maine Coastal Program, State Planning
          Office, Augusta, ME.
               Recht, Fran. 1988. "Dealing with Annex V - Reference Guide
          for Ports," NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWR-23, U.S.
          Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service,
          Seattle, WA.
               Schauffler, Flis. 1989. "Maine's Coastal Cleanup 189 Summary
          Report and Recommendations," Maine Coastal Program, State
          Planning Office, Augusta, ME.




















                                         10


















                             Section 309 Assessment






                                31 PUBLIC ACCESS








                  Advisory Committee: Growth  Management

                  Agency Contacts

                  Tammy Risser, DECD
                  Dave Keeley, SPO
                  Tom Cieslinski, DOC/BPR
                  John Picher, DECD
                  Steve Oliveri, DOC/BPL

                  Public Interest Contacts


                  Island Institute
                  Maine Audubon
                  Maine Coast Heritage Trust











                                       Public Access


                                          CONTENTS




           3.0 Summary

           3.1 Maine's   Key Coastal Management Policies

           3.2 Federal   CZMA Legislative Objectives

           3.3 Federal   CZMA Assessment Characterization

                      3.31   Scope & Definitions
                      3.32   Available Information/Studies
                      3.33   Assessment of Problems & Issues

           3.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective I        Coastal Access
                Regulations

                      3.41   Existing Laws, Regulations
                      3.42   Existing Programs
                      3.43   Options for Improvement

           3.5 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective     II    Funding &
                Acquisition of Coastal Access Sites

                      3.51   Existing Programs
                      .3.52  Options for Improvement
                      3.53   Baseline for Measuring Progress

           3.6 Federal CZMA Programmatic objective III -- Coastal Access
           Plan


                      3.61   Existing Coastal Access Plans
                      3.62   Options for Improvement

           3.7 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective     IV -- Adverse Impacts of
                Public Access

                      3.71   Existing Laws, Regulations, Programs
                      3.72   Options for Improvement

           3.8 Available Information/ Studies









           [jr.accl 1/16/92











         3.0 SUMMARY

              Public access to the coast embraces both physical access to
         the shore as well as visual access to traditional coastal
         landscapes. Access to the coast of Maine is limited. Although
         Maine has more than 3,600 miles of tidal coastline, less than 7
         percent is owned by public entities. Public access sites are used
         for recreation, boat launching, shellfish harvesting, hunting,
         fishing and many other traditional uses.

         Accomplishments

              Maine has over 1,000 documented public access sites on the
              coast, including state and federal lands and parks, town-
              owned lands, boat ramps, picnic areas, lands in conservation
              ownership, and privately-owned lands and paths traditionally
              used by residents and visitors.

         4    State agencies administer several programs funded with
              federal and state dollars to acquire access sites on the
              coast.


              In particular, the Land for Maine's Future Program,
              established with a voter-approved bond issue in 1988, has
              acquired over 3,553 acres of coastal property with more than
              16 miles of combined shore frontage.

              More than 35 coastal boast launching facilities are
              maintained by the Department of Conservation.

              The Land and Water Conservation Fund managed by the
              Department of Economic and Community Development and funded
              by federal dollars, has also acquired properties along the
              coast for public use.

              More than 60 local land trusts and other non-profit
              organizations 'retain easements on or own islands and other
              coastal lands in Maine.

              The towns of Brunswick,.Freeport, Yarmouth and Cumberland
              recently discovered a 1727 ordinance that allows the public
              expanded rights to access shorelands within the boundaries
              of colonial North Yarmouth.

              State laws and regulations promote public access to the
              coast.


              State shoreland zoning guidelines and the Subdivision Review
              Act instruct local planning boards to to ensure that
              proposed activities conserve access to inland and coastal
              waters.








              Submerged Land Rules that cover leasing of submerged tidal
              lands, may require applicants to provide public access.

              In addition, local comprehensive plans must be consistent
              with the state coastal policies promoting public access and
              giving preference to water-dependent uses over other uses.


              Coastal Public Access in Maine , a report prepared by the
              Maine Coastal Program, inventories public access sites along
              the coast. Many coastal communities have inventoried public
              access sites and needs as part of past and current
              comprehensive planning efforts.

              The State Planning Office recently completed an assessment
              of port and harbor needs including repair or new
              construction of piers and docks as well as access facility
              needs.


         Problems

              Subdivisions and transfer of ownership of coastal shorefront
              lands jeopardies the Maine tradition of free and easy
              passage over private lands to tidal waters.

              Funding for public land acquisition and maintenance has
              declined significantly.

              Current laws and regulations lack the criteria needed to
              consistently expand access opportunities during the land use
              permitting process at the state and municipal level.

              Access to the shore is limited by private ownership rights
              that extend down to the low tide mark. The public has the
              right to access intertidal areas for fishing, fowling, and
              navigation activities. In other states, public access rights
              in intertidal areas include recreation.


              Public beach sites in southern and mid-coast Maine are
              intensively by the public, resulting seasonal parking
              problems and overcrowding.

              In some areas of the coast, recreational users compete with
              traditional maritime users for mooring space and land-based
              service facilities.










                                         2









        3.1  Maine's Key-Coastal Manacrement Policies
             Relating to Public Access (38 MRSA @1801)


                  SHORELINE MANAGEMENT & ACCESS. Support shoreline
             management that gives preference to water-dependent
             uses over other uses, that promotes public access to
             the shoreline and that considers the cumulative effects
             of development.


                  PORT AND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT. Promote the
             maintenance, development and revitalization of the
             State's ports and harbors for fishing, transportation
             and recreation.



                  RECREATION & TOURISM. Expand the opportunities
             for outdoor recreation and encourage appropriate
             coastal tourist activities and development.



































                                        3









          3.2 Federal CZMA Legislative Oblective

          ï¿½ 309(a)(3) Attaining increased opportunities for public access,
          taking into acco-unit current and future public access needs, to
          coastal areas of recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological,
          or cultural value.'



          3.3 Federal CZMA Assessment Characterization

          Characterize the adequacy of existing public access site
          improvements and maintenance programs.

               3.31 Scope & Definitions

               In Maine, coastal access includes physical and visual access
          to coastal shorelands, waters and resources by the public for a
          variety of uses. Under state statute, water-dependent uses, those
          shoreline uses that require a shoreside location--such as fish
          docks and boatyards--are priority uses of shorelands.

               There are over 1,000 access sites (publicly and privately-
          owned) along Maine's 3,500-mile coastline. Access sites in
          coastal Maine include state and federal lands and parks,
          municipally-owned lands, boat ramps, picnic areas, undeveloped
          lands in non-profit conservation ownership, and privately-owned
          accessways and shore sites historically used by fishermen and
          other residents.

               Less than 7 percent of Maine coastal shoreline is publicly-
          owned. A small percentage is owned by non-profit conservation
          groups and the remainder by private individuals and corporations.
          Of the known public access sites along the coast approximately 40
          percent are owned by local governments and approximately 38
          percent are privately-owned. These limited access opportunities
          must serve the more than 600,000 residents living in the 144
          coastal municipalities as well as the influx of seasonal visitors
          that migrate to the coast each summer.

               3.32 Available Information/Studies

               In 1988, the Maine Coastal Program updated previous access
          inventories and compiled a data base of over 1000 known coastal
          access sites including 682 publicly-owned access sites in coastal
          communities (Dawson, 1990). To date, the Dawson report is the
          most authoritative source of information that characterizes the
          extent of shore access opportunities. At the local level, many


                 Italicized text is excerpted from federal CZMA guidance for
                 Section 309 assessments.



                                          4









         coastal communities have inventoried public access sites and
         assessed access needs as part of comprehensive planning efforts.

              A recent planning study of Maine's port and harbor
         facilities included public access and land acquisition needs as
         well as needs for new construction, repair and rehabilitation of
         piers, docks and wharves. Priority projects were identified by
         surveying municipal officials, user groups and State agencies,
         and a funding strategy recommended for legislative action in 1990
         (Sasaki Associates, 1990).

              3.33 Assessment of Problems & Issues


              a.   Access Issues

              Recreational access -- In coastal areas with strong tourism
         and recreation industries, shore access for recreational purposes
         and visitor management are key concerns. These areas are
         primarily in southern and mid-coastal Maine.

              Commercial fishing -- In areas with fishing fleets,
         commercial fishermen are threatened by competition from
         recreational boaters vying for shoreside facilities and use of
         marine waters. In addition, water dependent uses also compete
         with residential and commercial users for location along the
         limited coastal shoreline.

              Overcrowding -- Irrespective of the type of access being
         provided, Maine is concerned about the environmental, economic
         and cultural impact of the increased use of the waters and
         shorelands. Several island communities have taken measures to
         limit the impact of visitors, for example.

              In 1986, approximately two thousand state residents were
         surveyed to identify the problems, at that time, concerning
         access to the coast (SPO, 1986). The survey found about 41
         percent of the boaters, commercial fishermen, diggers, and
         surfcasters surveyed from all sections of the coast, perceived
         that access to the coast was more difficult at the time of the
         survey than in the past and that traditional access paths over
         private lands to the coast for clam and worm digging and duck
         hunting were significantly restricted because of posting and
         changes in property ownership. Most respondents agreed that
         government should establish more rights-of-way.

              Although survey respondents perceived that certain state
         parks were overcrowded and parking was a problem at some access
         facilities. Recent surveys by the Bureau of Public Recreation
         show that crowding is not a problem and that Reid and Popham
         state parks (two of the most popular Maine beaches) are filled to
         capacity on only about ten days during the summer.


                                         5









               Other access issues include: concerns about the liability of
          landowners who provide public access ways for recreational users;
          a decline in coastal water quality attributable in part to in-
          creased water and shoreland use; the need to increase protection
          of public trust rights; the need for increased protection of
          sites for water-dependent uses; and the need for improved
          management of tourism in ecologically sensitive areas.

               b.   Coastal Access Needs

               Maine currently has very limited information to assess the
          current level of use at most access facilities and the quality
          and condition of those facilities. Furthermore, the need for
          specific access facilities have not been identified on the local
          level. Consequently, a priority for Maine is to develop a
          rigorous approach to evaluating public access needs along the
          coast. This approach would define access needs geographically and
          the types of access needed. In lieu of this rigorous approach,
          Maine has developed the following inconclusive information on
          coastal access needs.

               The extent and type of public access needs vary regionally
          along the coast. There are numerous access facilities on the
          Maine coast, but, they are unevenly distributed. Demand for
          different types of public access varies from region to region.
          For example, some crowded harbors need more and improved
          facilities (i.e. wharves, moorings, etc.) for all types of
          boaters. Other harbors require service facilities to accommodate
          recreational boaters and to keep commercial harvesters. Shellfish
          and worm diggers often require accessways over private lands to
          reach productive flats.

               In 1988, the Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation (BPR)
          prepared a regional needs analysis for recreational facilities as
          part of the Maine Assessment and Policy Plan for Outdoor
          Recreation. The coastal access information was organized to
          correspond to five planning regions:

               South Coast Region -- Coastal towns in York and Cumberland
               counties except Brunswick and Harpswell.
               Mid-Coast Region -- Brunswick, Harpswell, all coastal towns
               in Sagadahoc County except Richmond, and all coastal towns
               in Lincoln, Knox, and Waldo Counties.
               Kennebec Valley Region    Richmond and all coastal towns in
               Kennebec County.
               Downeast/Acadia Region    All coastal towns in Penobscot and
               Hancock Counties.
               Sunrise County Region    All coastal towns in Washington
               County.

               The BPR study projects acreage needs by 1993 for ocean
          swimming, picnic, and boat access in each planning region. The

                                          6









         analysis concludes that needs vary considerably along the coast,
         with projected general access needs the highest for the Downeast/
         Acadia Region followed by the South Coast Region, the Mid-coast
         Region, the Kennebec Valley region, and finally, the Sunrise
         County Region.

              The Dawson study (1990) concludes from previous.SPO and BPR
         surveys that boat access sites are most needed in the South Coast
         region, followed by the Mid-coast, Kennebec Valley and
         Downeast/Acadia Region; ocean swimming sites are most needed in
         Downeast/Acadia, followed by the Mid-coast, Sunrise County and
         South Coast Regions, and coastal picnic sites are most needed in
         Downeast/Acadia followed by South Coast and the Kennebec Valley
         Regions.

         3.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective I -- Coastal Access
              Regulations

         Improve public access through regulatory, statutory, and legal
         systems.

                Develop and revise statellocal statutes and regulations to
              better provide public access, including utilization of
              permit conditions. -

              & Assist and encourage local governments in revising local
              ordinances to provide for additional public access.

              - Develop legal strategies based on the public trust
              doctrine and other public interest doctrines to protect and
              enhance opportunities for public access.

              0 Increase the use of federal consistency as a tool to
              require public access.

              3.41 Existing Laws and Regulations

              a.   Legal Doctrines Securing Public Access Rights --

              Ownership & Access Rights under the Colonial Ordinances
              Most owners of shorefront property in Maine own the land
         between the high and low tide marks as well as adjacent uplands.
         Land below the mean low water mark (out three miles to federal
         waters) is owned and managed by the State. Under the Colonial
         Ordinance of 1641-1647, the public has certain rights in
         intertidal areas which include access for fishing, fowling and
         navigation. In the Moody Beach case of 1988, Maine's Law Court
         ruled that the traditional public rights in intertidal areas did
         not include recreational use.

              Easement by Prescription
              The public may acquire rights to continue to use a piece of

                                         7









          property by prescriptive use, if the general public has made
          continuous and uninterrupted use of the property for at least
          twenty years "under a claim of right, adverse to the owner,,@with
          his knowledge and acquiescence, or by use so open, notorious,
          visible and uninterrupted that knowledge and acquiescence will be
          presumed." Legal establishment of these rights may be quite
          difficult, however, as illustrated by the Moody Beach Case.

               The doctrine of custom can also be used to secure public
          rights to land and is recognized by the Maine Law Court as part
          of common law. To establish rights under this theory several
          conditions must be proved including that use has been in effect
          "so long as the memory of man runneth not to the contrary."

               b.   State Laws Establishing Access Rights

               Five state laws grant the state and towns authority to
          establish and protect publicaccess to coastal resources. Those
          laws are:
                    the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act
                    of 1988 (Growth Management Act) (30-A M.R.S.A. 4311 et
                    seq.);
                    the Coastal Management Policies Act of 1986 (38
                    M.R.S.A. 1801 et seq.);
                    the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act (38 M.R.S.A. 435 et
                    seq.);
                    the Subdivision Review Act (30-A M.R.S.A. 4401 et
                    seq.); and
                    the Submerged Lands Act (12 M.R.S.A. 558-573).

               The Coastal Management Policies and the Growth Management
          Goals expressed in the Growth Management Act, seek to promote
          coastal access for recreational and commercial uses. Local
          comprehensive plans and implementation programs required for all
          communities by the Growth Management Act must be consistent with
          these state policies. The Office of Comprehensive Planning (OCP)
          in the Department of Economic and Community Development reviews
          comprehensive plans of coastal communities to ensure that the
          coastal policies and state goals are addressed.

               The minimum guidelines for ordinances required by the
          Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act encourage designation of
          appropriate areas that are uniquely suited to water-dependent use
          development. The Submerged Lands-Act gives priority to commercial
          fishing interests over other uses for submerged lands.

               The Subdivision Review Act allows towns with subdivision
          review authority to consider a development proposals' effect on
          public access to the shore. The act specifies that proposal
          approval must not have "undue adverse effect on ... public rights
          for physical or visual access to the shoreline."


                                          8









              Submerged Land Rules, Chapter 3.6 (A)(2)(d), of the
         Submerged Lands Act allow the Bureau of Public Lands to require
         applicants to provide free public access for water dependent or
         associated uses (MLI,1987). The Submerged Lands Law is the only
         state legislation that specifically mentions the Public Trust
         Doctrine, and then only with reference to lands below the low
         water mark. The conversion of existing water dependent use sites
         to non-water dependent uses are limited on submerged lands and
         state-owned tidelands.

              Federal Consistency
              The Maine State Planning office, through the Maine Coastal
         Program (MCP), can require federal projects to be consistent with
         state coastal policies and laws. The consistency provisions are
         authorized under Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone
         Management Act (CZMA, 16 U.S.C. 1456). Examples of listed direct
         federal activities eligible for consistency review by the MCP
         which may be used to improve public access are: proposed new
         National Park or U.S. Fish and Wildlife acquisitions,.locations
         and design of communication, air navigation and Coast Guard
         facilities, and the disposal of federal surplus lands. Many
         federal licenses are also subject to consistency review, such as
         Section 404, Army Corps of Engineers permits and NPDES
         (discharge) permits from the Environmental Protection Agency.

              C.   Effectiveness

              Current state laws and regulations were not written to be
         used in a proactive manner to increase the extent of shore access
         sites. In 1986, state legislation was approved that required the
         provision of shore access under certain conditions but it was
         subsequently rejected by the law court.

              The Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act authorizes, but does not
         require protection of physical and visual access to the shore.
         The model Minimum Shoreland Zoning Ordinance does not include
         specific criteria and standards for conservation of public
         accessways. Towns may adopt general zoning ordinances which
         overlay shoreland areas to include public access and use
         provisions. Towns which adopt the minimum state ordinance without
         modification to include access provisions or criteria, lack the
         legal framework to include access consideration in permit review
         decisions.

              To date, few coastal towns have incorporated guidelines or
         criteria designed to protect public access into local shoreland
         zoning or subdivision ordinances. Towns that have obtained access
         provisions or easements in shoreside developments usually acquire
         the concessions during negotiations while the plan is being
         reviewed by the town planning board.

              Shoreland and other ordinances (including subdivision

                                          9









         ordinances) must be based on a comprehensive plan. If the town
         does not address public access in its comprehensive plan, access
         provisions cannot be included in town ordinances.

              State law regarding prescriptive easements is clear and
         allows municipalities to explore historic rights-of-way to
         determine their ownership. To establish rights by prescriptive
         use, the land must have been used with the owner's knowledge and
         "acquiescence"--meaning that consent was given silently without
         express permission. This is difficult to prove under Maine law.
         Maine courts presume use of "wild and uncultivated land,"
         including private beaches used by the public, are used with
         permission of the owner (Burrowes, 1990).

              The Moody Beach Case decision which barred the public from
         recreational use of a privately-owned beach in Wells, Maine is a
         serious setback to the use of the doctrine of custom as a tool
         for establishing public access rights, although recent work
         researching the 1727 North Yarmouth Colonial Ordinance may offer
         some new possibilities.

              The Submerged Lands Law authorizes the Director of the
         Bureau of Public Lands to require public benefits (such as public
         access) from submerged lands leases. Specific rules detailing
         implementation of this provision are under review.

              3.42 Existing Programs


              a.   Scope

              Coastal Access Coordination -- Coastal access inventory data
         and technical assistance materials are available from the Maine
         Coastal Program. In addition, the office of Comprehensive
         Planning (OCP) provides tech'nical assistance to towns regarding
         public access and reviews public access components of municipal
         comprehensive plans. Handbooks available from OCP/DECD include:

              ï¿½ "Coastal Right-of Way Discovery Programs"
              ï¿½ "Liability"
              *."Planning and Implementing Public Shoreline Access."

              The Coastal Right-of Way Discovery Project -- The Marine Law
         Institute of the University of Southern Maine researched
         traditional access points in eight Maine communities to determine
         if the public had access rights to certain areas. A handbook,
         "Coastal Right-of Way Rediscovery Programs" was developed to
         assist communities interested in discovering and maintaining
         traditional rights-of way to the coast.

              Interagency Task Force on Marine Infrastructure - In 1989,
         the Legislature established a Task Force to assess marine
         infrastructure needs and priorities. The final report from this

                                        10









         task force will be published in early 1992.

              Several towns have passed bond issues to purchase land, and
         others have worked with public and private groups to acquire
         important shorefront parcels.

              b.   Effectiveness

              The Coastal Right-of Way project ceased with the publication
         of the handbook. Efforts by local officials to establish
         traditional rights-of way have been hampered by the costs
         involved in documentation and legal difficulties involved with
         establishing prescriptive easements.

              3.43 Options for Improvement

                   Identify areas where traditional access to intertidal
                   areas is threatened or has been cut-off by development
                   and negotiate easements. Support local efforts to
                   acquire access through technical assistance and grants.

                   With local land trusts, support a voluntary landowner
                   cooperation program which pursues agreements with
                   private landowners to allow limited public use of
                   shorelands.

                   Develop criteria and guidelines to ensure public access
                   provisions in certain shoreland development projects
                   subject to local shoreland zoning and subdivision
                   ordinance review. Develop sample ordinance provisions
                   that address access and continue technical assistance
                   to towns.


                   Amend the Natural Resources Protection and the Site
                   Location of Development rules to require developers to
                   demonstrate that their project does not interfere with
                   existing legal rights of'access.

                   The Maine Coastal Program should actively use
                   consistency requirements of the federal Coastal Zone
                   Management Act to expand public access opportunities
                   during federal activities such as sale of surplus
                   government property along the coast.

                   Develop a strategy to expand the public trust doctrine
                   in Maine. Investigate applications of the public trust
                   doctrine to intertidal lands beyond the narrow
                   interpretation of the Moody Beach Case.

                   Continue implementation of the Right-of-Way Discovery
                   Project by defraying expenses of local documentation
                   efforts.


                                        11










                    Convene periodic access workshops with towns, non-
                    profits and other entities to address coastal access
                    issues.

                    Legally reassert the traditional rights of the public
                    along the shorefront of the towns of Brunswick,
                    Freeport, Yarmouth, and Cumberland. A 1727 North
                    Yarmouth colonial ordinance was recently rediscovered
                    that set aside an upland shorefront path, about 50-feet
                    wide, from the Royal River to the Cumberland-Falmouth
                    border and designated the area between the high and low
                    tide mark as a public commons.

                    Incorporate the Submerged Lands law as a core law of
                    the Maine Coastal Program.

                    Amend the model state Shoreland Zoning Ordinance to
                    include guidance and language for consideration of
                    physical and scenic access in permit review decisions
                    more specific.

                    Encourage municipalities to develop public access plan
                    addenda to their comprehensive plans.

          3.5 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective II -- Funding &
               Acquisition of Coastal Access Sites

               Acquire, improve, and maintain public access sites to meet
          current and future demand through the use of innovative funding
          and acquisition-techniques.

               o  Develop and enhance a unified state process for funding
                  acquisition, improvement, and maintenance of coastal
                  public access sites.

                     Assess impact fees and utilize special assessments,
                     bond issues, and other techniques.
                     Assess user fees and other techniques, where
                     appropriate.

               o  Coordinate with other state and federal agencies that
                  provide funds related to the provision of public access
                  to insure that highest priority sites are acquired,
                  improved, and maintained.

               o  Coordinate with other public and private entities that
                  own or manage shoreline areas in order to meet the needs
                  for public access.

                      Encourage cooperative efforts between land trust
                      organizations and government agencies providing funds

                                          12









                    for acquisition of public access sites.

                    Coordinate with the National Flood Insurance Program
                    to acquire property that has been damaged by natural
                    hazards and is unsuitable for rebuilding.

                    Encourage the utilization of surplus public.
                    properties, abandoned railroad corridors, and other
                    opportunities to help meet needs for shoreline public
                   .access.

             o Develop or enhance programs  to encourage landowners to
                dedicate property and easements for public access.

             3.51 Existing Programs


             a.   Scope

             Public Facilities for Boats Program - Administered by the
       Department of Conservation/ Bureau of Parks and Recreation, the
       program maintains 35 coastal launching facilities and acquires
       new sites with revenue from the Boating Facilities Fund. The fund
       annually receives a portion (approximately 1 percent) of the
       state gasoline tax that is paid by non-highway users of fuel.

             Waterfront Access Grant Program - Administered by the
       Department of Economic and Community Development/ Office of
       Comprehensive Planning, the Waterfront Access Grant Program is
       funded through the Maine Coastal Program with federal funds. The
       program provides matching grants on a competitive basis to
       communities for acquisition and improvement of public access
       sites. This program requires all sites and approach roads to   be
       posted with standard Shore Access signage.

             Wallop-Breaux Fund   Administered by the Department of
       inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Wallop-Breaux monies are used to
       acquire c'oastal lands for habitat protection and recreational
       access. monies from the federal fuel tax are allocated to the
4      fund.

             Land For Maine's Future Program - Established in November
A      1988 with a voter-approved bond issue, LMFB has acquired over
       3,553 acres of coastal property with more than 16 miles of
       combined shore frontage. The Land for Maine's Future Program is
       administered by the Natural Resource Policy Division of the State
       Planning Office. The original funds allocated for land
       acquisition by LMFB are nearly spent. Maine voters will vote on a
       referendum to replenish funding with a five million dollar bond
       issue this November (1991).

             Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON) - Administered by
       the Department of Economic and Community Development/ Office of

                                       13









           Comprehensive Planning, LAWCON has played a major role in
           funding access acquisitions along the coast and inland. Revenue
           for the fund comes from fees paid by offshore oil well leases to
           the federal government. The National Park Service disperses the
           funds to the states annually. Maine's annual share has ranged
           from a high of 3.2 million to recent funding levels of
           approximately 165,000 dollars.

                Recently' LAWC ON funds were used to help develop beach
           facilities at Sandy Point Beach, acquired in the coastal town of
           Stockton Springs under the Land for Maine's Future Board Program.
           This is a good example of the use of multiple funding sources for
           access projects where individual sources are insufficient by
           themselves. Some cooperative projects involving LAWCON, Coastal
           and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) sources include the
           Belfast waterfront improvements, the Augusta Waterfront Park, and
           the Gardiner Landing.

                Shoreline Access Protection Fund - This account was never
           funded, since a bond issue, to be used to finance the fund, was
           defeated by Maine voters in 1986.

                Non-profit Conservation Organizations - Conservation
           organizations including Maine Coast Heritage Trust, National
           Audubon Society, Maine Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, Island
           Institute, local land trusts and municipalities are actively
           acquiring easements or property on coastal lands for conservation
           and public access enhancement purposes.

                b.  Effectiveness

                The Waterfront Action Grant (WAG) Program has successfully
           promoted access initiatives at the local level, as indicated by
           the descriptions of funded projects available from the Office of
           Comprehensive Planning in the Dept. of Economic and Community
           Development, and by the interest in new grants. Limited funding
           by the Maine Coastal Program is the primary constraint on the
           program; no funds were available in 1991. Reactivation of the
           WAG program will require raising its priority in relation to
           other State uses of CZMA funds, and depend on overall federal
           CZMA funding levels.

                There is coordination among state agencies acquiring and
           managing lands. The Land for Maine's Future Board's strategies
           and guidelines for acquisition (LMFB, 1990) were developed in
           cooperation with the Departments of Agriculture, Food and Rural
           Resources, Conservation, Economic and Community Development,
           Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Transportation and the State
           Planning Office and with input from private conservation groups
           in the state.

                Scarcity of funding and soaring land costs limit the extent

                                          14









         of coastal land purchases for public access and other purposes.
         Private conservation organizations and state agencies are
         employing options to fee-simple land acquisitions such as
         purchase of development rights and conservation easements. Recent
         slow real estate market conditions have allowed the purchase of
         several large waterfront parcels by LMFB and other groups at
         reasonable costs. .


              3.52 Options for Improvement

                   Explore alternative sources of funding to support land
                   acquisitions and public access facility repair at the
                   state and local levels.

                   Develop tax incentives and other tools needed to
                   facilitate the transfer of easements, development
                   rights and right-of-ways from private landowners to the
                   public while protecting the revenue base of coastal
                   communities.

                   Fund and support local research into historic right-of-
                   ways to the coast.

                   Publish a coastal access guide to inform people of
                   coastal access locations and the range of access
                   possibilities.

                   Fund and provide technical assistance to towns for the
                   development of harbor olans which.establish priorities
                   for the use of harbor waters and waterfront.


                   The Maine Coastal Program should convene a workshop to
                   discuss access needs, current programs and ways to
                   improve them such as, how to strengthen existing
                   public/ private partnerships to improve access.
                   Participants in the workshop should include all access
                   program managers, individuals active in land
                   conservation, selected municipal leaders and the
                   public.

                   Restore Waterfront Action Grants and raise their
                   priority for Coastal Program funding. Seek federal
                   approval for a ceiling higher than $50,000 on
                   Waterfront Action Grants to reflect costs of coastal
                   access acquisition and development more realistically.

                   Investigate alternative funding for the Shoreline
                   Access Protection Fund.

                   Facilitate cooperation betwe en municipalities and State
                   and national parks to ensure consistency with local
                   plans.

                                         15









                    Ensure that Maine ports and harbors continue to be open
                    to all on an equal basis regardless of residency.

                    Establish a single State point of contact to provide
                    coordination for public access issues.

               3.53 Baseline for Measuring Progress

               Specific objectives for improving the quantity and quality
          of access sites along the coast need to be developed. These
          objectives would be established once a rigorous process for
          evaluating current access needs is developed and implemented.

          3.6 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective III -- Coastal Access
               Plan


          Develop or enhance a Coastal Public Access Management Plan which
          takes into account the provision of public access to all users of
          coastal areas of recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological,
          and cultural value.   The plan should have adequate
          implementation mechanisms and include sections that:

               Develop or'update public access inventory, maps of and guide
             .to all existing and potential public access sites.

               Identify site selection and design criteria, management, and
               maintenance issues for each type of public access.

               Assess current and future demand for public access.

               Incorporate pertinent sections of the State Comprehensive
               Outdoor Recreation Plan into the Coastal Public Access
               Management Plan.

               Update andlor designate public access sites as Areas of
               Particular Concern, Areas for Preservation or Restoration,
               or special management areas.

               Ensure that signage is provided for all public access sites.

               Ensure that all users of the coast, including handicapped
               individuals, are afforded the same public access
               opportunities.

               Increase community support and cooperation through public
               education and involvement.

               Incorporate existing public access policies.





                                         16










             3.61 Existing Coastal Access Plans


             a.   Scope

             To date the only coastal access management plan is the
        "State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)(BPR, 1988)
        which summarizes access needs and information for the coastal
        planning regions. In addition, the Maine Island Trail Association
        and the Bureau of Public Lands have prepared plans that respond
        to priority coastal island issues including coastal access.

             b.   Effectiveness

             The SCORP is reasonably effective in identifying and
        analyzing coastal access issues. Improvements in the Plan would
        be possible if additional funding were made available for access
        planning.

             3.62 Options for Improvement

                  The Maine Coastal Program should work with the SCORP
                  steering committee planning the 1993 SCORP to include @a
                  coastal section emphasizing coastal specific access
                  issues.

                  Develop a 10-year coastal plan that all coastal towns
                  and interested federal and State agencies can agree to.

                  Establish goals for each type of public access
                  facilities in each planning region or section of coast.
                  Work with municipalities to incorporate these goals
                  into public access sections of their comprehensive
                  plans.

        3.7 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective IV -- Minimizing Adverse
             Impacts of Public Access

        minimize potential adverse impacts of public access on coastal.
        resources and private property rights through appropriate
        protection measures.

A       a.   Balance the provision of public access in meeting current
        and future demand with the protection of environmentally-
        sensitive areas and other natural resources.

             o  Develop a system to evaluate the environmental
                sensitivity and amount of use of existing and proposed
                access sites.

             o  Provide for periodic site inspections to assess the
                impact of public access use on the surrounding ecosystem.


                                        17









                o Provide for alternatives such as visual access to protect
                   sensitive coastal areas.

           b.   Safeguard the rights of private property owners who dedicate
           property for public use, and those of adjacent property owners.

                ï¿½ Encourage the adoption of a limited liability provision
                   for property owners who donate property or easements.

                ï¿½ Provide for the security and maintenance of public
                   accessways on or adjacent to private property.

                3.71 Existing Laws, Regulations, Programs


                a.   Scope

                Liability -- The Maine Tort Claims Act (MCTA) limits the
           liability of the state of Maine and municipalities with respect
           to use of public recreational facilities. 14 M.R..S.A.159-A
           (Statutory Liability Limitation) limits liability of private
           landowners that allow the public to access their land. The
           "Limited Liability for Recreational or Harvesting Activities"
           provides that a landowner does not have to protect a person who
           enters his or her land for recreational or harvesting purposes
           from in'Jury.

                The DECD distributes inforffiation on public access including
           a booklet which deals with the liability issue. In addition, the
           Marine Law Institute (1990) publishes a brochure "Protection
           against Liability for -Landowners who Allow Public Access"
           discussing laws protecting private property owners from
           liability,

                Environmental Impacts -- Fragile coastal environments are
           threatened by the increasing numbers of people drawn to the
           coast. The Natural Resource Protection Act (NRPA) prohibits
           development that impacts sea bird nesting sites, bald eagle
           nests, certain wetlands of high value and other natural areas of
           significance. many small developments and public access
           activities are not regulated by NRPA. Managers in the resource
           agencies that manage public lands along the coast design
           appropriate conservation plans for the sites including
           appropriate types of public access. Several private conservation
           organizations promote visitation to certain sites that do not
           disturb the wildlife or habitat. Coastal islands, in particular,
           are very vulnerable to human disturbance.

                b.   Effectiveness

                Existing laws and programs rarely address the potential
           adverse impacts of increased access on coastal resources. Impacts
           from public access are considered after the effects are noticed

                                           18








         and are seldom anticipated in state and local permitting
         processes.

             3.72 Options for Improvement

                   Ecotourism, tourism which minimally impacts the
                   environment, should be promoted and facilities
                   developed to encourage this type of coastal use.

                   The MCP should work with other agencies (and non-profit
                   groups) that design access opportunities to pursue
                   development of low-impact access sites such as
                   greenways that would be different from the traditional
                   (high impact) drive-up sites with boat ramps and
                   camping services.

                   Tourism carrying capacity studies should be conducted
                   that would include the quality of the visiting
                   experience and the environmental impact of tourism on
                   sites being visited.

                   As part of the 10-year Coastal Plan, state agencies
                  ,should work cooperatively to develop a physical and
                   visual access plan for Route 1 (as Pacific States have
                   done) that seeks to preserve the Water views and scenic
                   vistas, as well as relieve automobile congestion. This
                   activity should be consistent with local comprehensive
                   plans approved by the DECD. The use of zoning should be
                   considered for maintaining views from Route 1, other
                   State highways and town roads.



         3.8 Available Information/Studies

             Bureau of Parks and Recreation, 1988. "State Comprehensive
         Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)," Volume I, Assessments and
         Policy Plan, Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Maine Department of
         Conservation, Augusta, ME.

             Burrows, T.R. and E. Paine, 1989. "Maine Shore Access,
         Public Access@Series: Liability", Marine Law Institute for the
         Department of Economic and Community Development, Office of
         Comprehensive
         Planning, Augusta, ME.

             Dawson, M., 1990.  "Coastal Public Access in Maine," Maine
         State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.

             Land for Maine's  Future Board, 1990,revised. "Land for
         Maine's Future Fund, Starategy and Guidelines for Acquisition,"
,A       State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.

                                        19









               Maine Office of Comprehensive Planning, 1990. Public Access
          Handbook Series: Liability; Coastal Right-of-Way Rediscovery
          Programs; and How to Conduct a Inventory of Scenic Areas. Maine
          Department of Economic and Community Development, Augusta, ME

               Maine State Planning Office, 1986. "Public Access to the
          Maine Coast," Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.

               Marine Law Institute (MLI), 1991. "Protection Against
          Liability for Landowners Who Allow Public Access,"Marine Law
          Institute, Sea Grant Marine Advisory program, University of maine
          Orono, ME.

               Marine Law Institute, 1989. "Coastal Right-of-Way Discovery
          Project, Summary of Results of Research by Town", Marine Law
          Institute, Portland, ME.

               Sasaki Associates, 1990. "Planning Study of Maine Coastal
          Port and Harbor Needs," Me. State Planning Office, Me. Dept. of
          Transportation, Augusta, ME.

































                                         20


























                              Section 309 Assessment







                                4. COASTAL HAZARDS








                   Advisory Committee: Marine Policy Committee

                   Agency Contacts

                   Joe Kelley, Steve Dickson - Maine Geological Survey/DOC
                   Rob Elder - Port Division/ DOT
                   John DelVecchio - Hazard Mitigation Officer/ DECD
                   Louis Sidell   Floodplain Management Program/ DECD
                   Erik Carson   Office of Comprehensive Planning/ DECD
                   Lynn Taylor   Maine Emergency Management'Agency (MEMA)
                   Rich Baker   Shoreland Zoning Program/ DEP

                   Public Interest Contacts


                   Natural Resource Council of Maine
                   Maine Municipal Association-
                   Maine Audubon Society











                                      Coastal Hazards


                                          CONTENTS



           4.0 SUMMARY

           4.1 Maine's Key Coastal Management Policies

           4.2 Federal CZMA Legislative Objective

           4.3 Federal CZMA Assessment Characterization

                      4.31    Scope & Definitions
                      4.32    Available Information/Studies
                      4.33    Assessment of Problems & Issues
                              a. Sea Level Rise
                              b. Coastal Erosion
                              c. Coastal Flooding & Storm Surge
                              d. Hurricanes & "Norleasters"
                              e. Subsidence
                              f. Earthquakes

           4.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective I -- Direct Development
                Away From Hazard Areas

                      4.41    Existing Laws, Regulations & Programs
                      4.42    Options for Improvement

           4.5 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective II -- Protective
                Functions of Natural Shoreline Features

                      4.51    Existing Laws, Regulations and Programs
                      4.52    Options for Improvement

           4.6 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective III -- Prevent or
                Minimize Threats to Populations & Property

                      4.61    Existing Laws, Regulations & Programs
                      4.62    Options for Improvement

           4.7 Available Information/ Studies












           [jr.haz]    1/14/92











         4.0 SUMMARY

              Beach and bluff erosion, riverine flooding, sea level rise,
         land subsidence, hurricanes, norleasters, ocean storms, and
         earthquakes are natural hazards of the Maine coast. Of these,
         hurricanes and norleasters (and the associated flooding, erosion,
         and storm surge) occur most frequently.

              Sea level is rising along the coast at a rate of
         approximately one foot per century and is expected to accelerate
         in coming decades. The predicted future rise in sea level will
         eventually flood some Maine coastal communities and port
         facilities.


         Accomplishments

              The Sand Dune Rules of Maine's Natural Resource Protection
              Act (NRPA) are some of the strictest in the country. The
              rules prohibit development seaward of a frontal dune and
              include standards for construction techniques and coverage
              by development. Maps of hazard areas in sand dunes are
              available from the Maine Geological Survey.

              State Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Guidelines detail minimum
              setbacks and erosion control measures that must be included
              in local shoreland zoning ordinances. Under the guidelines,
              floodplains, areas of steep slopes and other hazard areas
              are to be designated as Resource Protection Districts which
              prohibit significant new construction.

              The Maine Floodplain Management Program, administered by the
              Department of Economic and Community Development, assists
              communities with floodplain ordinances, mapping and
              planning.
'A            Thirty-two beaches along the Maine coast areas are
              designated as coastal barrier resources, a designation that
              ensures that no state funds or state financial assistance
              will be expended to develop these areas. In addition, 12
              areas are identified as geologically unstable and federal
              funds cannot be used to support development in these areas.

         Problems

         4    Continued development'and alteration of the shoreline
              threatens the natural protective features of unaltered
              shorefronts and risks loss of public and private property.

              Basic information on coastal erosion rates and other natural
              shoreline processes is needed in order to design effective
              and progressive programs that limit development, protect
              private property, and'conserve protective coastal features
              and natural habitats in areas prone to coastal hazards.

              The predicted rise of sea level along the Maine coast has

                                         I









               tremendous implications for private property owners and
               managers of public lands and port facilities.

               Existing federal and state regulations allow reconstruction
               of structures after coastal hazard events in certain
               circumstances.

               There is a lack of adequate funding for field checks of
               activities permitted by the Department of Environmental
               Protection and local code enforcement officers.

               Inadequate enforcement of shoreland zoning provisions in
               some communities stems from a lack in understanding of the
               rationale and need for shoreland zoning.









































                                          2










        4.1 Maine's Key Coastal Management Policies
             Applicable to Coastal Hazards (38 MRSA 1801)



                  HAZARD AREA DEVELOPMENT. Discourage growth and
             new development in coastal areas where, because of
             coastal storms, flooding, landslides or sea-level rise,
             it is hazardous to human health and safety.

                  PORT AND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT. Promote the
             maintenance, development and revitalization of the
             State's ports and harbors for fishing, transportation
             and recreation.


                  SCENIC AND NATURAL AREAS PROTECTION. Protect and
             manage critical habitat and natural areas of state and
             national significance and maintain the scenic beauty
             and character of the coast even in areas where
             development occurs.






































                                        3










           4.2 Federal CZMA Legislative Oblective

           ï¿½ 309(a)(2) Preventing or significantly reducing threats to life
           and destruction of property by eliminating development and
           redevelopment in high hazard areas, managing development in other
           hazard areas, and anticipating and managing the effects of
           potential sea level rise and Great Lakes level rise.'

           4.3 Federal CZMA Assessment Characterization


           Characterize the extent to which the coastal zone is at risk from
           the following coastal hazards: hurricanes, flooding, storm surge,
           episodic and chronic erosion, sea and Great Lakes level rise,
           subsidence, earthquakes, tsunamis, and any other significant
           coastal hazards.


                4.31   Scope & Definitions

                Coastal hazards common to the Maine coast include shore and
           bluff erosion, riverine flooding, sea level rise, land
           subsidence, hurricanes and "norleasters" (and attendant storm
           surge), and earthquakes. Forest fires are a particular concern
           on wooded islands and coastal peninsulas, and caused disasters
           this century on Mt..Desert Island and Monhegan Island. Fires,
           however, are outside the scope of this assessment.

                In Maine, coastal hazard area development includes
           development in river flood plains, on sand dunes, and in areas
           subject to storm surge and coastal erosion.

                4.32   Available Information & Studies

                The State of Maine Hazard Mitigation Plan (Maine Emergency
           Management Agency, 1988) reviews the history of nat@iral disasters
           in Maine. Hazards assessed in the plan include dam failure,
           earthquake, flood, hurricane, and forest fire. The mitigation
           plan proposes measures designed to reduce disaster damage.

                Hazard areas in sand dunes are mapped by the Maine
           Geological Survey (MGS) to provide information on the location of
           flood hazard zones and front and back dunes. The National Flood
           Insurance Program identifies areas vulnerable to flooding and
           storm surge.

                4.33 Assessment of Problems & Issues


                a. Sea Level Rise

                    At the present time, sea level  is rising along the
           Maine coast at a rate of approximately one foot per century, in
           part due to local subsidence of the coast. The Maine Geological


                 Italicized text is excerpted from federal guidance for the
                  309 assessments.


                                           4









        Survey (1989) estimates that global warming trends may accelerate
        the rise, resulting in a net sea level rise of 20 to 50 inches
        along the Maine coast by 2090.

             As sea level rises, new areas of coastline will be subject
        to flooding and other coastal hazards. Present-day marsh,
        environments and other edge habitats will persist only if they
        can migrate landward. Coastal ecosystems, already fragmented by
        development, will be further threatened by sea level rise. In
        response to environmental and physical changes, the biodiversity
        of coastal ecosystems will change and perhaps diminish.
        Saltwater will intrude upon coastal groundwater supplies and
        sedimentation of harbors and basins will increase as coastal
        @rosion rates increase (MGS 1989). When salinity regimes change
        in estuaries, and current and sedimentation patterns shift from
        the rise in sea level, other effects on coastal ecosystems will'
        become apparent.

             The Maine Department of Transportation is concerned that the
        existing marine infrastructure of docks, piers and port
        facilities may be threatened by changes in sea level.

             b. Coastal Erosion

             Slumping bluffs and eroding dunes continually cause
        incidents of property damage and loss along the coast. Beach
        erosion events at Popham Beach in Phippsburg, and Camp Ellis in
        Saco toppled several homes in the past few years. Local
        landslides and ilumping of bluffs in Rockland and Cutler
        periodically cause property loss. Only a few of Maine's beaches
        and shore areas have been profiled over time to determine erosion
        rates.


             The Maine Geological Survey (MGS) and the Office of
        Comprehensive Planning (OCP), estimate that several hundred
        houses are in areas subject to damage from coastal storms in
        southern and mid-coastal Maine. Approximately 30 of the houses
        are located along Higgins Beach in Scarborough, another 52 in
        @amp Ellis,-and the others scattered along the York County coast
        in areas of Ocean Park, Fortune Rock and Drake's Island.

             Coastal depositional landforms--sand dunes, beaches, and
A       bars--protect inland areas from erosion by buffering wave and
        wind action, and contribute to the dynamic flow of sediment
        between near- and off-shore environments. Marshes and sea grass
        meadows slow wave action and cause sediments to settle out,
        thereby replenishing near-shore intertidal environments. Beach
        grass and other shoreline vegetation buffer wave action, retain
        sediments and aid in stabilization of coastal landforms. Marshes
        along coves and tidal rivers reduce flooding by absorbing and
        slowly releasing flood waters.

 .4          Protective functions of natural coastal features are
        threatened by shoreline development, inappropriate stabilization
        of the shoreiine, and dredging. Seawalls and artificial shore

                                        5









          stabilization measures alter natural sediment transport and
          dissipation of wave energy. As waves hit a seawall, the energy
          is dissipated down as well as up, thus scouring the toe of the
          wall, resulting in the necessity for continued maintenance and
          future construction of a larger structure and ensuring the
          complete erosion of the beach. For this reason, construction and
          repair of seawalls is generally prohibited by the Department of
          Environmental Protection.    Shore stabilization measures inhibit
          the landward migration of barrier features, marshes and flats in
          response to gradual rises in sea level.

               c. Coastal Flooding & Storm Surge

               Coastal flooding events are related to combinations of high
          tides and storm surge. Spring tides, during full and new moons,
          can raise ocean levels 3-4 feet above mean high water. Base
          Flood Elevations vary along the coast and run as high as 44 feet
          in eastern Maine. Base Flood Elevations, stillwater plus storm
          surge elevations, have been established for areas along the coast
          subject to storm surge and coastal flooding.

               The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped
          and identified areas at risk from storm surge and coastal
          flooding. The most vulnerable coastal areas are beaches', dunes,
          coastal bluffs, and glcicial till headlands; the least vulnerable
          are rocky headlands and sheltered coves (MEMA 1987). The
          prevalence of vulnerable landforms and high population density
          make the southern coast and mid-coast regions the most
          susceptible to severe storms and surges. In January and February
          1978, coastal flooding from two "northeasters" back to back with
          storm surges of 5 feet caused more than 16 million dollars in
          property damage in York County.

               Coastal and riverine floodplains are mapped on Flood
          Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Storm surge is typically a
          secondary cause of coastal flooding. Riverine flooding is
          usually caused by sudden rainfall events.

               Riverine flooding typically occurs every spring, causing
          damage when excessive rainfall combines with snow melt to flood
          river drainages. Three conditions determine the vulnerability of
          river basins to flooding--the extent of drainage area, the river
          gradient, and the extent of development along the floodplain of
          the river (MEMA, 1988). In the spring of 1987, heavy rainfall
          added to snow pack melt resulted in severe flooding along many
          coastal rivers, and in particular, along the Kennebec River in
          mid-coast Maine. The Kennebec and Androscoggin are the most
          vulnerable Maine rivers to flooding (MEMA, 1988).

               Riverine flooding effects a variety of coastal resources
          such as shellfish beds, public water supplies, and waterfront
          structures. Above-ground oil storage tanks, industrial
          facilities, or waste water treatment plants, can pollute and
          destroy habitat in down-stream shellfish areas if severely
          damaged by flooding or subsidence.

                                           6










             d. Hurricanes and "Norleasters"

             The hurricane season in Maine usually starts in September,
       although Hurricane "Bob" hit the coast in mid-August 1991.
       Hurricanes originate in the tropics, travel up the eastern
       seaboard, and often are diminished in force by the time they
       reach Maine waters. Nevertheless, the entire Maine coast is
       vulnerable to the primary and secondary effects of hurricanes.
       Southern coastal areas have a greater density of development
       subject to damage; the downeast coast is subject to potentially
       greater storm intensity.

             "Norleasters" generally start in the Gulf of Mexico or off
       the Atlantic coast in the fall or winter and move northeast,
       reaching their greatest intensity in the New England area. Storm
       surge from these storms can increase tidal water levels from 1 to
       3 feet. Significant coastal.storms occurred during recent
       winters of 1977, 1978, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1991. A
       "souleaster" in the winter of 1978 produced a storm surge that
       reached levels of a 100-year storm. Hurricanes and coastal
       storms can cause coastal flooding, erosion of shorelands,
       property and infrastructure damage from wind and water, as well
       as disruption of electricity and other services.

             e. Subsidence

             Subsidence along the Maine coast is a natural event caused
       by downwarping of the earth's crust. Varying degrees of
       subsidence along the coast are partially responsible for
       variations in the relative 3ea-level rise. Problems associated
       with subsidence are the same as those associated with sea-level
       rise.


             f. Earthquakes

             Maine regularly experiences measurable earthquakes. To date,
       due to their location in sparsely populated areas, earthquakes in
       Maine have caused minimal damage; however, earthquakes may
       trigger landslides at coastal bluff locations, and a quake with
       an epicenter in a heavily settled metropolitan area could result
       in significant damage.















                                        7










            4.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective I          Direct Development
                  Away From Hazard Areas

            Direct future public and private development and redevelopment
            away from hazardous areas, including the high hazard areas
            delineated as FEMA V-zones and areas vulnerable to inundation
            from  sea and Great Lakes level rise.

                  * Develop or enhance programs that identify and restrict
                  development in areas that are unsuitable for development or
                  redevelopment, including programs which:

                  -- Establish state and local policies that eliminate
                  development and redevelopment in high hazard areas and
                  manage development in other areas either directly or
                  indirectly.

                  -- Establish or improve programs/policies for the siting of
                  structures away from hazardous areas after a storm.

                  -- Restrict the use of public funds for infrastructure or
                  other projects that would allow or encourage development in
                  high hazard or hazardous areas.

                  4.41 Existing Laws, Regulations    & Programs


                  a. scope

                  Coastal Barrier Resources System (38 MRSA ï¿½ 1901-1904)
            The U.S. Coastal Barriers Resource Act (COBRA) prohibits federal
            assistance or expenditures for development activities within a
            designated system of coastal barriers. Paralleling the federal
            COBRA, Maine law provides that no state funds or state financial
            assistance may be expended for development activities within
            thirty-two of these designated coastal barriers.

                  Natural Resource Protection Act (NRPA)(38 MRSA ï¿½ 480-A
            480-S)' -- The NRPA requires a permit for any structure in, on,
            adjacent to, or over a water body. The Sand Dune Rules (Ch. 355,
            48OA-480U), address siting of structures in sand dune areas
            identified as vulnerable to storm damage. The Rules prohibit
            construction on or seaward of a frontal dune or in the V-zone                  Ikk
            (areas subject to wave action or a one percent or greater chance
            of flooding in any given year). Development is not allowed to
            cover more than 40% of the surface area of the lot, and buildings
            may not cover more than 20% of the lot. Projects which are likely
            to be damaged from changes in the shoreline within 100 years will
            not be permitted.

                  The lowest structural member of a single family residential
            structure must be at least one-foot above the 100-year flood
            elevation, or four feet in the case of a multi-family dwelling.
            A building damaged by more than 50% cannot be rebuilt.



                                               8








            The rules also prohibit construction of new seawalls and
       require removal of structures that have been encroached on by
       wetlands for at least six months. Building standards include
       windproofing requirements and are outlined in the Sand Dune Rules
       aa well as detailed in the "Coastal Construction Manual"
       available from the Maine Department of Economic and Community
       Development.

            Certain activities are exempt from the Sand Dune Law, such
       as construction of temporary structures; construction of walkways
       and paths across lawn or areas filled with non-sandy material;
       maintenance and repair of septic systems; roads and driveways;
       building repair (as long as the damage does not exceed 50% of the
       building value); open fences; and seawalls, if the work is done
       with hand tools, the dimensions of the seawall are not increased
       and if the building behind the seawall sustains damage of more
       than 50% in a ocean storm.

            Floodplain Management Program -- The National Flood
       Insurance Program (NFIP) is a partnership between federal, state
       and local governments to control development in flood hazard
       areas. The Maine Floodplain Management Program is administered
       through the Department of Economic and Community Development by
       the Office of Comprehensive Planning. The State Flood Insurance
       Coordinator assists communities with developing, administering,
       and enforcing floodplain management ordinances and review of
       maps, as well as flood mitigation planning.

            Another facet of the National Flood Insurance Program is the
       "Upton-Jones" amendment, which provides that for structures that
       are subject to "imminent" collapse, the NFIP will pay either 40%
       of the damage claim for relocation, or 110% of the value of the
       structure for demolition and debris removal. Under the program,
       the owner retains ownership of the property. To date, Maine does
       not participate in the state certification portion of the Upton-
       Jones provisions. To do so, the state must develop a coastal
       erosion rate data base.

            Flood Plain Ordinances -- In order for a community to
       participate in the NFIP, floodplain management ordinances must be
       passed and administered in areas subject to riverine or coastal
       flooding. Most towns have adopted ordinances based on a state
       model floodplain ordinance that is more stringent than the
       federally mandated requirements. In addition to the federal
       standards, the state model ordinance requires that all new or
       significantly improved structures be elevated at least one-foot
       above the base flood elevation, with the burden of compliance
       placed on the applicant. An inspection by the Code Enforcement
       Officer of the community is required when the lowest floor is
       completed to insure compliance. Flood Insurance Studies in most
       coastal communities map areas at risk from storm surge, flooding
       and other coastal hazards and establish Base Flood Elevations
       (stillwater elevation plus storm surge).



                                       9









                Mandatory Shoreland Zoning (38 MRSA ï¿½ 435-446) -- This law
           requires municipalities to adopt Shoreland Zoning Ordinances for
           areas within 75 feet of streams and 250 feet of other water
           bodies. Ordinances must comply with minimum standards
           established by Department of Environmental Protection Guidelines.
           A Shoreland Zoning Coordinator in the Department of Environmental
           Protection assists communities with ordinance development.

                State "Guidelines for Municipal Shoreland Zoning Ordinances'
           require all new principal and accessory structures to have a
           mandatory 100-foot setback from the normal high-water line of
           great ponds and rivers which flow to great ponds, and a 75-foot
           setback from the normal high-water line of salt-water bodies,
           rivers, tributary streams, and the upland edge of wetlands.

                In designated "Resource Protection Districts," no
           significant new construction is permitted. These districts
           include flood plains; areas with two or more contiguous acres
           with sustained slopes of 20% or greater; and lands subject to
           either severe bank erosion or mass movement which are adjacent to
           moderate or high value wetlands, rivers and tidal waters.

                For existing non-conforming structures, if any portion of
           the structure is less than the required setback, that portion of
           the structure cannot be expanded in floor area or volume by 30%
           or more. Construction or enlargement of the foundation can occur
           provided that the setback requirement is met to the fullest
           extent possible, as determined by the local Planning Board.

                Existing structures that are damaged by more than 50% of the
           market value 'may be reconstructed provided a permit is obtained
           within one year of the date of damage, again provided the               M
           reconstruction or replacement is in compliance with the required
           setback to the greatest practical extent, as determined by the
           local Planning Board.

                Local Code Enforcement Officer Training and Certification
           Program -- The Department of Economic and Community Development
           provides training and technical assistance for code enforcement
           officers responsible for enforcing local shoreland zoning and
           floodplain ordinances.

                Coastal Erosion Database -- The Office of Comprehensive
           Planning and the Maine Geological Survey have initiated a program
           to establish erosion rates on coastal sand beaches. Maine
           Geological Survey publishes sand dune maps and distributes
           information on areas subject to coastal erosion and sea level
           rise.


                Emergency Planning -- The Maine Emergency Management Agency
           (MEMA) offers guidance in the development of local emergency
           plans for communities and counties, and conducts hazard awareness
           workshops. MEMA also operates a disaster communications network
           to plan for and coordinate the State's response to and recovery
           from disasters.


                                           10










             b. Effectiveness

             There are several obstacles to controlling development in
        areas subject to coastal hazards. The first is a provision in
        the Sand Dune Rules that allows for a private appraisal of the
        amount of damage to a structure by storm event. By making an
        subjective assessment of damage, a homeowner may be able to avoid
        the requirement of a building permit for reconstruction work by
        claiming that the work is maintenance or repair costing less than
        50% of building's value. Unless State enforcement staff were
        familiar with the building before the event, a questionable
        assessment may go unchallenged.

             The provision in the Rules which allows restoration of non-
        conforming structures within a frontal dune, prolong the
        effective lifetimes of poorly-sited structures. Lack of data to
        forecast long-term shoreline movement due to sea level rise,
        erosion and accretion further hamper effective implementation of
        the Sand Dune Rules as well as local shoreland ordinance
        setbacks.

             One of the limitations of the "Upton-Jones" provision of the
        NFIP is the requirement that property be insured for two years
        prior to making a claim. The largest obstacle to effective use
        of this provision is that involvement in the National Flood
        Insurance Program is voluntary. Thus, efforts to relocate
        unsafe structures in communities with areas of severe hazards
        (such as Camp Ellis) are limited by the number of structures and
        properties which have flood insurance, and thus are eligible to
        participate in the Upton-Jones portion of the program. In
        addition, certain areas of the coast will not be able to benefit
        from the acquisition portion of the NFIP due to severe erosion
        and the Federal government's unwillingness to buy intertidal
        land.

             Another deficiency in the National Flood Insurance Program
        (NFIP) is the lack of construction prohibitions in areas other
        than those designated "V" or I'AO" zones (areas most susceptible
        to direct damage from coastal storm events). In these zones,
        construction is required under State Sand Dune Rules to meet
        certain minimum standards designed to reduce potential flood
        hazards, but which are barely adequate to protect structures. For
        instance, the lowest structural member of a single family
        structure must be only one foot above "base flood elevation"
        (BFE); multi-family structures need be only four feet above BFE.
'A      Structures are allowed to be built (with Flood Insurance Program
        coverage) in areas subject to either wave action or flooding.

             Shoreland zoning setbacks deter, but may not prevent
        construction or inappropriate land use in high hazard areas. The
        minimum setback of 751 may not be an effective setback given the
        typical life span of a structure in erosion-prone areas. For
        example, a structure with a life span of 90 years will be
        protected for only 75 years if the average erosion rate is one
        foot per year, or less if the erosion rate increases overtime.








           Adherence to shoreland zoning minimum setbacks may not provide
           long term protection for structures located in high hazard areas,
           especially with the inevitability of sea level rise.

                Shoreland zoning ordinances are enforced at the local level
           with varying amounts of diligence depending on the local
           political will. Often guidelines limiting removal of trees and
           vegetation within the minimum 75-foot setback are not enforced
           and violations are noted only after it is too late. Removal of
           natural vegetation may promote erosion on steep slopes and
           bluffs, yet the state guidelines do not apply more stringent
           rules to erosion-prone areas.

                A major obstacle to controlling development in areas subject
           to coastal hazards is the lack of sufficient data to support
           setbacks more stringent than currently legislated. DEP, MGS and
           OCP recently began developing an erosion rate data base, both
           pursuant to the requirements for state certification under the
           "Upton-Jones" amendment, and as the scientific basis for more
           realistic setbacks based upon identifiable erosion rates.

                4.42 Options for Improvement

                     Modify provisions of the Natural Resource Protection
                     Act rules that allow the  placement of rip-rap on the
                     shore and other erosion-prevention measures to include
                     requirements for consideration of the cumulative effect
                     of minor modifications to the shoreline over time.

                     Incorporate erosion rate projections in shoreland
                     zoning setbacks to adjust for shoreland erosion and sea
                     level rise during the lifetime of a proposed structure
                     in the state model shoreland zoning guidelines and
                     local ordinances.


                     Identify high hazard areas that are at risk for
                     development and appropriate for public acquisition.



















                                           12









         4.5 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective II -- Protective
              Functions of Natural Shoreline Features

         Preserve and restore the protective functions of natural
         shoreline features, such as beaches, dunes and wetlands.

              a. Minimize the degradation or destruction of natural
                   shoreline protective features.

                    -- Conserve natural protective features through
                    acquisition, condemnation, and other means.

                    -- Regulate public and private activities that impair
                    the function of natural protective features including
                    restrictions on erosion control structures,     building
                    setbacks from beaches, dunes, wetlands, and     other
                    protective features.

                        Control development adjacent to natural     protect  ive
                    features to minimize the   adverse effects of   such
                    development on the natural features and the     processes
                    that enhance those features.

              b.    Enhance the protective function of natural shoreline
                    features.

                        Reduce impediments to natural sediment transport.

                        Encourage plantings, dune fencing, and other
                    efforts to stabilize features.

                        Provide for comprehensive renourishment of the
                    beach and dune where appropriate.

                        Develop and implement state-wide renourishment
                    planning, including developing long-term and
                    predictable funding mechanisms and methods to establish
                    project priorities.

              4.51  Existing Laws, Regulations & Programs


              a. Scope

              Seawall Construction & Repair Policy in the Coastal Sand
         Dune Rules -- The Board of Environmental Protection has adopted a
         policy of 'presumed mobility' that guides against construction of
         new bulkheads and seawalls. Coastal wetland permits are granted
         only if the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere
         with natural sand and water flow or wildlife habitat. Buildings
         over 2500 square feet are permitted in sand dunes only if they
         are outside an area flooded by a 3-foot rise in sea level. Beach
         nourishment is acceptable provided that sand budgets, grain size,

                                           13









           public benefit and costs are thoroughly examined. The Sand Dune
           Rules also prohibit repair of seawalls after storm damage.

                State Coastal Barriers Resources System -- See discussion
           under 4.41.

                Shoreland Zoning Guidelines -- State mandatory guidelines
           limit removal of natural vegetation within required setback
           areas. See discussion under 4.41.

                Local Revegetation Efforts -- Old Orchard Beach, through the
           use of a Waterfront Action Grant from the Office of Comprehensive
           Planning, replanted grasses in dune areas in an effort to
           stabilize and rebuild the dune system.

                b. Effectiveness

                The unavailability of Waterfront Action Grant monies for at
           least the 1991-1992 fiscal year effectively puts an end to beach
           and dune restoration projects funded by the Maine Coastal
           Program. When this money is restored, projects such as the Old
           Orchard Beach Revegetation Project (which successfully protected
           the beach environment and, in so doing, educated the citizenry
           about the importance of sand dune systems as a whole) can be
           continued and expanded.

                4.52  Options for Improvement

                     Promote natural vegetation restoration and protection
                     projects in communities with sand dunes, coastal
                     bluffs, and other areas prone to erosion. Develop
                     technical assistance materials for shorefront property
                     owners.


                     Map projected changes in sea level on the Maine                0
                     coastline as a first step in evaluating the impacts of
                     sea level rise on coastal communities and ecosystems.
                     Track and determine coastal erosion rates with aerial
                     photography and other techniques.

                     Develop and maintain a coastal erosion rate data base
                     on the state Geographical Information System (GIS) in
                     order to assist with permitting decisions.
                     Develop and maintain a coastal erosion rate data base
                     on the state Geographical Information System (GIS) in
                     order to assist with permitting decisions.

                     More technical information, workshops and outreach
                     efforts are needed to encourage sound planning and
                     conservation programs.

                     Studies of the costs and benefits of coastal


                                           14









                  development, given the probability of future sea level
                  rise and coastal hazard events will enable communities
                  to make intelligent and informed decisions about
                  coastal land use.

                  As coastal towns complete local comprehensive plans,
                  provide implementation grants to enable towns to create
                  programs to acquire high hazard areas along the
                  shorefront or to improve protection of natural
                  shoreland features.



        4.6 Federal CZMA Programmatic Obiective III -- Prevent or
             Minimize Threats to Populations & Property

        Prevent or minimize threats to existing populations and property
        from both episodic and chronic coastal hazards.

             -- Develop annual erosion rate-based retreat policies and
             implementation mechanisms to limit redevelopment in high
             hazard areas (FEMA V-Zones) and in areas vulnerable to
             inundation from sea level rise over time.

             -- Institute mechanisms to control development density in
             coastal communities to help prevent significant increases in
             evacuation times for populations threatened by coastal
             hazards. Develop means of educating shoreline property
             owners and local officials about episodic and chronic
             coastal hazards.


                 Develop post-event redevelopment plans which:
                  _ limit development densities
                  - restrict development in high hazard areas
                  - provide for relocation of structures out of hazard
                    areas
                  - -restrict erosion control devices, such as seawalls,
                    revetments, and groins.

                 Develop programs for building retrofit to meet building
             codes designed for high hazard areas.

                 Develop programs to protect important coastal habitats
             and other public resources from loss due to sea and Great
             Lake level rise.

             4.61 Existing Laws, Regulations and Programs

             a. Sco-pe

             National Flood Insurance Program -- The NFIP discourages
        development in hazard areas by establishing building standards to
        minimize damage, and by requiring communities to adopt minimum

                                        15








           flood plain management standards, for eligibility for insurance.

                Local Shoreland Zoning -- Local ordinances mandated by the
           State establish setback standards and restrict use and
           development of flood plains and other hazard areas.

                Sand Dune Rules -- See discussion under 4.41.


                b.   Effectiveness

                The NFIP is limited by the methodology used to determine the
           100-year flood level and the limited enforcement of standards
           (NERBC, 1976). The conversion of seasonal dwellings to year-
           round permanent dwellings in hazard areas may be encouraged by
           the availability of subsidized insurance through the NFIP.
           Accuracy of the USGS base maps used is limited by the 1:24,000
           scale and 10-foot contour intervals. In some areas, Flood
           Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) do not reflect rapid erosion occurring
           since the maps were drawn. Thus, areas that were identified only
           as I'AO" (subject to flooding due to overwash) now may be in 'IV"
           zones (areas subject to flooding due to wave action).

                Local ordinances, if enforced, have the potential to prevent
           inappropriate new construction, however, little can be done about
           existing non-conforming uses. Over time, destructive coastal
           storms eventually will eliminate structures responsible for
           intensifying erosion of nearby areas.

                4.62   Options for Improvement

                     Revise the state plumbing code to require adjustment of
                     well and septic system setbacks in coastal areas to
                     account for projected sea level rise.

                     Participate in the 'Upton-Jonesf program of the
                     National Flood Insurance Program which provides
                     financial compensation for the relocation or removal of
                     structures (covered by federal Flood Insurance) in
                     imminent danger of collapse from damages resulting from
                     coastal hazards. .


                     Evaluate the effectiveness of the Sand Dune Rules of
                     the Natural Resource Protection Act, especially
                     provisions allowing restoration of non-conforming
                     structures in frontal dune areas and assessment of
                     storm damages.

                     Seek innovative funding sources for state and local
                     enforcement programs.




                                           16










                 Network existing enforcement personnel in state
                 agencies and at the local level to promote more
                 thorough enforcement of Maine's environmentallaws.

                 Develop public information campaigns that foster
                 support for enforcement of shoreland zoning provisions.


                 Amend the State Coastal Barriers Law to prohibit new
                 private construction projects within the Coastal
                 Barrier System, rather than merely withholding State
                 expenditures for public facilities or other State
                 assistance. (The federal COBRA affects only projects
                 reliant on the federal financial assistance.
                 Study the economic 'implications of shoreline loss, and
                 implications for public trust rights.



































                                      17










           4.7 Available Information/Studies

                Kelley, J., A. Kelley and 0. Pilkey Jr. "Living with the
           Coast of Maine", Maine Audubon, Duke University Press, Durham,
           N.C. 1989.
                Belknap, D.F., Sea Level Rise on the Maine Islands. Proc.
           1988 Island Institute Conference, Rockland, ME.
                Belknap, D.F. et al., 1984. "Sea-level Change Curves for
           Coastal Maine," Report from the Maine Geological Survey to the
           U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Augusta, ME.
                Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1986. "Coastal
           Construction Manual," Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-
           55/February, 1986. Washington, DC.
                Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), 1988."State of
           Maine Hazard Mitigation Plan 1987, Maine Emergency Management
           Agency, Maine State Planning Office, Maine Department of Economic
           and Community Development, Augusta, ME.
                Maine Geological Survey (MGS), 1989. "Anticipated Sea Level
           Rise in Maine", a brief for the Maine Science and Technology
           Commission, 15 November 1989, Maine Geological Survey, Dept. of
           Conservation, Augusta, ME.
                New England River Basins Commission, 1976. "Digest of a
           Workshop on Identifying Coastal Flood Hazard Areas and Associated
           Risk Zones, February 1976, New England River Basins Commission,
           Boston, MA.
                Ten Broeck, Craig W., 1978. "Policy Recommendations for
           Reducing Coastal Storm Damages, A Report to the Governor's
           Committee on Coastal Development and Conservation," Maine Land
           and Water Resources Council, Maine State Planning Office,
           Augusta, ME.
                Titus, James G., 1991. "Greenhouse Effect and Coastal
           Policy: How Americans Could Abandon an Area the Size of
           Massachusetts at Minimum Cost," Environmental Management Vol.15,
           No.1, pp.39-58, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
                U.S. EPA, 1988. "Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and
           Coastal Wetlands," Ed. by J.G. Titus, U.S. Environmental
           Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation,
           Washington, D.C.
















                                          18




















                            Section 309 ASsessment











           5. ENERGY AND GOVERNMENT FACILITY SITING AND ACTIVITIES









                 Advisory Committee: Land Use Regulation

                 Agency-Conticts:

                 John Flumerfelt, State Planning Office
                 John Delvecchio, Office of Comprehensive Planning/ DECD
                 Don Witherill, Land Bureau/ DEP

                 Public Interest Contacts:


                 Natural Resource Council of Maine
                 Maine Municipal Association
                 Maine Audubon











                   Energy and Government Facility Siting and Activities

                                           CONTENTS






            5.0 SUMMARY

            5.1 Maine's Key Coastal Management Policies

            5.2 Federal CZMA Legislative Objective

            5.3 Federal CZMA Assessment Characterization

                       5.31   Scope and Definitions
                       5.32   Available Information and Studies
                       5.33   Assessment of Problems and Issues

            5.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective I -- Enhance Procedures

                       5.41   Existing Regulations and Procedures
                       5.42   Options for Improvement

            5.5 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective II         Improve Policies
                 and Standards

                       5.51 Existing Policies and Standards
                       5.52 Options for Improvement

            5.6 Available Information/Studies



















            [jr.nrg) 1/14/92











        5.0 SUMMARY

             The State of Maine does not have siting policies specific to
        energy or federal government facilities. All proposed private or
        quasi-public developments of a certain nature must satisfy state
        environmental laws as well as local land use ordinances. Certain
        types of facilities such as hazardous waste landfills and low-
        level radioactive waste facilities must meet additional siting
        criteria primarily concerned with local hydrology and geology.

        Accomplishments

             Local governments have a great deal of control over the
             siting of energy and energy-related facilities if they
             choose to exercise it. Local planning boards must approve
             utility proposals, from the siting of a new plant to the
             placement of transmission lines, before the Public Utilities
             Commission will grant a Certificate of Public Convenience
             and Necessity.

             Municipal governments have the opportunity to direct the
             location of energy-related development with industrial
             zoning and local comprehensive plans. Local planning boards
             must review applications for developments that are located
             in shoreland areas and any other areas subject to local
             ordinances.

             All proposed private developments of a certain nature and
             size must satisfy the criteria of state environmental laws
             as well as local land use ordinarces.

             Federal government projects must satisfy federal
             environmental regulations, receive water quality
             certification from the State, and obtain State concurrence
             that they are consistent with the core law authorities
             composing Maine's Coastal Program. Since the core laws
             include the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Law and the
             Subdivision Law as enforced through local regulations,
             federal projects also must be found consistent with such
             regulations.

        Problems

             Siting of private power plants is guided by economics and
             standard environmental review criteria rather than by state
             energy or coastal land use policy.

             The state lacks specific siting policies for location of
             low-level radioactive waste sites or hazardous waste
             landfills in coastal areas. The Maine Low-Level Radioactive
             Waste Authority is charged with locating a disposal site for
             low-level radioactive waste in Maine before a federally
             imposed deadline of December 31, 1992. Several sites
             considered by the authority are in coastal watersheds.


                                        1









                Towns adjacent to a proposed major energy or energy-related
                project lack a mechanism to directly participate in permit
                review or local tax benefits from a project. Adjacent towns
                may share in the risks, negative impacts and costs
                associated with large-scale industrial development, yet
                usually do not share in the property tax benefits.

                Military bases in Maine have hazardous waste sites that are
                not subject to state regulation. The Brunswick Naval Air
                Station has 12 dump sites, two of which are among the 100
                sites on the Environmental Protection's Superfund list of
                the nation's most hazardous sites. Any military facility
                affecting coastal areas is subject to federal consistency
                procedures pursuant to the core laws contained in Maine's
                Coastal Program, but State environmental regulations
                otherwise do not apply.

                The State does not have a formal policy or mechanism for
                considering economic or social need in applying
                environmental regulations. For example, in the case of
                maintenance dredging of a federal navigation channel by the
                Army Corps of Engineers, several environmental issues must
                be balanced against possible state-wide propane shortages if
                the channel is not dredged before winter.
































                                           2









       5.1  Maine's Key Coastal Management Policies (38 MRSA ï¿½1801)-




                 SCENIC AND NATURAL AREAS PROTECTION. Protect and
            manage critical habitat and natural areas of state and
            national significance and maintain the scenic beauty
            and character of the coast even in areas where
            development occurs.

                 STATE AND LOCAL COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT. Encourage and
            support state and municipal management of coastal resources.

                 WATER QUALITY. Restore and maintain the quality of our
            fresh, marine and estuarine waters to allow for the broadest
            possible diversity of public and private use.

                 AIR QUALITY. Restore and maintain coastal air quality
            to protect the health of citizens and visitors and to
            protect enjoyment of the natural beauty and maritime
            characteristics of the Maine coast.

                 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS. Support shoreline
            management that gives preference to water-dependent uses
            over other uses, that promotes public access to the
            shoreline and that considers the cumulative effects of
            development on coastal resources.

                 HAZARD AREA DEVELOPMENT. Discourage growth and new
            development in coastal areas where, because of coEstal
            storms, flooding, landslides or sea-level rise, it is
            hazardous to human health and safety.


























                                       3










           5.2 Federal CZMA Legislative Oblective

           ï¿½ 309(a)(8) Adoption of procedures and enforceable policies to
           help facilitate the siting of energy facilities and Government
           facilities and energy-related activities and government
           activities which may be of greater than local significance.'

           5.3 Federal CZMA Assessment Characterization

           Assess existing planning and regulatory procedures and policies
           which affect the siting of subject facilities and activities.

                     Evaluate the adequacy of existing state and local
                planning processes to address facility siting needs of
                greater than local significance.

                     Examine the rolesplayed by interested and affected
                public and private parties during the planning process.

                     Evaluate enforceable policies, authorities and
                techniques used in managing and regulating energy-related
                and Government facilitieslactivities and their impacts.

                      Evaluate existing"project review and permitting
                procedures to minimize duplication and enhance communication
                between permitting authorities and those requesting permits.

                5.31 Scope and Definitions

                This assessment covers the siting of energy and energy-
           related facilities as well as the siting of federal government
           and government-related facilities. The assessment is limited to
           facilities and activities, sited along the coast of Maine, which
           are of greater than local significance, including the following:
           fossil fuel power plants, hydroelectric facilities and dams,
           nuclear power plants, radioactive waste disposal sites, waste to
           energy facilities and related ash disposal sites, pipelines,
           electric transmission lines, oil and gas extraction facilities,
           mineral, peat, or aggregate mining, siting or alteration of Coast
           Guard facilities or national defense installations, and
           maintenance dredging of harbor channels to accommodate fuel
           tankers.


                5.32 Available Information and Studies

                The most recent state energy plan was issued in October
           1987, State of Maine Energy Resources Plan. It focused on energy
           conservation programs, the supply mix of power in the state, and
           historical and projected forecasts of energy consumption and
           prices. Hearings currently are underway by the legislative
           Commission on Comprehensive Energy Planning to develop a new


                 Italicized text is excerpted from federal guidance for the
                  Section 309 assessments.


                                           4








       energy plan for the state. The Commission is hoping to determine
       how the most power can be produced for the lowest cost, and with
       the least harm to the environment, balancing conservation to
       minimize the need for new power plants against pollution caused
       by older higher-polluting plants left on line.

            The Coastal Program in 1980 prepared a favorability for
       development map series that included soils, slopes and areas
       suitable for different types of development, including large
        ndustrial facilities.

            In the 1970s, oil companies explored the feasibility of
       offshore oil drilling and the location of shore-side refineries
       and facilities along the Maine coast. With the assistance of the
       State Planning Office, several coastal communities prepared site
       sti.1dies in 1977 and 1978 for onshore facilities related to
       proposed oil and gas development on the outer continental shelf.

            EnerqV, Heavy Industry and the Maine Coast (1972) and Where
       Should Heavy Industry be Sited in Coastal Maine? (1977) were
       advisory committee reports with recommendations for location of
       heavy industry along the Maine coast.

            5.33 Assessment of Problems and Issues

            a. Private energy-related facilities and activities --

            Waste to Energy Projects. When ground was broken for the
       waste to energy power plant in coastal Biddeford in July, 1985,
       the project was billed as a solution to the mounting problem of
       municipal trash disposal. Waste to energy plants were to solve
       the problem of groundwater contamination from land based waste
       dumps while producing marketable power. By 1991, two major waste
       to energy plants operated in Maine coastal communities, MERC in
       Biddeford, and PERC in Orrington.

            Waste to energy plants are a concern because of the air
       pollutants associated with the burning of mixed trash and the
       toxic ash generated. The disposal of waste ash is now a major
       issue in coastal communities under consideration as sites for ash
       dumps. The ash residue concentrates heavy metals, and other toxic
       compounds, which potentially could eventually leak from a dump to
       contaminate groundwater resources.

            Proposed AES Coal Plant on the Penobscot River. Applied
       Energy Systems (AES), a Virginia-based firm, has applied to the
       Town of Bucksport on the Penobscot River estuary, for a shoreland
       zoning permit as its first step in obtaining permission to build
       a highly controversial $309 million power plant. Opponents of the
       proposal contend that the air emissions from the coal burning
       facility will further impair an already degraded air quality in
       the region. Supporters anticipate that the plant will create jobs
       and revenues. Small-town planning boards such as Bucksport's are
       ill equipped to evaluate the technical issues surrounding
       proposals of this magnitude.

                                       5








                 The Regional Impacts or Regional Benefits of Energy
           Projects. Public hearings provide the only forum for the
           participation of neighboring towns that are not directly    affected
           by a proposed development. Adjacent towns may share in the risks,
           negative impacts and costs associated with large-scale industrial
           development, yet usually do not share in the property tax
           benefits.

                 For example, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant is perched at
           the edge of the Town of Wiscasset directly across from the island
           town of Westport. Westport and surrounding towns share in the
           dangers inherent in the location near Maine Yankee, however all
           tax revenues go to Wiscasset. Similarly, the Maine Radioactive
           Waste Siting Authority offers to compensate the individual town
           in which a low-level radioactive waste site is located, yet a
           potentially threatened resource, such as a groundwater aquifer,
           may affect the groundwater of several towns.

                 b.   Government activities and facilities

                 Hazardous Waste Sites on Military Bases. Recent base
           closures around the country and in Maine have raised concern
           about hazardous waste sites at military facilities. The Brunswick
           Naval Air Station has 12 dump sites, two of which are among the
           100 sites on the Environmental Protection's Superfund list of the
           nation's most hazardous sites. Any military facility affecting
           adjacent coastal areas is subject to federal consistency
           procedures pursuant to the core laws contained in Maine's Coastal
           Program, but in general, state environmental regulations do not
           apply.

                 Storage of Low Level Radioactive Waste. The Maine Low-Level
           Radioactive Waste Authority is charged with locating a disposal
           site for low-level radioactive waste in Maine before a federally
           imposed deadline of December 31, 1992. The authority does not
           have the power of eminent domain, and towns must approve the
           siting by vote. At least three towns in Maine, in which sites
           were under consideration, passed ordinances prohibiting the
           disposal of nuclear waste within their boundaries. Maine Yankee
           Atomic Power Plant in the coastal community of Wiscasset,
           generates approximately 70% of the bulk and 99% of the
           radioactivity of the low level waste produced in Maine. The
           owners of Maine Yankee have volunteered a site adjacent to the
           Wiscasset plant, located on the Sheepscot River estuary.

                 Maintenance Dredging to Accommodate Fuel Tankers. The Corps
           of Engineers has submitted a request for State concurrence with
           its determination that maintenance dredging of the Piscataqua
           River channel is consistent with Maine's Coastal Program.
           Several environmental issues must be resolved or balanced against
           possible State-wide propane shortages if the channel is not
           dredged before winter. At issue are the suitability of the
           proposed in-river disposal area from the standpoint of sand
           movement, the need for a lobster survey, and concern by shoreline
           property owners that the dredging will cause serious erosion of

                                            6









        their properties. The State does not have a formal policy or
        mechanism for considering economic or social need in applying
        environmental regulations.

        5.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Obiective I -- Enhance Procedures

        Enhance existing procedures and long range planning processes for
        considering the needs of energy related and federal facilities
        and activities of greater than local significance.

                  Enhance existing administrative procedures and decision
             points where the need for activities and facilities of
             greater than local significance are considered during the
             planning and permitting processes.

                  Develop strategies designed to address systemic gaps in
             the state's ability to identify and consider needs of
             greater than local significance.

                  Enhance procedures for periodic coordination and
             communication with federal, state and local agencies with
             regard to energy-related and Government facilities siting
             issues.

                  Enhance procedures for coordination and monitoring of
             energy-related and Government facilities during planning,
             construction, operation, and disposal and re-use phases.

                  Coordinate and synchronize regulatory programs and
             procedures at all levels of government.

             5.41 Existing Regulations and Procedures

             a. Private Energy-Related Facilities and Activities --
        Energy planning in Maine is the responsibility of the Economic
        and Energy Policy Division of the State Planning Office.
        Legislative hearings currently are underway to develop a new
        energy plan to replace the State of Maine Energy Resources Plan
        issued in 1987. However, like the 1987 plan, the new plan is
        likely to focus on energy conservation programs, the supply mix
        of power in the state, and historical and projected forecasts of
        energy consumption and prices. The siting of new private energy-
        related facilities is likely to continue to be determined
        primarily by market forces, not by State or local plans. Site
        development, however, must comply with both state environmental
        laws and local land use ordinances.

             Development of new hydropower facilities also must be
        approved under State and local environmental regulations. State
        recommendations regarding federal license renewals for hydropower
        facilities are formulated through a formal coordination process
        established by Executive Order. The process is under the auspices
        of the State Planning Office and the Maine Land and Water
        Resources Council.



                                        7








                Projects requiring environmental permits are reviewed by
           municipalities under local zoning, shoreland zoning and
           subdivision ordinances, and receive State review by the
           Department of Environmental Protection, and by the Land Use
           Regulation Commission (LURC), which reviews development proposals
           in unorganized territories and on coastal island.

                The following are the primary statutes regulating energy-
           related activities and siting of energy-related facilities:

           Natural Resource Protection Act (NRPA) (38 MRSA 5480)--
           Administered by the DEP's Bureau of Land Quality Control, NRPA
           regulates activities of State concern on, over, or adjacent to
           natural resource areas of state significance, including coastal
           and freshwater wetlands, great ponds, rivers and streams,
           significant wildlife habitat, fragile mountain areas and sand
           dunes.


           Site Location of Development Act (38 MRSA 481-490)-- Buildings
           with a footprint in excess of 60,000 square feet or more than
           100,000 sq. ft. of floor space, more than 3 acres of developed
           area not to be revegetated, more than 60,000 sq. ft. of area
           affected by drilling or excavation of natural resources,
           development with 10 or more units of housing, and subdivisions or
           developments exceeding 20 acres, are required to be reviewed by
           the Dept. of Environmental Protection under this act. Regulated
           projects must meet standards for development that minimize the
           environmental impact on water quality, scenic resources, air
           quality and adverse impact to existing uses. Secondary and
           cumulative impact must be considered.

           Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Law (38 MRSA 435-446)--The Mandatory
           Shoreland Zoning Law regulates land development within 250 feet
           of lakes and ponds over 10 acres in size, tidal water, coastal
           and freshwater wetlands, rivers and within 75 feet of a stream,
           defines as free-flowing water from the outlet of a Great Pond or
           the confluence of two perennial streams. The law is implemented
           through municipal shoreland zoning ordinances, which must be
           approved by the DEP for compliance with minimum State guidelines.

           Protection and Improvement of Air (38 MRSA 581-608)--Enforced by
           the DEP's Bureau of Air Quality Control, the purpose of this act
           is to control air pollution.

           Protection and Improvement of Waters (38 MRSA 36la-452)--The
           purpose of the act is to control, abate and prevent pollution in
           all inland and tidal waters of the state. Water quality
           certification requirements of the law are administered by the
           DEP's Bureau of Land Quality Control. Other provisions are              L
           administered by the Bureau of Water Quality Control.






                                           8









       Oil Discharge Prevention and Pollution Control (38 MRSA 541-560)
       -- The purpose of the act is to prevent oil spills during
       transfer and storage between vessels and between vessels and
       onshore facilities in order to preserve coastal recreation and
       fisheries. The law is administered by the DEP's Bureau of Oil and
       Hazardous Waste.

       Submerged Lands Act (12 MRSA ï¿½573)-- The Submerged Lands Act
       authorizes the Bureau of Public Lands to lease State-owned
       submerged lands (other than for aquaculture). The Bureau
       currently is receiving comments (until Nov. 2, 1991) on its
       September 3, 1991 draft of a new set of "Submerged Land
       Rules." Purposes of the rules include protecting public access
       and public trust rights, protecting fishing and other marine uses
       of submerged lands, protecting ingress and egress of riparian
       owners, balancing competing uses, and providing procedures for
       conveyance of submerged lands

       Mining and Minerals Act (12 MRSA ï¿½549)--The Mining and Minerals
       Act established the authority of the Maine Geological Survey and
       other agencies having jurisdiction over state-owned lands to
       regulate exploration and development of mineral resources on
       state-owned lands.

       Regulation of Public Utilities -- The Public Utilities Commission
       (PUC) is a major regulatory agency in the siting of energy
       facilities, though its jurisdiction does not include facilities
       such as liquid natural gas terminals and oil storage facilities,
       which are not public utilities. Public utilities must apply to
       the PUC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to
       build power generating facilities of more than 1,000 kilowatts,
       transmission lines carrying 100 kilovolts or more, and gas
       pipelines (35 MRSA ï¿½13-A).

            In general, the PUC will not grant a certificate until the
       proposed site is approved by the local planning board. Municipal
       governments thus have the opportunity to direct that energy-
       related facilities be located in accordance with their local
       comprehensive plans and zoning regulations. However, if a
       proposal is rejected by the local planning board the utility may
       seek a variance from the local board of appeals and, if the
       variance is denied, the PUC may grant an exemption from local
       zoning (30 MRSA ï¿½4962). The PUC also can exempt utilities from
       regulation by the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) in
       Maine's unorganized territories.

            once a site is approved by the municipality or LURC the
       developer must comply with the Site Location of Development Act,
       the Natural Resources Protection Act and other environmental laws
       administered by the Department of Environmental Protection.
       Public hearings may be held at any phase of the permit review
       process by the PUC, LURC, local planning boards, or the DEP.



                                       9











                 b.   Government activities and facilities -- Federal
            projects and activities must satisfy federal environmental
            regulations, receive water quality certification from the Dept
            of Environmental Protection, and State concurrence that they are
            consistent with the core law authorities composing Maine's
            Coastal Program.

                 Coastal Program core laws include all of the laws described
            above which regulate private activities and facilities, except
            for the Submerged Lands Act, the Mining and Minerals Act, and the
            public utility laws. Federal agencies cannot be required to be
            consistent with State laws, or amendments to those laws, which
            have not received federal approval for inclusion in Maine's
            Coastal Program.

                 Consistency approval technically does not require federal
            agencies to obtain State permits, but the information needed for
            State review of proposed projects is basically the same as
            required for State permit applications.

                 The Maine Waste Management Agency (MWMA) is responsible for
            siting 'waste disposal facilities' and retains the power of
            eminent domain to obtain sites. The siting criteria are contained
            in Siting Criteria for Solid Waste Facilities issued by MWMA (38
            MRSA ï¿½2101).

                 C.   Effectiveness -- The laws and regulations that govern
            the siting of energy and government facilities in Maine area do
            not include additional procedures or conditions applicable to
            developments on the coast or in the Coastal Zone as defined by
            the Maine Coastal Program. The laws and regulations are effective
            in requiring a thorough environmental review of large industrial
            projects. The review could be expanded to require an alternatives
            analysis to shoreland siting.

                 5.42 Options for Improvement

                      Develop improved procedures for evaluating large-scale
                      development proposals of more than local significance
                      on the regional or State level; develop mechanisms to
                      equitably share the direct and indirect benefits and
                      costs of projects throughout the region affected.

                      To assure compliance of federal projects and activities
                      in the coastal area with all State standards, request
                      federal approval to include additional existing State
                      laws and regulations in Maine's Coastal Program.

                      Clarify federal consistency procedures and
                      responsibilities set forth in Maine's Coastal Program.


            5.5 CZMA Programmatic Objective II -- Improve Policies and
            Standards


                                             10









        improve program policies and standards which affect the subject
        uses and activities so as to facilitate siting while maintaining
        current levels of coastal resource protection.

                  Enhance policies for assessing the acceptability of
             sites for energy and Government facilities, e.g., policies
             pertaining to the analysis of alternative sites or
             identification of the least damaging alternative site.

                  Enhance policies for assessing the acceptability of
             alternative technologies and operational procedures used in
             meeting the needs of energy and government facilities.

                  Enhance the methods by which the coastal management
             agency and local government provide policy input into
             energy-related or Government facilitieslactivities planning
             and development processes, including a process for
             anticipating, limiting, and mitigating the impacts which
             result from such facilities.


             5.51 Existing Policies and Standards

             a. Private energy-related facilities and activities--State
        energy policy is formulated by the Economic and Energy Policy
        Livision of the State Planning Office. Alternative technologies
        that are environmentally sound generally are encouraged. Hearings
        currently are underway to replace the 1987 energy plan with a new
        one, as indicated above.

             Site location standards are provided by the relevant
        environmental laws as described above under "Existing Regulations
        and Procedures." Both NRPA and the Site Location of Development
        Act require alternatives analysis.

             Comprehensive plans underway in coastal communities as
        mandated by Maine's Growth Management Act define local economic
        growth and development policies, including appropriate locations
        for commercial, industrial and other intensive land use. Local
        comprehensive plans can be implemented through site location
        standards provided in local zoning, shoreland zoning and
        subdivision ordinances.


             b.   Government activities and facilities -- Site location
        policies and standards for federal activities and facilities are
        provided under federal consistency procedures by those State
        environmental laws which have received federal approval for
        inclusion in Maine's Coastal Program. These include key DEP
        laws, and the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Law that requires local
        shoreland zoning ordinances, as described above under "Existing
        Regulations and Procedures."










                 C.    Effectiveness -- State energy policy is not effective
            in addressing siting of energy and energy-related facilities.
            Siting issues, including those specific to the coast, should be
            included in the state energy plan. The Maine Coastal Program
            effectively administers the consistency provisions of the Coastal
            Zone Management Act for federal activities in the Maine Coastal
            Zone.


                 5.52  ODtions for Improvement

                       Develop formal procedures for assessing alternative
                       sites and technologies, and for assigning costs and
                       identifying measures to mitigate adverse environmental
                       impacts.

                       Develop formal procedures for weighing economic and
                       social need along with environmental factors in
                       reviewing permit applications and federal consistency
                       determinations.

                       Consider incorporating individual town comprehensive
                       plans developed under the Growth Management Law as
                       Coastal Program core laws authorities, thereby being
                       enabled to require federal consistency.

                       Develop formal procedures for weighing economic and
                       social need along with environmental factors in
                       reviewing permit applications and federal consistency
                       determinations.



            5.6 Available Information/ Studies

                 Colgan, Charles S. 1978. "Maine and the Search for OCS Oil
            and Gas", Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.
                 Irland, L. "Use of Maine Islands for Industrial Siting,"
            Proc. 1983, Island Institute Conference, Rockland, ME.
                 Maine Department of Conservation, 1977. "Where Should Heavy
            Industry be Sited in Coastal Maine?", a report to the Governor's
            Advisory Conservation and Development.
                 Maine Office of Energy Resources. 1983. "Comprehensive
            Energy Resources Plan," Office of Energy Resources, Augusta, ME.
                 Office of Energy Resources 1987. "State of Maine Energy
            Resources Plan," Office of Energy Resources, Augusta, ME.
                 State Planning Office 19*78. "Maine's Coastal Program,
            Procedures for: Coastal Shorefront Access and Protection,
            Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Mitigation, Energy Facility
            Siting, August 1978.







                                              12














                               Section 309 Assessment







                          6.  COASTAL WETLANDS MANAGEMENT









                   Advisory Committee: Natural Areas & Natural Resources
                                        Committee


                   Agency Contacts:

                   Don Witherill/ Bill LaFlamme, Department of
                   Environmental Protection
                   Steve Oliveri, Bureau of Public Lands/ DOC
                   Lissa Widoff, State Planning Office
                   Walter Foster, Department of Marine Resources
                   Gary Donovan, Maine Wetlands Coalition/ IFW
                   Duane Scott/ Bill Re.."d, Division of Environmental
                   Services, Department of Transportation
                   Ron Joseph, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bangor office

                   Public Interest Contacts:


                   Natural Resources Council of Maine
                   Maine Audubon










                               Coastal Wetlands Management


                                          CONTENTS





          6.0 SUMMARY

          6.1 Maine's   Key Coastal Management Policies

          6.2 Federal   CZMA Legislative objective

          6.3 Federal   CZMA Assessment Characterization

                     6.31    Scope & Definitions
                     6.32    Available Information/Studies
                     6.33    Assessment-of Problems & Issues
                             a.   Inadequate Information
                             b.   Direct Impacts
                             C.   Indirect Impacts
                             d.   Sea Level Rise
                             e.   Wetland Definitions


          6.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective I           Protection of
                Wetlands

                     6.41    Existing Laws, Regulations, Programs
                     6.42    Options for Improvement
                     6.43    Baseline for Measuring Progres.:

          6.5 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective II -- Wetlands
                Restoration

                     6.51    Existing Laws, Regulations, Programs
                     6.52    Options for Improvement
                     6.53    Baseline for Measuring Progress

          6.6 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective III -- Wetlands
                Acquisition and Planning

                     6.61    Existing Programs
                     6.62    Options for Improvement
                     6.63    Baseline for Measuring Progress

          6.7 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective IV -- Creation of
                Wetlands


                     6.71    Existing Programs
                     6.72    Options for Improvement

          6.8 Information/ Studies


          [jr.wet]    1/92











           6.0 SUMMARY

                The State of Maine is more than 25% wetland. Peatlands,
           freshwater marshes, lakes and rivers blanket the interior of the
           state while estuaries, salt marshes, tidal flats, submerged
           bottoms, and bays fringe the coastal margin. All wetlands in
           coastal watersheds are included within the scope of this
           assessment.

                By state definition, coastal wetlands include: tidal and
           subtidal lands, upland areas below any identifiable debris line
           left by tidal action, areas with vegetation present that is
           tolerant of saltwater in a marine or estuarine habitat; portions
           of coastal sand dunes; and any swamp, marsh, bog, beach, flat or
           other adjacent lowland which is washed by the tide.

                Shoreland zoning and wetland regulations are designed to
           protect certain types and sizes of wetlands from the direct
           impacts of development. Recent studies, however, indicate that
           alterations of small unprotected freshwater wetlands, and
           inappropriate activities adjacent or near coastal wetlands, may
           threaten the existence or functioning of significant coastal
           ecosystems.

           Accomplishments

                State shoreland zoning guidelines direct towns to designate
                limited residential/ development or rural protection
                districts for shoreland areas within 250 feet of the normal
                high water mark of any great pond, river or saltwater body,
                within 250 feet of the upland edge of a coastal or
                freshwater wetland and within 7S feet of the high water line
                of a stream.


                The Wetland and San Dune Rules of the Natural Resource
                Protection Act (NRPA) protect sand dunes, coastal wetlands
                and other high value wetlands from alteration or adverse
                direct impacts. The Department of Environmental Protection
                (DEP), regulates the alteration of coastal wetlands, and
                freshwater wetlands 10 acres or greater in size, great
                ponds, and adjacent to rivers and streams that have
                watershed exceeding 25 square miles.

                Several state and federal inventories have mapped and
                inventoried coastal and freshwater wetlands in Maine.


                Thousands of acres of wetlands in coastal watersheds are
                protected by state and local conservation programs.












        Problems


             Available wetland inventories are incomplete and out-of-
             date.


             In some coastal areas, construction of roadways and tide
             gates restricts tidal flow to wetland areas, causing
             replacement of salt marsh vegetation with less productive
             fresh marsh vegetation.

             Information on wetlands altered by tidal flow restrictions
             from road construction, dredging, filling, or other changes
             is incomplete and scattered among state agencies.

             Pollution from land and water activities threatens water
             quality and the contributions of wetlands including wildlife
             habitat, flood control, and productivity in the coastal
             region.

             Coastal and freshwater wetlands are threatened by fringing
             development on adjacent land which may increase discharges
             of pollutants and nutrients to the wetland.

             Shoreland development may prevent the natural long-term
             landward migration of fringing marshes and other coastal
             habitats as the sea level rises, resulting in a loss of
             coastal wetlands.


             Present Maine wetland rules do not protect freshwater
             wetlands smaller than 10 acres, and combinations of adjacent
             but separated wetlands. Forested wetlands and other wetlands
             rated as low value are only minimally protected. Wetland
             definitions in the state wetland rules are designed for
             convenient management rather than based on ecological
             functions of wetlands within the landscape.

             Changes in federal wetland definitions and rules require the
             state to re-examine the need to protect small wetlands and
             wetland types no longer federally protected.

A            municipal regulations and enforcement vary from town to town
             and protection of shared wetlands is often not coordinated.

             Wetland rules of the Natural Resource Protection Act lack
.A           specific language for assessing the cumulative and indirect
             impacts of development.









                                        2









           6.1 Maine's Key Coastal Management Policies
                Relating to Wetlands management (38 MRSA 1801)




                     SCENIC & NATURAL AREAS PROTECTION. Protect and
                manage critical habitat and natural areas of state and
                national significance and maintain the scenic beauty
                and character of the coast even in areas where
                development occurs.

                     MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. Manage the marine
                environment and its related resources to preserve and
                improve the ecological integrity and diversity of
                marine communities and habitats, to expand our
                understanding of the Gulf of Maine and coastal  waters
                and to enhance the economic value of the State's
                renewable marine resources.

                     SHORELINE MANAGEMENT & ACCESS. Support shoreline
                management that gives preference to water-dependent
                uses over other uses, that promotes public access to
                the shoreline and that considers the cumulative effects
                of development.


































                                           3









        6.2 Federal CZMA Legislative Objective

        ï¿½309(a)(1) Protection, restoration or enhancement-of existing
        coastal wetlands base or creation of new coastal wetlands.'

        6.3 Federal CZMA Assessment Characterization

        Characterize the status of coastal wetlands, their extent (by
        type, e.g. tidal and non-tidal), trends (rate of gain1loss), and
        threats (direct and indirect) to those wetlands.

              6.31    Scope & Definitions

              "Coastal wetlands" are defined narrowly under Maine law
        to mean saltwater wetlands. This assessment covers both
        saltwater wetlands and freshwater wetlands within Maine's coastal
        zone as coastal wetlands. The two types of wetlands are defined
        in the State's Natural Resources Protection Act (38 MRSA 480 A-S)
        as follows:


              Coastal wetlands. "Coastal wetlands" include all tidal
              and subtidal lands, including all areas below any
              identifiable debris line left by tidal action; all
              areas with vegetation present that is tolerant of
              saltwater and occurs primarily in a saltwater or
              estuarine habitat; and any swamp, marsh, bog, beach,
              flat or other contiguous lowland which is subject to
              tidal action during the maximum spring tidal level as
              identified in tide tables published by the National
              Ocean Service. Coastal wetlands may include portions of
              coastal sand dunes."


              Freshwater wetlands. "Freshwater wetlands" include
              freshwater swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas
              which are:


              a. Of 10 or more contiguous acres, or of less than 10
              contiguous acres and adjacent to a surface water body,
              excluding any river, stream or brook such that in a natural
              state, the combined surface area is in excess of 10 acres;

              b. Inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
              frequency and for a duration sufficient to support, and
              which under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
              wetland vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
              soils; and

              C. Not considered part of a great pond, coastal wetland,
              river, stream or brook.




               Italicized text is excerpted from federal guidance for
                Section 309 assessments.


                                         4










                6.32 Available Information/Studies

                The Maine Geological Survey in the Dept. of Conservation
           coordinates mapping efforts of aquifers, marine environments,
           groundwater recharge areas, sand dunes and wetlands. The
           Department also coordinates the new State Geographic Information
           System (GIS) for computerized data management and mapping. The
           Bureau of Public Lands has a Submerged Land Program which maps
           existing submerged land leases. The Department of Inland
           Fisheries and wildlife inventories and evaluates wetlands as
           habitat value for waterfowl, and the Department of Marine
           Resources conducts shoreline surveys of shellfish growing areas
           under its Shellfish Program.

                a. Acreage Estimates

                The Maine Wetlands Cons-ervation Priority Plan (Widoff, 1988)
           summarizes wetland inventory efforts in Maine. According to
           Widoff, Maine has more than 5 million acres of freshwater
           wetlands and approximately 160,000 acres of tidal wetlands. A
           number of wetland inventories have attempted to quantify and map
           wetlands in the state, but inconsistent definitions and methods
           has led to wide variations in results.


                 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1954
           initiated the first inventory of wetlands 40 acres or greater in
           size. This survey was amended in 1959 to include permanent
           wetlands greater than 10 acres in size. In 1972, the Maine
           Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) completed a
           10-year mapping of all wetlands greater than 10 acres in size.
           This effort, called the Maine Wetland Inventory (MWI), as well as
           the previous USFWS inventories, were undertaken to assess the
           value of each wetland as habitat for waterfowl breeding. The
           Maine Wetlands Inventory uses the Martin et al.,(1953) system  of
           wetland classification.

                "An Ecological Characterization of Maine" (Fefer and
           .Schettig eds., 1980) includes an inventory of coastal wetlands
           and deepwater habitats from Cape Elizabeth north to Calais. This
           work, part of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), includes
           wetlands with a minimum 3-5 acre size, and uses the Cowardin et
           al. system (1979) of wetland classification. In 1983 the Maine
           Geological Survey and the Department of Environmental Protection
           inventoried freshwater wetlands 10-acres in size and larger as
           part of the Maine Freshwater Wetlands Inventory.

                Jacobson et al. (1987) inventoried Maine salt marshes over
           150 square meters in area using planimetric measurements of Barry
           Timson's 1977 coastal geology maps. The total acreage calculated
           was 18,960 acres, an increase of almost 11 percent over the
           16,917 acres of salt marshes inventoried in the Maine Wetland
           Inventory. Since many salt marshes are fringing in character and
           small in areal extent, the Jacobson study may underreport the
           extent of salt marsh vegetation along the Maine coast (Widoff
           1988).

                                           5











             b. Wetland Loss & Gain Trends


             The extent of historic and recent wetland loss in Maine is
        not well documented. The U.S. Army Corps has maintained records
        of harbor and navigation projects since the early 1800s, but few
        other records of historic coastal wetland alteration exist. Many
        ditches and dikes built across salt marshes in the early 1800's
        have filled or breached, resulting in habitat restoration.
        wetland permits issued by the Army Corps under Section 404 note
        the nature of the proposed changes and the extent of areas
        affected, but this information is not readily retrievable at the
        state or regional level. Many wetlands have been altered by
        construction of road and railroad beds, but the extent of coastal
        wetland alteration is not documented.

             According to a USF&WS report (Dahl, 1990), Maine had an
        estimated 6.46 million acres of wetland circa 1780's and an
        estimated 5.2 million acres of wetland in the 1980's,
        representing a 20 percent wetland loss (which is less than that
        of all other states except New Hampshire). It is not clear
        whether the USF&WS estimate accounts only for actual physical
        eradication, or considers loss of function due to a degree of
        alteration. Widoff (1989) estimated actual wetland loss in Maine
        to be closer to 4 percent of the original wetland base.

             The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (USFWS, 1986)
        reports that Maine had 17,000 acres of coastal, tidal wetlands in
        1953 and lost 100 acres (or 0.6 percent) between 1953 to 1972
        because of filling or diking.

             6.33 Assessment of Problems & Issues


             a. Inadequate Inventory Information

             Results of wetland mapping projects in Maine to date have
        varied depending upon the classification.systems and definitions
        used, the purposes for which the inventory was undertaken, and
        the geographic region covered by the survey (Widoff 1988).
        Coastal wetlands have been inventoried more thoroughly than
        forested wetlands and other inland types. Although attention has
        focused on coastal wetlands because of their high habitat value
        and location, the data collected has limited usefulness in
        efforts to determine wetland gain or loss.

             Many of the inventories do not include the calculation of
        acreage data by wetland unit; the information is often decades
        old and has not been updated to reflect natural or man-made
        changes in coastal wetland features, such as reversion of
        farmland to wetlands. The state lacks a single comprehensive
        wetland inventory.

             b. Inadequate Information on Alterations and Direct Impacts

             Direct impacts on coastal wetlands include any activities
        which alter the natural functions of the system, including

                                        6









            hydrologic modification, dredging, filling, or other changes. In
            Maine, these alterations have included the construction of dikes
            along salt marshes to allow the harvest of salt hay, draining of
            salt marshes to control mosquito populations, filling of coastal
            wetlands for roads and buildings, damming of coastal rivers and
            streams, dredging harbors and channels for navigation and anchor-
            ages, disposal of trash and waste on tidal flats and marshes, and
            construction of docks, piers, seawalls and breakwaters.

                 Nonpoint source pollution of coastal wetlands is an indirect
            effect of land use. Impacts resulting from activities on adjacent
            uplands are also indirect effects of development.

                 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has responsibility for
            implementing Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which regulates
            certain alterations to wetlands. Estimates of the total acreage
            altered are required as part of the general permit and-the
            nation-wide permit. The Army Corps also regulates dredging
            activities under the Rivers and Harbors Act. The permit
            application does not explicitly require acreage estimates,        though
            in recent years acreage estimates and descriptions of impact and
            disposal information have been recorded. According to the       Corps,
            the information is entered into a computer data-base, but       is not
            retrievable in useable form.

                 Permit information collected by the Maine Department       of
            Environmental Protection remains on the permit and is not       entered
            into a state database, although they currently are trying       to
            establish a procedure to track future wetlands alterations.
            Information on the amount of wetlands altered under DEP permits
            is not available at this time.



                 c. Cumulative Effect of Indirect Impacts

                 Indirect impacts are results of activities on lands adjacent
            to a wetland, or the secondary results of a wetland activity
            such as placing fill on a marsh. Indirect impacts might include,
            for example, unavailability of the salt pannes to juvenile fish,
            because of the fill. The effects of non-point source pollution
            on wetlands is an indirect impact of land use which threatens
            fresh and coastal water quality and habitat in the coastal
            region.

                 Wid.off (1988) concluded that activities on uplands adjacent
            to wetlands often impair wetland functions and values. Coastal
            wetlands are threatened most by fringing development which may
            increase the discharge of pollutants and nutrients to the
            wetland. While most coastal wetlands are protected by Maine's
            Natural Resources Protection Act and local shoreland zoning
            ordinances, the uplands adjacent to protected wetlands lack
            mandatory and consistent regulations'.




                                               7











               d. Sea Level Rise

               If present trends continue, sea level will continue to rise
         along the Maine coast and flood extant coastal habitats. Fringing
         marshes and other coastal wetlands may eventually disappear if
         shorelines cannot accommodate the inland migration of coastal
         habitats. Functions, biodiversity, and acreage of coastal
         wetlands all will change as a result of sea level rise.

               e. Wetland Definitions


               The Natural Resources Protection Act regulates all coastal
         wetlands and freshwater wetlands 10 acres or larger. Department
         of Environmental Protection criteria for determining when these
         wetlands meet the minimum acreage for NRPA jurisdiction
         illustrate the need for revised definitions of regulated
         wetlands. For example, the 10- acre size limit does not
         effectively protect freshwater wetland functions since several
         wetlands under 11 acres collectively may be equal in significance
         to one large wetland. Two wetlands under 10 acres in size that
         are 10 feet from each other and unconnected, are outside NRPA
         jurisdiction. Narrow sections of wetland less than 100-feet wide,
         yet greater than 100 feet in length often are not included in
         acreage estimates, even though inclusion of such 'fingers' in the
         acreage estimate would bring the main wetland under NRPA review.


         6.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective I -- Protection of
               Wetlands


         Protect and preserve existing levels of wetlands, as measured by
         acreage and functions, from direct, indirect, and cumulative
         adverse impacts, by developing or improving regulatory programs.

         a.    Avoid or minimize any direct adverse impacts of activities
         that  otherwise destroy or impair wetlands through:

               o Sequenced mitigation decision making, which provides
               first for avoiding impacts, then minimizing impacts, and
               finally, appropriate compensatory mitigation. This process
               also includes practical alternatives analysis;

               ï¿½ Cumulative impacts and secondary effects analysis;

               ï¿½ Exemptions only for those activities with negligible
               impacts;

               o A comprehensive mitigation policy and program;

               o Adequate enforcement, surveillance and monitoring
               programs, that include measuring gains and losses of
               wetlands acreage and function;

               o Developing biological, water quality and hydrological

                                            8










                criteria for maintenance of wetland functions.

          b.    minimize significant adverse impacts on wetlands from upland
          activities or water uses by:

                0 Requiring the retention of natural systems or land use
                practices which reduce or prevent indirect adverse impacts
                (e.g. vegetated buffers & setbacks).

                o Establishing performance standards for existing
                activities that are known to cause adverse impacts.

                o Requiring siting of development away from wetlands or
                away from critical areas where development is likely to lead
                to significant indirect impacts to wetlands.

                6.41 Existing Laws, Regulations, Programs

                a. Wetland Protection -- State Laws & Programs

                (1) Wetland Protection Rules -- The Department of
          Environmental Protection adopted Wetland Protection  Rules of the
          Natural Resources Protection Act on June 13, 1990.   The Wetland
          Rules support the goal of no net loss of wetlands but, in
          recognition that this goal may not always be possible, outline
          procedures for mitigation of wetland alteration.

                For the purposes of regulation, wetlands are classified by
          the Department as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Class I
          wetlands have one or more of the following characteristics: is a
          coastal wetland or great pond; contains endangered or threatened
          plant species on the Official List of Endangered and Threatened
          Plants of the State of Maine; contains a palustrine natural
          community listed on the Maine Natural Community Classification
          and ranked Sl or S2 (20 or fewer documented occurrences in
          Maine); or contains significant wildlife areas as defined by NRPA
          whether or not they are mapped.

                Class II wetlands do not contain any characteristics of
          Class I wetlands and contain one or more of the following
          attributes: are located within 250 feet of a coastal wetland; are
          located within 250 feet of the normal high water line and within
          the same watershed of any lake or pond classified as GPA (great
          pond); are located within 250 feet of the normal high water line,
          and contiguous to, a river, stream or brook, including
          impoundments not classified as GPA; contains at least 20,000
          square feet of aquatic vegetation, emergent marsh or open water
          during most of the growing season in most years; are bogs
          consisting of peatland; or are floodplain wetlands.

                Class III wetlands do not contain any characteristics of a
          Class I or Class II wetland and include areas such as wet meadow
          and wooded swamps.

                Sequenced decision-making -- The Rules provide first for

                                           9









         avoiding, then minimizing, and finally for mitigating adverse
         impacts. If a practical alternative to alteration of the wetland
         does not exist, preference for compensation for degraded wetlands
         is as follows: restoration of the functions of degraded wetlands,
         enhancement of wetlands, preservation of existing wetland or
         upland, creation of wetland from upland or compensation.

               Compensation Policy -- In circumstances where no practical
         alternative exist, compensation is allowed. Compensation is
         required to take place on or adjacent to the project site, or if
         not possible, within the same watershed, except as allowed for
         mitigation banking. The Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET)
         published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other
         comparable methodologies for assessing the functions of wetlands
         are acceptable to the DEP. Compensation for lost wetland
         functions must meet the following minimum ratios measured by
         area: 0  1:1 for restoration, I enhancement or creation in Class II
                  or Class III wetlands;
               0  2:1 for restoration, enhancement or creation in Class I
                  wetlands;
               0  8:1 for preservation in all wetlands classes.

               Compensation is not required for alterations of less than
         20,000 square feet in Class III wetlands (including wet meadows,
         wooded swamps) unless the DEP identifies wetland functions that
         will be lost or degraded. Functional assessments or compensation
         are not required for minor alterations of Class I coastal
         wetlands with no marsh v(-:getation (mudflats, beaches) that do not
         fill more than 500 square feet of intertidal or subtidal area and
         with no adverse effect on marine resources or wildlife habitat.


               Public and private entities may apply to the DEP for
         permission to undertake wetland compensation projects in advance
         to offset future projects. The above ratios are added together
         to determine the amount of credit required for a future project.
         To date, no entity has applied for permission to establish a
         mitigation bank, however the State Department of Transportation
         is expected to take advantage of the opportunity. No entity may
         use mitigation banking to compensate for more than 25 acres of
         wetland alteration within one year.

               The quality of the mitigation allowed for banking purposes
         is assessed by updated functional assessments. At this time the
10       State does not require long term monitoring of mitigation
         projects to assess the success of restoration of functions and
         values over time. For compensation projects involving
         restoration, enhancement or creation, a deed restriction or
         conservation easement will be imposed by the DEP requiring that
         the parcel remain undeveloped in perpetuity and that the wetland
         be maintained with the DEP as enforcing agent.

               Exemptions under Permit by Rule -- Certain activities with
         "negligible" (as defined by the Department) impacts taking place

                                            10









           in or adjacent to wetlands do not require a detailed NRPA permit.
          .These activities, if certain standards and practices are applied,
           are determined not to have a major impact on water environmental
           quality. Activities covered under the permit by rule include, but
           are not limited to, the placement of moorings, maintenance,
           repair and replacement of structures, disturbance of soil
           material adjacent to a waterbody or wetland, placement of outfall
           pipes and construction of stream crossings, placement of rip-rap,
           as well as restoration of natural areas.    Under Permit by Rule,
           a photograph of the area to be altered, a notice and a location
           map are filed with the DEP; unless the applicant is notified
           within 14 days, work can begin.

                 Hydrologic & Habitat Functions -- The Department of
           Environmental Protection accepts the Wetland Evaluation Technique
           (WET), published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other
           comparable assessment techniques as methods for wetland
           functional assessments.

                 Permit Review Process -- Permit applications under the
           Natural Resource Protection Act are circulated by the DEP, as the
           lead agency, for review by relevant state agencies including the
           Department of Marine Resources, the Department of Inland
           Fisheries & Wildlife, the Bureau of Public Lands and the Maine
           Geological Survey. NEPA applications also generally are sent to
           the Army Corps of Engineers to accommodate their State Program
           General Permit, but coordination with federal agencies otherwise
           is on a case-by-case basis.

                 (2) Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Ordinances -- The Mandatory
           Shoreland Zoning Act (38 MRSA 435-447) requires towns to
           designate levels of protection for shoreland areas within 250
           feet of the upland edge of a coastal wetlands, great ponds, and
           certain freshwater wetlands. Minimum standards must be met for
           vegetated buffers between proposed activities and the wetland
           edge. Local shoreland zoning ordinances based on state guidelines
           provide a measure of protection for adjacent wetlands.

                 (3) DEP Water Bureau Programs -- Best management practices
           for construction, agriculture, and forestry activities have been
           developed by the DEP's Non-point Source Pollution Program. These
           practices are recommendations without the force of law unless
           incorporated in local land use ordinances.

                 The Water Bureau administers criteria for water quality
           classification of fresh and tidal waters. The tidal water
           criteria are based on dissolved oxygen, aquatic community
           assemblage, and bacteria content. The tidal water quality
           classifications (SA, SB, and SC) specify allowable uses and
           levels of pollution.

                 (4) Enforcement, Surveillance and Monitoring Efforts
           Maine does not track information on losses of wetland acreage and
           function, although individual permit applications include maps,
           photos and dimensions of areas affected by proposed projects.









         Information on acres of wetlands gained is not supplied by permit
         applications, but future projects requiring mitigation will
         include this type of information.

              The ability to recognize wetlands and generally delineate
         their boundaries is necessary to ensure adequate enforcement of
         local shoreland zoning ordinances as well as laws enforced by the
         DEP. Local Code Enforcement Officers (CEOs) extend the ability of
         the State to monitor activities having possible impacts on
         wetlands and to enforce natural resource protection laws. The
         Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) trains
         individuals to identify wetlands and detect possible violations
         of wetland and other natural resource regulations under its CEO
         Training Program. Recently the DECD published a detailed
         oractical quide to aid CEOs in identifying and delineating
         wetlands: Maine Wetlands and Their Boundaries: A Guide for Code
         Enforcement Officers (Ralph-W. Tiner, June 1991).


              b. Effectiveness


              (1) Wetland Protection Rules
              Freshwater wetlands smaller than 10 acres, and combinations
         of adjacent but separated small wetlands, remain unregulated
         under the State Wetland Rules. Class III wetlands are minimally
         protected, although the functions of these wetland types in a
         landscape may be locally significant.

              State mitigation efforts are effective although restrictions
         requiring compensation in the same waters-,ed have caused some
         applicants difficulty. No widely acceptable functional assessment
10       methodology is tailored to environmental conditions found in
         Maine, therefore mitigation requirements tied to functional
         assessments are variable. At this time, there are no long-term
         monitoring projects at restored or mitigated wetland sites, thus
         the effectiveness of mitigation efforts and monitoring programs
         cannot be assessed.


              Cumulative Impacts -- Concern for the cumulative impacts of
         development on wetlands are addressed generally in the statement
         of purpose of the Natural Resources Protection Act which
         regulates wetlands. Indirect impacts on wetlands are considered
         during review of large upland development projects within the
         scope of the Natural Resource Protection Act. The DEP, however,
         lacks specific guidance for consideration of cumulative impacts
tO       during permit decisions. Methods for assessing cumulative impact
         are not specified in the NRPA, and thresholds for state and local
         regulators to use in determining cumulative impacts have not been
         developed.

              Under the state's Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Act,
         communities were directed to prepare local comprehensive plans
         in order to anticipate the impacts of future development. A
         complete discussion is included in the 'Cumulative Impactf
         assessment. Since the first towns to complete plans under the

                                         12









           program have not finalized ordinance programs to implement the
           plans, the effectiveness of the comprehensive planning effort to
           avoid the unwanted cumulative impacts of development are unknown.

                Permit*by Rule -- Permit by Rule Standards detail practices
           to minimize adverse impacts of minor activities. The cumulative
           impact of small projects falling under Permit by Rule has not
           been addressed.


                (2) Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Ordinances -- The Mandatory
           Shoreland Zoning Act is an effective tool for protecting wetlands
           from the adverse effects of upland activities. Local municipal
           planning boards may regulate freshwater wetlands under 10 acres
           in size and coastal wetlands with shoreland zoning designations
           and local zoning.

                Shoreland zoning may be used to direct development from
           sensitive shore areas with the resource protection designation,
           but these designations are a local prerogative, which allows
           towns to control most of the land use decisions impacting
           freshwater and coastal wetlands. Municipal regulations and
           enforcement vary from town to town and protection of shared
           wetlands is not necessarily consistent. Local governments may
           grant variances from shoreland zoning requirements if the
           applicant can demonstrate hardship.

                (3) DEP Water Bureau Programs -- The best management
           practices developed by the Nonpoint Source Program minimize
           adverse impacts to wetlands during land development activities.
           The effectiveness of the BMP's is limited by the voluntary nature
           of the program. Maine's water classification scheme provides
           minimal criteria for water quality and habitat functions of
           wetlands adjacent to and included in the designated waters. The
           three designations are very broad, with Class SB waters, the most
           common designation, allowing discharges that do not cause
           detrimental changes to the aquatic community. Information on the
           biodiversity, habitat, and abundance of species on which the
           classification should rely is not uniformly available for
           estuarine and marine environments. Many wetlands not associated
           with river or tidal waters are not included in the water quality
           classification.

                (4) Enforcement, Surveillance and Monitoring Efforts -- Lack
           of adequate staffing continues to be a problem affecting the
           ability of the Department of Environmental Protection to review,
           monitor and enforce its environmental protection laws. The Code
           Enforcement Training Program has been effective in training
           personnel at the local level, however enforcement at the local
           level is hampered by lack of political will and funding for
           enforcement staff.


                6.42  Options for Improvement

                Develop nonpoint source plans for coastal watersheds which
                document the cumulative effects of wetland alterations in

                                          13









             coastal watersheds on coastal water quality and estuarine
             habitats.

             Evaluate the extent to which specific coastal and freshwater
             wetlands may be threatened by short and long-term sea level
             rise. Determine how such threats may be minimized or are
             likely to be increased by coastal construction.

             Develop guidelines for evaluating the ecological function of
             wetland types.

             Develop guidelines for dredging and dredged material
             disposal in coastal waters. Conduct studies to determine if
             potential harbor dredging is likely to result in serious
             erosion or filling of sensitive nearby wetlands.

             Compare enforcement and regulation of Maine's wetland laws
             with those of other state to identify deficiencies

             Change state regulation to increase protection of wetlands
             greater than 2-acres in size and forested wetlands.

             Provide technical assistance to towns to develop wetland
             protection ordinances that protect wetlands not under state
             regulation.

             Increase DEP staffing for wetland permit review, compliance
             checks and monitoring.

             Develop guidelines for assessing the cumulative impact of
             permit decisions and thresholds for state and local
             regulators to use in permit reviews.



        6.5 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective II-- Wetlands
             Restoration

        increase levels of wetland sustainable acreage and functions
        within formerly existing or degraded wetlands:

        a.   Develop and enhance public wetland restoration programs.

             o Identify degraded wetland sites.

             o Establish and implement the best available enhancement
             and restoration measures.


             ï¿½ Prohibit future degradation of the site.

             ï¿½ identify sites where restoration projects have the
             greatest likelihood of success.

        b.   Encourage restoration and monitoring of wetlands in areas
        likely to achieve the greatest NPS benefits.

                                        14









            C.   Encourage restoration which does not maximize one function
            at the expense of another.

            d.   Encourage acceptable wetlands restoration by private
            landowners only if technical assistance and monitoring can be
            provided.

                 ,6.51 Existing Laws, Regulations, Programs

                 a.   Scope & Effectiveness

                 Wetland Restoration Efforts. The state does not have a
            program that specifically identifies and restores degraded
            wetlands. Wetland restoration activities require a permit under
            the Wetland Protection Rules of NRPA or a application to the
            Permit by Rule Program. Typical restoration efforts along the
            coast include revegetation of dune areas and marsh disturbed by
            construction.


                 The USF&WS Bangor office manages a Wetlands Restoration
            Program in Maine. This program pays for restoration projects on
            private lands at the sites of previously altered wetlands. The
            program has focused on restoring the hydrology to freshwater
            wetlands. On the average, approximately 15 acres are restored
            each year. Usually the restoration projects involve the removal
            of an old road bed, fill, or the plugging of a drainage ditch
            through a field.

                 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is undertaking a wetland
            restoration effort in an area in Wells that was originally filled
            with material from a Corps dredging project. The Department of
            Transportation also restores wetlands for mitigation required in
            connection with highway maintenance and construction.

                 Identification of Degraded Areas. The Department of Marine
            Resources Shellfish Program monitors shellfish growing areas
            along the coast for bacterial contamination. This indicator of
            water quality is the most wide-scale program in the state that
            identifies degraded wetlands. The Nonpoint Source Pollution
            Program administered by the Department of Environmental
            Protection has assessed non-point source pollution in coastal
            waters, identified some coastal estuaries and embayments
            threatened or impaired by non-point source pollution, and
            prioritized areas where non-point sources can be distinguished
            from large point sources.

                 Effectiveness -- In general, there are few wetland
            restoration projects in Maine. Restoration of coastal wetland
            sites is conducted under the Wetland Rules. DEP requirements that
            wetland restoration for mitigation credit be performed in the
            same watershed as the wetland compensated for, restricts
            restoration efforts (by the DEP and others) to areas of the state
            with road projects and development activity.

                 The state lacks a comprehensive inventory of degraded

                                           15









         wetlands and particularly, those with restricted tidal flow.
         At a number of locations along the Maine Coast old dikes and
         embankments block tidal flow to tidal salt marshes. The most
         notable is an approximately 1200-acre marsh behind a dike on the
         West Branch of the Pleasant River in Addison. Other common
         impairments to coastal tidal marsh function are caused by
         undersized culverts under roadways which restrict tidal flow.
         These situations should be evaluated for wetlands restoration
         opportunities.


              6.52 Options for Improvement

              Identify degraded coastal wetlands including areas of tidal
              flow restriction and alteration.

              Convene an interagency,group (including the Departments of
              Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, Marine Resources, Environmental
              Protection, Conservation, and Transportation) to prioritize
              wetlands for restoration efforts in anticipation of projects
              requiring mitigation and to identify state restoration
              priorities.



         6.6  Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective III -- Wetlands.
              Acquisition and Planning

         Utilize nonregulator_y and innovative techniques to provide for
         the protection and acquisition of coastal wetlands.

              Promote or encourage fee simple or less than fee simple
         .acquisition of coastal wetlands.

              Provide incentives to landowners to sell or donate wetlands
         to states or local governments.

              Provide disincentives to development in or near wetlands
         through restricted capital expenditures, taxes, etc.

              Provide public education and information programs to the
         public that describes the importance of coastal wetlands
         functions and values, as part of a larger effort to develop
         program changes in this area.

              Promote and encourage planning and coordination between
         federal, state and local governments which lead to plans to
         protect, restore and create wetlands in specific areas and basin
         wide (l.e., Special Area Management Plans, EPA, COE, advance
         identification programs, growth management, mitigation banks,
         state comprehensive wetland plans, etc.).

              6.61 Existing Programs & Effectiveness

              Dept. of Environmental Protection -- Creation of

                                         16








           conservation easements to preserve wetlands is encouraged by the
           DEP in its permitting process under the NRPA and the Site
           Location of Development laws.

                Dept. of Conservation -- The Bureau of Public Lands (BPL)
           acquires land for public recreation, wildlife habitat, timber
           management and access. The Bureau of Parks and Recreation (BPR)
           maintains the state's park system and acquires lands with funds
           from the Land & Water Conservation Fund. Some BPR and BPL
           holdings include coastal and inland wetlands.

                Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife -- Funds from  t he
           federal Wallop-Breaux Amendment to the Dingell-Johnson Act, the
           Pittman-Robertson Act and state bond issues are used to acquire
           wildlife habitat including wetlands.

                Land for Maine's Future Board -- The Land for Maine's Future
           Board administers funds from a state bond issue for the
           acquisition of lands of state significance, including wetlands.
           Lands acquired by LMFB are managed by the DOC and IFW.

                State Planning Office -- "The Estuary Book" and "Estuary
           Profiles" were developed by the Maine Coastal Program to provide
           information on the functions and values of coastal wetlands. The
           SPO also hosts Maine's Critical Area Program (CAP), which is a
           volunteer non-regulatory owner-registry program for identifying
           unique natural areas. Owners agree to protect the feature and
           notify the CAP of changes in status.

                The Natural Heritage Program -- The program 'ranks natural
           communities according to rate of occurrence with in the state.
           Wetland communities with an occurrence rate of less than 20 are
           classified as Class I wetlands under the Maine Wetland Protection
           Rules.


                Maine Wetlands Coalition & North American Waterfowl Plan
           This is a coalition of state agencies and private conservation
           groups that works to identify priority wetlands for protection.
           The coalition uses the North American Waterfowl Management Plan/
           State Wetlands Concept Plan, developed by the USFWS, which
           outlines specific wetland acquisition priorities for the Service.
           The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is a joint effort by
           federal and state agencies and conservation groups to target
           acquisition efforts in key focus areas with significant habitat
           for waterfowl.

                The WaterfGwl Management Plan (1989) identified five focus
           areas in Maine that are preservation priorities. These are:
           Cobscook Bay, Merrymeeting Bay and the Lower Kennebec River, East
           Coast, West Coast, and Inland wetlands. The Plan recommends
           purchasing or protecting with easements the wetlands and adjacent
           upland buffers.

                Private Efforts -- Several major conservation organizations
           with coastal holdings which potentially could include wetlands

                                           17









        are: National Audubon, Maine Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, and
        Maine Coast Heritage Trust. Maine's 65 small land trusts have the
        ability to own and hold conservation easements on wetlands.

             Effectiveness -- Wetland acquisition programs have been
        effective in protecting and managing wetlands in coastal areas.
        Several private conservation groups and state programs have
        coordinated protection efforts in Cobscook Bay, a protection
        priority for the state. Acquisition program are generally limited
        by the lack of a stable funding source.

             6.62 Options for Improvement

             Protect tax exempt and municipal service fee exemptions for
             non-profit conservation organizations.

             Promote a public/private partnership or coastal conservancy
             to assist with acquisition of easements and development
             rights in critical wetlands.

             Develop strategies to protect wetlands in state ownership
             including allowing the Maine Department of Transportation to
             contribute wetlands owned by the department for mitigation.



        6.7 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective IV -- Creation of
             Wetlands


        Develop and improve artificial wetlands creation programs as the
        lowest priority.

             Develop procedures for evaluating and selecting candidates
        from an ecological systems as well as an economic perspective.
16           Develop an appropriate monitoring program to evaluate the
        success of any efforts to create artificial wetlands.

40           6.71   Existing Laws, Regulations and Programs

             Since Maine retains most of its original wetland base, state
        @olicy seeks to protect existing wetlands rather than develop and
        improve artificial wetlands. Creation of wetland from upland,
        because of the high level of uncertainty of success,is regarded
        as a last resort, available only when other methods of
        compensation are not practicable and the applicant can
        demonstrate that the creation project will replace the functions
        of the wetland to be altered.

             The Nonpoint Source Program creates small wetlands for the
        purpose of pollution prevention. These created ponds are
        monitored for water quality parameters.


        -6.8 Information/Studies

                                        18









                Adamus, P.,1986. "The Cumulative Impacts of Development in
           Southern Maine-- Wetlands: Their Locations, Functions, and
           Value," Eco-Analysts Inc. for Maine State Planning Office,
           Augusta, ME.
                Blakesley, R. 1990. "Dredge Management Strategy--Draft,"
           Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.
                Bureau of Public Lands, 1989. " Submerged Lands Study, A
           Study of Submerged Land and Leasing Policies," Bureau of Public
           Lands, Department of Conservation, Augusta, ME.
                Dahl, T.E.. 1990. "Wetland Losses in the United States
           1780's to 1980's," U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
           Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 21 pp.
                Doggett, L. and J. Sowles. "State of the Marine Environment"
                Maine State Planning Office, 1982. "A Dredge Management
           Study for Maine", Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.
           Reprint 1989.
                Reid, W. V. and M.C. Trexler, 1991. "Drowning the National
           Hertitage: Climate Change and U.S. Coastal Biodiversity, World
           Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
                Ruffing, J. 1990. "Estuary Profile Series", Maine Coastal
           Program, State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.
                Tiner, Ralph W., June 1991, "Maine Wetlands and Their
           Boundaries: A Guide for Code Enforcement Officers"
                USFWS, 1990. "Regional Wetlands Concept Plan, Emergency
           Wetlands Resource Act," Northeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife
           Service, Newton Corner, MA.
                USFWS, 1989. "North American Waterfowl management Plan,
           Atlantic Coast Venture," Northeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife
           Service, Newton Corner, MA.
                Widoff, L. 1988. "Maine Wetlands Conservation Priority
           Plan", An Addendum to the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
           Plan (SCORP), Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Maine State
           Planning Office, Wetlands Subcommittee, Land and Water Resources
           Council, Augusta, ME.

           Maps
           Marine Geology Maps
           Coastal Sand Dune Map
           Maine Wetland Inventory Maps
           National Wetland Inventory
           Freshwater Wetland Inventory Maps

















                                           19
























                             Section 309 Assessment







            7. ADVERSE CUMULATIVE &,SECONDARY IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT








                  Advisory Committee: Growth Management Committee, Land
                  and Water Resources Council


                  Agency Contacts
                  Josie Quintrell, Office of Comprehensive Planning, DECD
                  Fran Rudoff, Office of Comprehensive Planning, DECD
                  Jenny Ruffing, Maine Coastal Program, SPO
                  Ron Dyer, Nonpoint Source Pollution Program, DEP
                  John Sowles, Marine Program, DEP
                  Dave Keeley, Maine Coastal Program, SPO

                  Public Interest Contacts
                  Orlando Delogu, University of Southern Maine Law
                  School
:7                Alison Rieser, Marine Law Institute
                  Natural Resources Council of Maine
                  Maine Audubon Society














                  Adverse Cumulative & Secondary Impacts of Development


                                           CONTENTS




            7.0 SUMMARY

            7.1 Maine's   Key Coastal Management Policies

            7.2 Federal   CZMA Legislative Objective

            7.3 Federal   CZMA Assessment Characterization

                       7.31   Scope & Definitions
                       7.32   Available Information/Studies
                       7.33   Assessment of Problems & Issues
                              a.   Natural Resources Threatened by
                                   Cumulative Impacts
                              b.   Activities Threatened by Cumulative Impacts
                              C.   Identification of Growth Areas
                              d.   Adequacy of Institutional, Legal &
                                   Policy Mechanisms

            7.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective -- Control Cumulative
                  Impacts

                       7.41  Options for Enhancing Coastal Planning Processes
                       7.42  Options for Improving Project & Permit Review
                             Decisions
                       7.43 Baseline for Measuring Progress

            7.5 Available Studies/Information












                                                                                         V









            [jr.cum] 1/16/92











       7.0 SUMMARY

            In the 1980s, coastal Maine experienced an unprecedented
       demand for coastal land, elevated land prices, urbanization or
       suburbanization of many small villages, and changes in the rural
       landscape. The development surge raised and intensified concerns
       that environmental quality--the basis for sustained quality of
       life on the Maine coast--was declining. Cumulative impact of
       development describes the effect of incremental changes to the
       landscape and environment over time which is'greater than the sum
       of individual effects.

            The impetus for the current comprehensive planning effort,
       currently underway in towns throughout Maine, came from previous
       studies of coastal towns experiencing rapid growth in population
       and changes in land use. These studies recognized that permit
       decisions were often made in isolation without consideration of
       other present, past or possible future effects. Local plans were
       needed to anticipate the cumulative impacts of growth in order to
       avoid negative effects (such as impaired air and water quality,
       destruction of coastal habitats and urban sprawl) and to direct
       appropriate growth and development in communities.

            Extensive shellfish closures along the coast highlight the
       connections between land use, water quality, and economic oppor-
       tunities. Water pollution in estuaries and other tidal embayments
       reflects the cumulative effect of land and water use in the
       surrounding watershed. A public survey distributed by the Maine
       Coastal Program to town officials and othe.-s in May 1991 revealed
       a strong concern for the cumulative effect of our use of coastal
       lands and waters on water quality and coastal habitats.

       Accomplishments

            Regional planning efforts such as the Casco Bay Project, the
            Gulf of Maine Program and the International Waterway Commis-
            sion on the St. Croix River, have begun to address the
            cumulative and secondary impacts of activities on estuarine
            and marine environments.

            The Growth Management Program provided technical assistance
            and funding to coastal communities for comprehensive plan-
            ning efforts. Many communities along the coast have defined
            in their comprehensive plans, a vision for the future that
            could prevent the unwanted cumulative effects of growth and
            development.

            The Code Enforcement Officer Training Program in the Maine
            Department of Economic and Community Development trains and
            assists local code enforcement officials to improve enforce-
            ment of existing environmental regulations.









                Major state environmental laws, including the Natural Re-
                source Protection Act (NRPA), the Site Location of Devel-
                opment Act and the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act, require
                consideration of cumulative impacts in permit decisions.

                The Critical Areas Program and the Natural Heritage Program
                have inventoried significant natural areas throughout the
                State. The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has
                identified important habitats in coastal communities and
                conducted marine wildlife inventories of many embayments and
                islands.

                The Nonpoint Source Pollution Program at the Maine Depart-
                ment of Environmental Protection has identified coastal
                waters threatened by nonpoint source pollution and has
                sponsored demonstration projects that reduce nonpoint source
                pollution from land-based activities.

                The Department of Marine Resources monitors shellfish flats
                over 3,600 miles of Maine coastline and has identified point
                sources of pollution and suspected nonpoint or diffuse
                sources in most productive shellfish areas.

           Problems

                More local planning is needed for shared natural resources,
                such as estuaries or groundwater aquifers.

                Approximately 30 percent of Maine's shellfish flats are
                closed because of pollution from point and nonpoint sources.

                Communities that rely on surface waters for public water
                supplies face shortages as population increases, as well as
                potential pollution from nonpoint source sources as land and
                water used in coastal watersheds changes.

                Inadequate septic systems and straight pipes account for
                bacterial pollution of many productive shellfish flats.
                State law permits licensed overboard discharges to continue
                if no reasonable alternative exists.

                Many shellfish flats remain closed after water quality
                improves because of inadequate staffing and funding for
                water quality monitoring; municipalities need funds for
                septic system and sewer system upgrades; the estuarine moni-
                toring program at the Department of Environmental Protection
                is unfunded.


                Existing information on coastal water quality and sources of
                pollution is scattered between several agencies.

                Monitoring of nearshore tidal waters for pollutants other
                than bacteria is inadequate or nonexistant.



                                           2









             Enforcement of environmental regulations is inconsistent and
             often done after the fact on state and local levels because
             of inadequate funding and coordination.

             The cumulative effect of development on small freshwater
             wetlands that are not protected by state regulation threat-
             ens habitat diversity and coastal water quality.

             Permit decisions may be made at the local and state level in
             isolation, without consideration of other present, past or
             future projects.

             State agencies lack formal guidelines for including consid-
             eration of cumulative impacts in permitting decisions.

             Communities lack funding for technical assistance for plan-
             ning and land use programs.

             Other than the minimum state water quality classification
             designations of coastal waters, there are no established
             thresholds for development or environmental impact beyond
             which further degradation is not acceptable.

             The Natural Resource Protection Act (NRPA) requires consid-
             eration of the scenic impacts of proposed development, yet
             the needed inventory information and guidelines to implement
             this criteria during permit review does not exist.

             The significant wildlife habitat criteria of NRPA do n-)t
             include marine wildlife areas cr other significant marine or
             estuarine habitats that may be susceptible to the cumulative
             impacts of development.
























                                        3









           7.1 Maine's Key Coastal ManacFement Policies Relating to
           Cumulative and Secondary Impacts of Development (38 MRSA 1801)




                     SHORELINE MANAGEMENT & ACCESS. Support shoreline
                management that gives preference to water-dependent
                uses over other uses, that promotes public access to
                the shoreline and that considers the cumulative effects
                of development on coastal resources.

                     SCENIC AND NATURAL AREAS PROTECTION. Protect and
                manage critical habitat and natural areas of state and
                national significance and maintain the scenic beauty
                and character of the coast even in areas where develop-
                ment occurs.

                     WATER QUALITY. Restore and maintain the quality
                of our fresh, marine and estuarine waters to allow for
                the broadest possible diversity of public and private
                uses.




























































                                           4









       7.2 Federal CZMA Legislative Oblective

       ï¿½ 309 (4)(5) Development and adoption of procedures to assess,
       consider, and control cumulative and secondary impacts of coastal
       growth and development, including the collective effect on
       various individual uses or activities on coastal resources, such
       as coastal wetlands and fishery resources.'

       7.3 Federal CZMA Assessment Characterization

       Characterize the nature, type, and extent of secondary and
       cumulative impacts in the coastal zone.

                 Identify areas in the coastal zone where rapid growth
            requires improved management of potential cumulative and
            secondary impacts.

                 identify areas in the coastal zone which possess sensi-
            tive coastal resources (wetlands, water bodies, fish and
            wildlife habitats), and require a greater degree of protec-
            tion and understanding of the cumulative and secondary
            impacts related to growth and development.

                 Assess the adequacy of existing institutional, legal
            and policy mechanisms (e.g., coastal development permits,
            local land use plans and ordinances, water quality reviews,
            infrastructure funding policies) that address cumulative and
            secondary impacts on coastal resources.

            7.31 Scope & Definitions

            Cumulative impact is used to describe the total change that
       results from many smaller changes over time. Small changes--a
       residential subdivision, a new dock, a parking lot expansion, a
       new strip-development mini-mall along Route 1--may seem minor
       when viewed individually. The overall effect of a number of
       relatively negligible actions over time, however, is usually
       significant,

            Cumulative impacts can be direct, indirect, or secondary.
       They can have positive as well as adverse effects. Direct cumula-
       tive impacts are the actual effects of the action. Indirect
       impacts are the effects that are indirectly caused by the action.
       For example, a house built along the shore may have the direct
       effect of adding to the local tax base, and clearing of the
       shoreline forest for the house construction. Erosion and loss of
'A     habitat resulting from the clearing of the land are also direct
       effects. Indirect effects of the construction include the erosion
       of the building site, increased run-off to the bay, and loss of
       wildlife habitat at the construction site. The placement of one



              Italicized text is excerpted from federal guidance for the
              Section 309 assessments.


                                       5








           house may have a secondary effect of influencing the building of
           additional homes along the bay.

                7.32 Available Information/Studies

                For more than twenty years, the state has recognized the
           significance of the incremental effects of development. In 1977
           the Governor's Committee on Coastal Development and Conservation
           and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) commissioned
           a study of the cumulative impact of development on the Maine
           coast. Among the recommendations in the consultant's report (LUC
           1977) were suggestions that the state's environmental laws be
           amended to require consideration of cumulative effects and that
           municipalities include concerns for cumulative impact into their
           comprehensive plans and develop land use control ordinances
           linked to identified threshold capacities.

                The 1977 study resulted in the addition of language to the
           Coastal Wetland Law regulations and the Site Law that mentioned
           consideration of cumulative impacts. By the early 1980s these
           minor changes to state statutes seemed ineffective in the face of
           the unprecedented development pressures on the Maine coast.

                In 1985, the Coastal Advisory Committee of the Land and
           Water Resource Council directed the Maine State Planning Office
           to initiate a Cumulative Impact Project to address the problem of
           unplanned growth and development in coastal communities. The
           purpose of the multi-phase project was to document the effects of
           incremental development on natural resources in selected towns as
           well as to study the legal aspects of regulating incremental
           development. Advisory boards were formed at the state and local
           levels to make recommendations to the Legislature and Governor on
           statewide growth management measures and to assess how the state
           and towns could manage the cumulative effects of development.

                The first phase of the Cumulative Impact Project documented
           the effects of incremental development on the natural resources
           of nine towns in York County. A series of maps were developed to
           inventory and document changes in scenic areas, lands in conser-
           vation-ownership, land cover, wetlands, groundwater resources,
           and important wildlife habitats.

                Subsequent studies examined the legal aspects of regulating
           incremental development. The Southern Maine Regional Planning
           Commission (SMRPC 1986) assessed the adequacy of local land use
           regulations used to manage the cumulative effects of development
           in the York County towns. The Marine Law Institute (Rieser and
           Quintrell, 1987) prepared two studies for the Cumulative Impact
           Project, a review of the policy, regulatory, and statutory
           framework for addressing cumulative impacts in Maine and a review
           of land use planning strategies employed by other states. In a
           final report, Maine Audubon analyzed land use and impacts on
           wildlife in the coastal towns of Machias, Trenton, Rockport,
           Scarborough, and Damariscotta (Arbuckle & Lee, 1987).


                                          6








            The lack of policy or planning guidelines to provide a
       context for land use and environmental laws and regulations was
       cited by Rieser And Quintrell, (1986) as a major obstacle block-
       ing effective consideration of the cumulative impact of proposed
       development. The report maintained that permitting decisions,
       made on a case-by-case basis, addressed only the direct impacts
       of a project. Although state environmental regulations sought to
       minimize the impacts of a project, sensitive resources were often
       not adequately protected and the collective effect of'possible
       future projects on the resource was not addressed.

            One problem identified in the Rieser and Quintrell report
       was the difficulty in determining the threshold at which point
       the resource could no longer withstand further degradation. For
       example, three homes along a sand beach may not sufficiently
       discourage a colony of least terns from returning to nest in the
       area, but how many more homes would the bird colony tolerate
       before abandoning the beach? The report concluded that the most
       effective management of incremental development was through
       planning that identified sensitive resources and design of
       appropriate regulations that would treat all landowners equitably
       while preserving the integrity of the resource.

            The project summary (Dominie and Scudder, 1987) concluded
       that negative cumulative effects are caused by haphazard growth
       and can be minimized by planning to anticipate and direct growth
       to appropriate sites. The summary identified the following to be
       effective elements common to other states' growth management
       initiatives:

            (1)  instituting a clear, state land use policy;
            (2)  assuring local land use planning is tied to
                 implementation programs;
            (3)  identifying sensitive resource areas, other areas of
                 statewide significance and assuring their protection
                 through acquisition and regulation;
            (4)  assuring predictability in local and state permitting
                 processes through explicit review criteria and perfor-
                 mance standards; and
            (5)  making a long-term commitment at the State and local
                 levels to funding and supporting land use management.

            The 1987 Cumulative Impact study led to passage of growth
       management legislation committing the state to supporting local
       comprehensive planning.











                                       7











                7.33 Assessment of Problems & Issues


                a.   Natural Resources Threatened by Cumulative Impacts

                Natural resources are directly and indirectly changed by the
           cumulative impact of development and growth. Coastal and inland
           waters, habi'tat and populations of native plants and animals,
           air, scenery and open space are some of the natural resources
           diminished by the negative consequences of many environmental
           alterations over time.

                (1) Water Quality. Growth and development along the coast
           have contributed to pollution of fresh, ground and tidal waters.
           As increasing numbers of users tap into groundwater aquifers and
           develop lots in coastal areas, problems with saltwater intrusion,
           and bacterial and other types of pollution are more common. Run-
           off from roads and development impair the water quality of fresh
           surface waters, making them unsuitable for drinking water. At
           least 30 percent of the productive clam flats along the Maine
           coast are closed to harvesting each year by bacterial pollution
           from septic tanks on shorelands, land run-off, boat traffic, and
           other sources. The pollution is from both point and nonpoint
           sources, and primarily the result of human activities.

                Several islands have been designated by the federal Environ-
           mental Protection Agency, at the request of the State, as sole
           source aquifers, since most islands have a single lens of ground-
           water. Many coastal peninsulas also have single groundwater
           aquifers available for groundwater supply. These areas are very
           vulnerable to the cumulative impacts of human activities on
           groundwater quality.

                According to the State Nonpoint Source Management Plan
           (1989), 0.7% of the surface area of Maine's lakes and ponds, is
           predicted to be extremely vulnerable (a 1 ppb increase in phos-
           phorus level is predicted to occur in 10 years) to nonpoint
           source pollution. Approximately 11.2% of the surface are of
           Maine's lakes and ponds are classified as highly vulnerable (a  1
           ppb increase in phosphorus is predicted to occur within the next
           50 years) to nonpoint source pollution associated with develop-
           ment. Most of the fresh water lakes and ponds in the coastal zone
           fall into one of these two categories.

                The vulnerability of tidal waters to loading of land-based
           pollutants depends on the "flushing rate" of the area, the
           composition of bottom sediments, the landcover in the coastal
           watershed, the amount and toxicity of the pollutants and other
           factors. The DEP has classified tidal waters according to dis-_         Ilk,
           solved oxygen content, bacterial levels, and benthic community
           diversity. Presumably, those waters with the higher standards,
           Classes SA and SB, are more vulnerable to the cumulative impacts
           of water pollution from development than Class SC waters which
           allow industrial discharges and set minimal standards to support
           aquatic life. River waters are classified according to a similar

                                           8








        system by the DEP. Priority coastal water bodies that are im-
        paired or threatened by nonpoint source pollution are identified
        in the State Nonpoint Source Management Plan.

             (2) Water Quantity. Growth on islands and in communities
        dependent on groundwater is affected by source limitations,
        including contamination by salt water intrusion caused by exces-
        sive draw down as well as sea level rise. Although not a current
        concern, diversion of freshwater from coastal rivers could alter
        estuarine environments along the coast.

             (3) Habitat. Groupings of environmental factors (e.g.
        climate, salinity, soils, water) that support assemblages of
        plants and animals sharing similar requirements are called
        habitats. Habitat for terrestrial plants and animals as well as
        marine life may be threatened by the collective effect of activi-
        ties on land and in tidal waters. Gradual alterations to the
        landscape may eventually destroy or alter the ability of the
        habitat to maintain a diversity of species. For example, although
        one house built on the edge of a deer wintering yard may have
        minimal effect on the resident deer population, the disturbance
        from additional houses may drive deer from the area.

             Marine habitat is affected by changes in water quality as
        well as direct physical disturbances (such as the placement of
        moorings or dredging). Many harbors along the coast have rela-
        tively barren bottoms and few fish species, Historical accounts
        relate that flounder and groundfish were once plentiful in these
        areis; today, the cumulative impact of harvesting, boat traffic,
        water pollution, dredging and other activities may have resulted
        in degraded harbor habitats unable to support a diversity of
        marine life. These are only a few examples of the impact of human
        activities on habitat--virtually any change to coastal lands or
        waters will effect habitat.

             (4) Air Quality. High levels of ozone pollution result from
        the automobile emissions of the millions of visitors to the coast
        each summer. This seasonal decline in air quality affects human
        health as well as health of the environment. In Acadia National
        Park, researchers have documented the devastating effect of high
        ozone levels combined with the coastal fog on the maritime black
        spruce forest.

             (5) Scenic Quality. Visual resources are important because
        the landscape defines people's sense of place and perception of
        environmental quality. The effect of the cumulative impact of
        growth and development is often first noticeable visually, before
        other more subtle environmental impacts are apparent. Scenic
        quality is central to defining the character of a place ("Maine--
        The Way Life Should Be" is proclaimed by billboard at the state
        line in Kittery) and can attract tourism, new settlement, invest-
        ment and other activities important to the state economy.



A
                                        9








                (6) Open Space. Undeveloped land or open space is a re-
           source most treasured when it is gone. Maine people have tradi-
           tionally relied on undeveloped land to provide opportunities for
           hunting, paths to coastal waters, and walking. Subdivision of
           shorelands, farms and forests reduces opportunities for free
           access across private lands. Development of open space also
           affects wildlife and many native species, such as amphibians, not
           specifically protected by law. Subdivision of agricultural and
           forest lands lowers the potential of the land to contribute to
           the traditional agricultural and forestry economic base of the
           community. Most (90%) of the coast's open space is in private
           ownership; public and nonprofit conservation holdings represent
           only about 6 percent of the coastal land acreage.

                b.   Activities Threatened by Cumulative Impacts

                In addition to natural.resources, public access and suitable
           sites for water-dependent use may be threatened by cumulative
           impacts.

                (1) Public Access to Coastal Waters. Less than 7 percent of
           Maine coastal shorefront is publicly-owned. Transfers of land
           ownership along the coast have resulted in subdivision of water-
           front parcels and loss of traditional accessways for shellfish
           harvesters, hunters, and recreational users of the coast. Loss of
           public access to the coast is a sociological effect of the
           cumulative impact of development. For instance, a property owner
           may.tolerate a few visitors to a private beach. After adjacent
           private beaches are closed to public access, and the neighborhood
           converges on the remaining open beach, the'permissive landowner
           may decide that too many people are using the beach and as a
           consequence, restrict access. Public access to the beach has been
           lost because of the cumulative effect of visitation pressure
           moved from several beaches to a single beach.

                (2) Coastal Sites Suitable for Water-Dependent Use.
           Boatyards, marinas, fish docks, deepwater anchorages and busi-
           nesses associated with commercial fishing are typical examples of
           activities dependent on waterfront locations. If harbor areas are
           developed with motels, condominiums, and other nonwater-dependent
           businesses, the eventual economic effect may be to crowd out
           traditional maritime related businesses from the area.

                (3) Shellfish Harvesting. Approximately 30 percent of
           Maine's shellfish flats are closed because of pollution from
           point and nonpoint source pollutants. Many activities are
           incompatible with the maintenance of open shellfish areas because
           of pollutants associated with the activities or federally
           mandated closures. For example, shellfish closures are mandatory
           around mooring fields of a certain size. Inadequate septic
           systems and straight pipes account for bacterial pollution of
           many productive shellfish flats. Overboard discharges, which
           account for many closures, are allowed if no reasonable
           alternative exists.



                                          10












                                                C. Identification of Growth Areas

                                                Many coastal islands, estuaries and harbors have experienced
                              obvious effects from the cumulative impacts of development.
                              Increased recreational use of Maine harbors has created
                              competition for moorings, impaired water quality in some areas,
                              and raised concerns about the future of traditional uses of the
                              waterfront. A case study comparing development scenarios was
                              commissioned for the Island Institute (Brown et al., 1987). The
                              study examined Carvers Harbor on Vinalhaven Island and concluded
                              that such communities must clearly state their fishing community
                              identities in their comprehensive plans.

                                                Tidal shores along estuaries and shorelands along inland
                              freshwater ponds and lakes are focuses of building activity and
                              changes in land and water use in Maine's Coastal Zone. The 1990
                              U.S. Census shows growth occurring all along the coast over the
                              past ten years, a by-product of the real estate boom of the
                              1980s. Lincoln and Cumberland counties experienced the highest
                              growth rates.

                                                The number of occupied year-round homes in the coastal zone
                              doubled between 1960 and 1990. overall pressure on the land,
                              indicated by average numbers of residents and housing units per
                              square mile, is highest in the southern section of the coast.
                              This can be seen by comparing cities and towns in the southern,
                              central and downeast segments of the coast as shown on the chart
                              below.


                                                                                                                                    PRESSURE ON THE LAND
                                                                                                              MAINE'S COASTAL ZONE CITIES AND TOWNS
 








                d.   Adequacy of Institutional, LecTal & Policy Mechanisms

                (1) Scope

                Rieser and Quintrell (1986) list three major obstacles to
           effective consideration of cumulative impact in Maine:

                --lack of cumulative impact guidelines to direct state
                  permitting decisions
                --lack of consideration of cumulative impact by local
                  municipalities in directing and permitting development.
                --lack of baseline information on resources, and on other
                  projects in the area under review or permitted by state
                  and local agencies.

                These obstacles still exist, although recent growth
           management efforts that promote local comprehensive planning have
           improved anticipation of the cumulative effects of development at
           the local level.


                (2) Existing Programs & Effectiveness

           A.   Mapping and Information Collection.    State collection of
           baseline information is improving. State natural resource data
           collection is now coordinated through a Geographic Information
           System (GIS) headquartered in the Department of Conservation. The
           Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) is responsible
           for mapping wildlife habitats. Maine Geological Survey maintains
           sand dune, wetland, aquifer, and marine habitat maps. The
           Department of Marine Resources is mapping marine resources
           sensitive to oil spills such as shellfish beds and spawning
           areas. Coastal wetland locations have been inventoried by the US
           Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory (NWI); freshwater
           wetlands were mapped by the Maine Wetlands Inventory (IF&W) as
           well as the NWI.

                Effectiveness--- The state Geographic Information System
           (GIS) will eventually improve accessibility and usability of
           state natural database for use in permitting and planning.
           Scarcity of funds hampers entry of information on the state GIS
           as well as other mapping and inventory efforts. Existing wetland         ro
           and marine habitat maps are incomplete and need field
           verification. Existing information on pollutants and other
           indicators of environmental health of nearshore coastal waters is
           inadequate to constitute a baseline against which the
           environmental cumulative impacts of development can be assessed.

           B.   Water Quality Monitoring. Several Maine state agencies
           monitor waters impacted by pollution. The Department of Human
           Services and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
           monitor groundwater wells. The Department of Marine Resources
           (DMR) Shellfish Program monitors the water quality in shellfish
           areas along the coast. The DEP identifies waters impaired and
           threatened by nonpoint source (NPS) pollution and regulates,
           through permits, direct discharges to rivers and coastal waters.

                                           12









             Effectiveness--In general, the effectiveness of the water
        quality monitoring efforts by state agencies is limited by the
        scarcity of state funds and the vast area, 3,600 miles of
        coastline, to be covered. Approximately 30 percent of Maine's
        shellfish flats are closed because of pollution from point and
        nonpoint sources, as well as, the lack of monitoring information.
        Existing information on coastal water quality and sources of
        pollution is scattered between several agencies. Monitoring of
        nearshore waters for pollutants other than bacteria is
        inadequate.

             The Lakes Program. Inland lakes, including lakes in the
        coastal zone, have been evaluated by the DEP Division of
        Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies (EELS) according to a
        lake vulnerability index. The index is a predictive model which
        evaluates the lake or pond hydrologic characteristics and the
        rate of watershed development during the period of 1984-1986, and
        estimates how long it will take for phosphorus concentrations to
        increase in the pond or lake by I part per billion (ppb).

             Effectiveness--- The criteria developed by EELS have been
        well received by towns and have enabled planning boards to
        anticipate the cumulative effects of lake watershed development
        on lake water quality. Extension of this predictive approach to
        estuarine areas and estimation of the effect of nutrient-loading
        activities on coastal water bodies is being considered.

             Partners in Monitoring. Several state agencies including
        the DEP, DMR, State Planning Office a.id the University of Maine
        Cooperative E.@tension service have pooled efforts to coordinate
        coastal water quality data collection and volunteer water quality
        monitoring efforts.

             Effectiveness--- The effort is a recent one and it is too
        early to judge effectiveness, however, coordination has improved
        among the agencies and volunteer water quality monitoring is
        expected to provide information on nonpoint sources of pollution
        and other cumulative effects of development.

             NonPoint Source Pollution Program. The Department of
        Environmental Protection administers the nonpoint source program
        and develops Best Management Practices to cover a range of land-
        based activities.

             Effectiveness--- The existing Nonpoint Management Plan lists
        few coastal waters as priorities for improvement. Several
        demonstration projects, notably in Casco Bay and in Passamaquoddy
        Bay have addressed nonpoint source pollution in tidal waters. The
        state Nonpoint Management Plan is currently being revised to
        include a more complete listing of coastal waters that are
        threatened or impaired by NPS pollution and to include best
        management practices that address marine-related activities.




                                        13









           D.   Habitat Protection. The Department of Inland Fisheries and
           Wildlife is responsible for managing habitat for game and nongame
           wildlife species as well as marine mammals, migratory birds and
           freshwater fish. Marine and estuarine habitats such as shellfish
           flats, eelgrass beds, subtidal areas used as spawning grounds, or
           tidal creeks important for alewife and smelt runs are protected
           generally under marine resource (DMR), wetland (DEP), and
           submerged land (DOC) regulations.

                Effectiveness- The habitat management efforts of IF&W and
           DMR are implemented through a network of field wardens and
           biologists. Scarcity of funding jeopardizes these efforts.
           Reluctance of the IF&W to promulgate maps and guidance in order
           to implement habitat provisions of the Natural Resource
           Protection Act has delayed local protection of important habitat
           areas.


                Critical Areas Program. The Critical Areas Program of the
           State Planning Office identifies and maps occurrences of
           significant features throughout the state and works with private
           landowners to ensure protection of the site.

                Effectiveness- The program has been very effective over the
           last ten years, however, recently, the state legislature has
           temporarily suspended the program because of lack of funds.

                Natural Heritage Program. The Natural Heritage Program of
           the Department of Economic and Community Development inventories
           important natural communities around the state. During the
           development of comprehensive plans, Maine towns are encouraged to
           map all Critical Areas and Heritage Sites as well as consult with
           IF&W and DMR to identify habitats of significance.

                Effectiveness- The program effectively distributes habitat
           information to towns to assist with planning efforts.

           D.   Open Space Protection. Tree Growth and Farm and Open Space
           tax designations are the major incentive programs at the state
           level to encourage open space land use. The state Land for
           Maine's Future Program and private land trusts throughout the
           state are actively protecting land through conservation easements
           and acquisition.

                Effectiveness- The Land for Maine's Future Board has
           effectively committed its initial $35 million to specific
           acquisitions. A referendum last November failed to provide
           additional funding. Concerns that conservation ownership will
           reduce town tax base have caused several coastal towns and
           private groups to oppose conservation acquisitions.

                (3)   Existing Regulations & Effectiveness

                Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act (30-A
           MRSA ï¿½4311-4344) and the Growth Management Program. Enacted in
           1988, this statute mandated towns to develop comprehensive plans

                                          14









        and implementation programs that were consistent with the state
        growth management goals and coastal policies. By outlining a
        program of local comprehensive planning and implementation of
        local land use controls, the Act intended to avoid the adverse
        effects of unplanned growth.

             In December, 1991, the Legislature removed provisions which
        required preparation of local comprehensive plans and
        implementation programs according to state deadlines. Funding for
        the Office of Comprehensive Planning, charged with providing
        planning grants and technical assistance to towns, and with
        reviewing local plans was withdrawn. The Maine Coastal Program
        continues to provide the OCP with funds for technical assistance
        for plan and ordinance development by coastal communities,
        however, and for local technical assistance by the Regional
        Planning Councils.

             Effectiveness- Until the withdrawal of funding implementing
        this act, the Growth Management Program was very effective in
        assisting towns preparing comprehensive plans. The "Guidelines
        for Maine's Growth Management Program (1988)" issued by the
        Office of Comprehensive Planning direct communities to inventory
        natural and cultural resources, examine trends and issues, and
        project future development patterns in an effort to create a
        context for local planning efforts and the implementation of
        ordinances, regulations and other programs.

             As of January 1992, 86 of the 144 coastal towns have
        received funding to develop cemprehensive plans; 33 to-gns have
        submitted their plans and 9 have received state approval. Eight
        towns have received funding to pursue implementation of their
        plans through local ordinance development. Comprehensive planning
        is no longer a mandate for local municipalities, but many towns
        are committed to continuing the comprehensive planning process in
        order to direct future growth.

             The Growth Management Program encouraged the inclusion of
        regional policies in local comprehensive plans. These regional
        policies were to promote coordinated protection and use of shared
        regional resources such as aquifers, lakes or estuaries. A
        project is underway in Casco Bay to implement these regional
        policies with consistent local shoreland ordinances in the towns
        surrounding the Bay. Other efforts to coordinate ordinance
        development have been less successful due to local politics.

             Most permitting decisions affecting land use are made at the
        local level according to criteria established by the particular
        town. Guidelines to assist local planning boards with inclusion
        of cumulative effect considerations in their permitting decisions
        are not available, but a major emphasis of the state growth
        management program was to encourage and assist towns with
        identification of sensitive resources and design of programst
        ordinances, or performance standards that protect these
        resources. Since the first towns to complete comprehensive plans


                                        15









           are just now embarking on implementation programs, the effective-
           ness of these efforts is yet to be determined.

                Land Use Regulatory Act (12 MRSA ï¿½681-689). Areas of the
           state in unorganized territories, including 5% of the land within
           the Maine Coastal Zone and over 200 coastal islands, are under
           the jurisdiction of the Land Use Regulatory Commission (LURC).
           LURC has the authority to plan and regulate land use and has
           prepared a comprehensive plan. The plan, currently undergoing a
           major update, creates protection and management zones and Wetland
           Protection Subdistricts. LURC requires a 75 to 125 foot shoreline
           setback from water bodies.

                Effectiveness--- LURC planning efforts are generally
           effective, however, LURC staff have recognized the need to
           develop state policies for coastal islands, which are more
           vulnerable than other coastal areas to the cumulative impacts of
           development.

                Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) (38 MRSA S480).
           NRPA regulates certain activities in resource areas of state
           significance including wetlands, Great Ponds, rivers and streams,
           significant wildlife habitat, fragile mountain areas and sand
           dunes. Concerns for cumulative impacts are stated in the findings
           statement which concludes:

                "The Legislature further finds and declares that the
                cumulative effect of frequent minor alterations and
                occasional major alterations poses a substantial threat
                to the environment and economy of the State and its
                quality of life."

                Effectiveness -- The Department of Environmental Protection
           issues rules to implement the Natural Resource Protection Act.
           Rules clarifying the application of the Natural Resource
           Protection Act to sand dunes state that "special attention will
           be paid to the cumulative impacts of activities on dune systems"
           (Coastal Sand Dune Rules, Chapter 355, revised 1/4/88). Project
           reviews are to include consideration of expected changes in
           shoreline and storm hazards within 100 years as well as percent
           coverage of the lot by existing and proposed development. Rules
           pertaining to development on Great Ponds specifically mention
           cumulative impact, especially with regard to the placement of
           docks. There are no criteria or guidelines to enable the DEP to
           implement the scenic protection criteria of NRPA.

                The habitats identified by the Natural Resources Protection
           Act (NRPA) as having state significance do not include all
           habitat areas sensitive to cumulative and secondary impacts of
           growth and development. The statute requires mapping of certain
           habitats before they can be protected by NRPA and this provision
           is proving to be administratively burdensome. The Department of
           Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is mapping "significant wildlife
           habitats". These habitats as narrowly defined by the Natural
           Resource Protection Act (NRPA, 38 MRSA 5480-B) include:

                                           16









                   "habitat for species appearing on the official state or
                   federal lists of endangered or threatened species; high
                   and moderate value deer wintering areas and travel
                   corridors as defined by the Department of Inland Fish-
                   eries and Wildlife; high and moderate value waterfowl
                   and wading bird habitats, including nesting and feeding
                   areas defined by the Department of Inland Fisheries and
                   Wildlife; critical spawning and nursery areas for
                   Atlantic sea run salmon as defined by the Atlantic Sea
                   Run Salmon Commission; and shoreland nesting, feeding
                   and staging areas and seabird nesting islands as de-
                   fined by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wild-
                   life."

              The Wetland Protection Rules (Chapter 310, 6/13/90), include
         a "No Unreasonable Impact" standard that provides for consider-
         ation of the effects of a proposed project on wetlands beyond the
         project's physical boundaries, and the cumulative effects of
         frequent minor alterations of the wetlands resources. Small
         wetlands under 10 acres in size and certain classifications of
         wetlands are unprotected by the Wetland Rules.

              Permit-by-Rule Program. Permit by Rule procedures allow an
         applicant to bypass the standard NRPA permit process providing
         that the proposed project meets special criteria and
         incorporates performance standards or best management practices
         designed to mitigate disturbance. Before beginning work, the
         applicant must file a notice of the project with the DEP. Unless
         notified to the contrary within 14 days by the DEP, the project
         can proceed. These 'permits' are valid for two years.

              The DEP has adopted Permit by Rule Standards for the follow-
         ing activities: disturbance of soil material adjacent to a
         wetland or water body; intake pipes and water monitoring devices;
         maintenance repair and replacement; moorings; movement of rocks
         and vegetation by hand; outfall pipes; riprap; crossings (utility
         lines, pipes and cables); stream crossings (bridges, culverts and
         fords); maintenance, repair & minor modification of state
         transportation facilities; and restoration of natural areas
          (3/23/91).

              Effectiveness--- The Land Bureau of the DEP records Permit by
         Rule applications on a computer data base in an effort to track
         the frequency of projects in an area. Despite this effort, the
         cumulative impacts of many small projects in an area, which
         individually may have minimal impact on environmental quality,
         can eas-ily be overlooked in the review of Permit by Rule
         activities. Some activities which may be covered by the program
         may have significant impacts on water quality or other values.
         Compliance with permit by rule standards is rarely checked and
         the program depends on the verity of the applicant's information.

              Site Location of Development Act (38 MRSA, 5481-490). The
         act requires review of projects with a building footprint in
         excess of 60,000 square feet, 10 or more units of housing, or

                                           17



                                                                                   t


           subdivisions in excess of 20 acres. The intent of the act is to
           regulate the siting of certain types of development in order to
           protect the natural environment, groundwater resources in
           particular. Secondary and cumulative impacts are to be
           considered. Before issuing a permit, DEP obtains project review
           by other state agencies (including the Dept. of Human Services,
           Division of Health Engineering; Dept. of Transportation; Soil &
           Water Conservation Commission; DOC, Maine Geological Survey;
           Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife).

                Project approval is contingent upon the developer demon-
           strating that the proposal meets specified criteria. Department
           of Environmental Protection rules (Chapter 375, 9/90) require
           that proposed projects fit harmoniously into the existing natural
           environment, without adverse impact on existing uses, scenic
           character, or natural resources.

                Effectiveness--- Although cumulative and secondary impacts
           are to be considered, guidelines for applicants or regulators to
           address cumulative and secondary effects of development, do not
           exist. Without clear guidelines and definitions, permitting agen-
           cies generally make decisions based on direct impacts of develop-
           ment and remain reluctant to hinge permitting decisions on
           cumulative impact considerations.

                Submerged Lands Act (12 MRSA 5558-573). The act authorizes
           the Bureau of Public Lands to lease state-owned submerged
           (including marine lands) lands for the purposes of filling,
           dredging or erecting structures.

                Effectiveness--- The Submerged Lands Program of the BPL
           considers the cumulative impact of a proposed activity on the
           existing fisheries during the review process. Recently, the
           Bureau of Public Lands (BPL) rejected an application for a marina
           in Bass Harbor on the grounds that further recreational marina
           development would adversely impact the health of the traditional
           fisheries in the harbor. According to the BPL, the harbor had
           reached a threshold of appropriate development.

                Local Ordinances. The Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act (38
           MRSA ï¿½435-448) and the Subdivision Law (30 MRSA  ï¿½4401-4407) are
           implemented with local ordinances that comply with state minimum
           regulations. An intent of shoreland zoning is to avoid the
           effects of cumulative impact by providing protection to sensitive
           resources with the setbacks and the resource protection
           designation.

                Effectiveness--- State minimum regulations do not include
           specific provisions or guidelines for the assessment of
           cumulative impacts. Municipalities are required to develop
           ordinances consistent with state coastal policies which encourage
           consideration of cumulative and secondary impacts of development;
           however, most local land use decisions are made on a case by case
           basis and do not consider future impacts or impacts beyond
           municipal boundaries.

                                           18









             The Maine Coastal Program has funded Coastal Coordinators in
        Regional Planning Councils along the coast and a Shoreland Zoning
        Coordinator at the Department of Environmental Protection to
        provide technical assistance with shoreland zoning ordinance
        development. The Shoreland Zoning Coordinator at DEP reviews
        towns ordinances for compliance with the state minimum
        guidelines.

        7.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblectives -- Control Cumulative
             Impacts

             Develop, revise or enhance procedures or policies to provide
        cumulative and secondary impact controls.

             * Establish or improve coastal planning processes which
        address the cumulative and secondary impacts of future growth by
        identifying areas of rapid growth and which contain sensitive
        coastal resources, assessing anticipated cumulative and secondary
        impacts, and establishing appropriate land use controls and
        mitigation measures to protect valuable coastal resources.

             * Establish or improve procedures for the consideration of
        cumulative and secondary effects in project/permit review deci-
        sions and infrastructure and land acquisition programs.

             7.41 Options for Enhancing Coastal Planning Processes

                  Establish a program of comprehensive watershed planning
                  and protection with coastal watershed districts, in-
                  cluding non-point source reduction, public education
                  efforts, water conservation, and volunteer water quali-
                  ty monitoring.

                  Develop special area management plans that provide for
                  natural resource protection and sustainable economic
                  growth in areas of significant concern.

                  Consider adoption of a uniform permit renewal date for
                  point source dischargers (NPDES permits) within each
                  major coastal watershed to facilitate estimates of
                  total pollutant loading in coastal waters and enhance
                  planning for the assimilative capacity of estuaries and
                  embayments.

                  Develop funding sources to sustain and implement com-
                  prehensive planning and technical assistance efforts to
                  communities.


                  Conduct threshold indicator studies to assess the
                  tolerance of defined ecological units to incremental
                  development.

                  Develop sustainability/carrying capacity criteria for
                  individual coastal areas, land and water.


                                       19









                     Develop review criteria for towns to assess cumulative
                     impacts of proposed developments on natural resources.
                     The Department of Environmental Protection developed a
                     technical assistance guide for evaluating phosphorus
                     loading to inland lakes. Similar guidance is needed for
                     assessing nonpoint source pollution impacts of
                     shoreline and coastal watershed development on water
                     quality.

                7.42 Options for Improving Project & Permit Review
                Decisions

                     Establish local waste management districts to take
                     responsibility for ensuring that septic systems as well
                     as public sewage treatment plants are functioning
                     properly.

                     Establish a schedule of fees to be paid by point and
                     nonpoint dischargers which discharge directly into
                     bays, estuaries and the ocean, for use for water quali-
                     ty monitoring, toxic cleanup, and remediation and
                     prevention projects.

                     Activate the DEP's estuarine monitoring project and
                     find stable sources of funding for water quality moni-
                     toring by DEP and DMR.

                     Formalize a cooperative agreement to share information
                     regarding sources of pollution and pollutants of con-
                     cern between DMR, DHS, DEP and municipalities.

                     Improve enforcement of environmental regulations by
                     increasing funding and staffing. Increase penalties for
                     violations of statutes. Formalize coordination between
                     state agencies responsible for enforcement in coastal
                     areas and local officials.

                     Improve procedures by which state agencies notify local
                     governments of permit applications and decisions (espe-
                     cially permit by rule decisions).

                     Change Permit-by-Rule regulations to require before and
                     after photographs of the proposed alteration and sworn
                     statements of compliance with permit conditions.

                     Revise Maine's wetland regulations to include
                     protection of significant small wetlands.

                     Improve review of state and local coastal permit
                     applications by region or for the coast as a whole
                     (e.g. by a regional review board or coastal commis-
                     sion).

                     Investigate sources of funding to accelerate natural
                     resource and permit data entry on the state GIS.

                                          20


                                                                                   16









                  Add specific language and definitions of cumulative and
                  secondary impacts to state environmental laws and
                  regulations (NRPA, Permit by Rule, Shoreland Zoning,
                  Site Location, LURC).

                  Develop guidelines/criteria for assessment of cumula-
                  tive impacts for municipal planning boards and state
                  agencies.

                  Develop a strategy and policies to protect natural
                  areas that are sensitive to impacts of growth and
                  development. Identify areas (such as coastal islands)
                  in the marine and estuarine environment that are
                  priorities for protection.

                  Refine the state water quality classification guide-
                  lines to include more specific water quality designa-
                  tions than the current broad categories.

                  Conduct a coast-wide scenic inventory and develop
                  guidelines for the implementation of the scenic re-
                  source criteria of the Natural Resource Protection Act.

                  Expand the significant habitat criteria of the Natural
                  Resource Protection Act to include sensitive natural
                  resource areas in the estuarine and marine environment.



             7.43 Baseline for MeasurincT Progress

                  Build-out studies

                  Carrying capacity assessments and threshold indicators

                  Changes in baseline environmental databases
                  (e.g. wetland inventories)

                  Using marine and estuarine species as water quality
                  indicators

             7.5  Available Studies/Information

             Arbuckle, J. and M. Lee, 1987. "The Cumulative Impacts of
       Development in Maine: A Study of Habitat Changes in Five Coastal
       Towns, The Maine Audubon Society for the Maine State Planning
       Office, Augusta, ME.
             Brown, K., K. Kirkland, D. Perkins, 1987. "Protecting
       Maine's Working Waterfronts: Lessons from California Applied to
       Maine with a Case Study of Vinalhaven, Maine," Island Institute,
       Rockland, ME.
             Department of Environmental Protection, 1989. "State of
       Maine, Nonpoint Pollution Assessment Report," Bureau of Water
       Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta,
       ME.



                                       21









                Dominie, H. and J. Scudder, 1987. "Land Use and Cumulative
           Impacts of Development, A Study Summary," Maine State Planning
           Office, Augusta, ME.
                Droege, M., 1987. "The Cumulative Impacts of Development in
           Maine: A Study of Habitat Changes in Five Coastal Towns," Maine
           Audubon Society for Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.
                Land Use Consultants (LUC), 1977. "Cumulative Impact of
           Incremental Development on the Maine Coast," prepared for Maine
           Department of Environmental Protection and Committee on Coastal
           Development and Conservation, Augusta, ME.
                Office of Comprehensive Planning, 1988. "Guidelines for
           Maine's Growth Management Program," Office of Comprehensive
           Planning, Maine Department of Economic and Environmental
           Protection, Augusta, ME.
                Rieser, Alison, 1987. "Managing the Cumulative Effects of
           Coastal Land Development: Can Main@b Law Meet the Challenge"?
           Maine Law Review Vol.39:321;
                Rieser, A. and J. Quintrell, 1986. "The Cumulative Impacts
           of Development in Southern Maine: Management of Cumulative
           Impacts: An Analysis of Legal and Policy Issues," Marine Law
           Institute, Center for Research and Advanced Study, University of
           Southern Maine, for the Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.
                Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission, 1987. "The
           Cumulative Impacts of Development in Southern Maine: Assessment
           of Municipal Capability to Manage Growth," Maine State Planning
           Office, Augusta, ME.
                 State Planning Office, 1986. "Coastal Management Policy
           Guidelines," Maine Coastal Program, State Planning Office,
           Augusta, ME.





























                                           22



















                             Section 309 Assessment







                      8. SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PIANNING









                  Advisory Committee: Natural Areas & Natural Resources
                  Agency Contacts:     Committee

                  Jim Bernard, Maine State Planning Office
                  Fran Rudoff, Office of Comprehensive Planning/DECD
                  Hank Tyler, Critical Areas Program/ SPO
                  Craig Ten Broeck, Bureau of Public Lands/DOC
                  Al Hutchinson, IF&W
                  Seth Barker, DMR
                  Caroline Elliot, Land Use Regulatory Commission/DOC
                  Rich Langton, DMR

                  Public Interest Contacts:

                  Maine Municipal Association
                  Maine Audubon Society
                  Casco Bay Estuary Project









                            Special Area Management Planning

                                        CONTENTS




           8.0 SUMMARY

           8.1  Maine's Key Coastal Management Policies

           8.2  Federal CZMA Legislative Objective

           8.3  Federal CZMA Assessment Characterization


                8.31 Definitions and Criteria
                8.32 Use of Special Area Management Planning in Maine
                8.33 Maine Coastal Areas Potentially Benefitting from
                      Special Area Management Planning

           8.4  Federal CZMA Programmatic Objective -- Implement Special
                Area Management Planning

                8.41 Next Steps
                8.42 Available Mechanisms & Effectiveness
                8.43 Options for Improvement

           8.5 Available Information/Studies
































           [jr.sam]   1/14/92










        8.0 SUMMARY



             The 3,600-mile coast of Maine is marked by fertile estuaries
        and bays, dramatic headlands and craggy islands, expansive tidal
        flats and scenic vistas. A myriad of state agencies manage the
        water and land resources along the coast in cooperation with 144
        individual town governments and numerous federal agencies. As
        population continues to migrate to coastal areas and uses of
        coastal waters and lands intensifies, coastal water pollution,
        declines in fisheries, conflicts among users of coastal waters
        indicate an urgent need for tools to coordinate land and water
        use decisions.

             Special area management plans (SAMPS) are used to
        coordinate and improve protection and management of important
        coastal resources while sustaining appropriate economic activity.
        Estuaries and embayments, islands, fishing grounds, and
        significant aquatic and upland habitats, are areas along the
        Maine coast that could benefit from special area management
        planning and other regional planning initiatives.

        Accomplishments

             Current special area management planning efforts in Maine
             include the Casco Bay Estuary project, the Saco River
             Corridor, and the St. Croix Joint International Commission.

        Problems


             Coastal areas of special concern which have local or state
             significance have not been systematically identified and
             mapped.

             Regional resources often span several towns and local land
             use decisions and designations are rarely coordinated among
             towns. Consideration of future cumulative and secondary
             effects of present day decisions on areas of special natural
             resource value are not guided by a coherent management
             framework.

             Growth management guidelines, issued by the state to assist
             municipalities with comprehensive planning, encourage the
             inclusion of regional policies in local comprehensive plans,
             but funding is not available to provide technical assistance
             to implement regional policies.

             Towns have no strong regional entity to assist them with
             planning on a watershed basis.

             State agencies need to coordinate management of coastal and
             marine resources.





                                        1









           8.1 Maine's Key Coastal Management Policies Relating to Special
                Area Management Planning (38 MRSA 1801)



                     MARINE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT. Manage the marine envi-
                ronment and its related resources to preserve and improve
                its ecological integrity and diversity of marine communities
                and habitats, to expand our understanding of the productivi-
                ty of the Gulf of Maine, and to enhance the economic value
                of the State's renewable marine resources.



                     SCENIC AND NATURAL AREAS PROTECTION. Protect and
                manage critical habitat and natural areas of state and
                national significance and maintain the scenic beauty
                and character of the coast even in areas where develop-
                ment occurs.



                     STATE AND LOCAL COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT. Encourage and
                support state and municipal management of coastal resources.



































                                          2









       8.2 Federal CZMA Legislative Oblective

       ï¿½ 309(a)(6) Preparing and implementing special area management
       plans for important coastal areas.'

       8.3 Federal CZMA Assessment Characterization

       Identify areas of the coastal zone subject to use conflicts that
       can be addressed through special area management planning.
       Criteria for selecting these areas should include:

            The area includes significant coastal resources that are
            being severely affected by cumulative or secondary impacts
            from coastal growth.

            There is a multiplicity of local, state and federal authori-
            ties which prevents effective coordination and cooperation
            in addressing coastal development on an ecosystem basis.

            There is a history of long-standing disputes between local,
            state, or federal agencies over certain coastal resources
            which have resulted in protracted negotiations over the
            acceptability of proposed uses.

            There is a strong commitment at all levels of government to
            enter into a collaborative planning process to produce a
            definitive regulatory products.

            A strong state or r-gional entity exi,3ts which is.willing
            and able to sponsor the planning program.

            8.31 Definitions and Criteria

            Special Area Management Plans are defined by the federal
       Coastal Zone Management Act as follows: "comprehensive plans
       providing for natural resource protection and reasonable coastal-
       dependent economic growth containing a detailed and comprehensive
       statement of policies; standards and criteria to guide public and
       private uses of lands and waters; and mechanisms for timely
       implementation in specific geographic areas within the coastal
       zone."

            Estuaries, embayments, and islands are types of areas along
       the Maine coast which could benefit particularly from special
       area management planning. They are areas of significant natural
       resource value as well as important areas for residential,
       commercial and recreational development. Islands, because of
       their isolated and contained nature, are particularly vulnerable
       to the impacts of human use. Estuaries and embayments often span
       several political jurisdictions and are subject to use conflicts



              Italicized text is excerpted from federal CZMA guidance
        for Section 309 Assessments.


                                       3









           between recreational and commercial water users, and degradation
           of natural resources because of habitat loss and pollution.

                The need for coordinated management and conservation is
           greatest in those areas of the coast under the most development
           pressure and intensive use of the natural resources by commercial
           and recreational fishermen, boaters, visitors and residents. The
           other criterion -- occurrence of significant natural resources
           and features -- is addressed in several studies.

                "A Preliminary Listing of the Noteworthy Natural Features in
           Maine" (The Center for Natural Areas, 1976) inventoried distinct
           features of significance, such as soils, plants, geologic
           formations and invertebrates. "The Protection Priorities Plan"
           (Reed & D'Andrea, 1973) identified geographic regions in the
           coastal zone worthy of protection because of the quality,
           diversity and integrity of the natural communities. Among the
           areas identified by Reed and D'Andrea were: Cobscook Bay, Down
           East Coast, Little Kennebec Bay, Indian River, Pleasant Bay,
           Petit Manan, Tunk Lake, Long & Bartlett Islands, St. George
           River, Upper Sheepscot River, Back River, Little River, Machias
           Bay, and Merrymeeting Bay.

                In the early 1980s the Maine Department of Marine Resources
           nominated a site in mid-coast Maine to the National Marine
           Sanctuary Program. The proposed site extended seaward from the
           mouths of the Kennebec, Sheepscot, and Damariscotta Rivers; and
           Johns and Muscongus Bays, including the waters around and
           westerly of Monhegan Island. The nomination was based on the
           outstanding natural resources in the area and proximity to
           research facilities.


                The North American'Waterfowl Management Plan (USF&WS, 1989)
           identified Cobscook Bay and Merrymeeting Bay and the Lower
           Kennebec as focus areas for conservation efforts. The Maine
           Rivers Study (DOC 1982) identified tidal segments of several
           coastal rivers as Class "A", that is, having natural and
           recreational resources with greater than state value: Dennys
           River, East Machias River, Kennebec River, Merrymeeting Bay
           rivers, Machias River,Narraguagus River, Penobscot River,
           Pleasant River, and the Sheepscot River.

                8.32 Use of Special Area Management Planning in Maine

                The Penobscot Bay Resource Plan (SPO, 1972) was an early
           effort to develop a regional plan for a coastal area. The plan
           contained maps illustrating the natural features and sites
           sensitive to development in the area. Information detailing the
           local history, population and economic trends was included. The
           plan recommended broad changes in state land use policy, but was
           ineffective in actually achieving coordinated regional management
           of Penobscot Bay resources. At the time, local communities and
           state government lacked the comprehensive plans, local ordinances
           and state environmental regulations necessary to influence land
           use.


                                           4









             More recently,"The Penobscot Bay Conservation Plan" (IF&W,
        1987) inventoried marine wildlife sites in Penobscot Bay and
        included management guidelines for specific wildlife habitats.
        The report also made recommendations for integrating marine
        wildlife values into coastal resources planning.

             Other areas with a multitude of owners have improved manage-
        ment with interlocal agreements and commonly expressed goals. The
        Saco River Corridor Commission, initiated in the 1970s, to manage
        land use along the Saco River with agreements between local
        governments. The Cobbossee Watershed District, formed in 1971, is
        a more complex arrangement between 9 towns within a watershed
        that includes 28 lakes. The district sets regional water quality
        goals and works with town and individual landowners to promote
        practices which protect water quality.

             The St. Croix International Waterway Commission, an interna-
        tional commission established by the State of Maine and the
        Province of New Brunswick, works with the state and provincial
        governments and towns bordering the waterway to encourage appro-
        priate economic growth and to maintain the region's common
        heritage. The commission is preparing a management plan in
        cooperation with the jurisdictions to establish management goals
        and define a common vision. Implementation of the plan will
        include coordinated management of water and land resources along
        the St. Croix from East Grand Lake to Passamaquoddy Bay.

             The Casco Bay Estuary Project is a National Estuary Program
        initiated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency in 1990
        to address management issue in Casco Bay. The Project will
        develop a management plan for the bay that addresses sources of
        water pollution as well as land use practices and regulation.

             8.33 Maine Coastal Areas Potentiallv Benefitting from
        Special Area Management Planning

             The following areas should be given special consideration
        for Special Area Management Planning:

             Merrymeeting Bay and the Kennebec River Estuary (largest
             freshwater tidal ecosystem north of the Chesapeake Bay)

             Penobscot Bay and Islands

             Cobscook Bay (protection priority for the state)

             Frenchman Bay (tourism development and Acadia National Park)

             Maquoit Bay (valuable shellfish resource in mid-coast Maine)

             Mid-Coast Estuaries (Sheepscot, Damariscotta, Medomak, St.
             George-- relatively intact ecosystems with valuable natural
             resources and strong local fisheries threatened by major
             increases in population and changes in land use.)


                                        5











           8.4 Federal CZMA Programmatic Oblective -- Implement SiDecial
                Area Management Planning

           Develop and implement special area management planning in coastal
           areas selected by above criteria.

                8.41 Next Steps

                Evaluate marine resource areas identified by the DMR and
                coastal wildlife areas identified by IF&W for ecological
                sensitivity and productivity; determine the need for coastal
                biological reserves to protect significant areas.

                Evaluate special area management planning candidate areas
                for suitability as demonstrations projects. Criteria should
                include: vulnerability,' management need, resource value,
                local interest and support, and regional significance.

                Evaluate the possible role of Heritage Coastal Area
                designation in special area management planning.

                Determine the most suitable organizational mechanism for a
                coastal watershed management partnership. A mechanism needs
                to be sought which involves all affected and interested
                parties yet addresses town concerns about loss of local
                control.


                Identify the roles of participating towns, regional planning
                commissions, State and federal agencies, and the Maine Land
                and Water Resources Council in the development and
                implementation of special area management plans.

                Develop a public participation strategy.

                8.42 Available Mechanisms & Effectiveness


                Environmental Laws -- The Natural Resource Protection Act
           and the Site Location of Development Act are the chief State
           environmental statutes regulating major development activities
           and protecting coastal wetlands, sand dunes, wildlife habitat and
           other areas of special significance. Most land use decisions,
           including shoreland zoning designations, are made by
           municipalities. In the absence of a management framework (such as
           may be provided by local comprehensive plans) that allows
           consideration of future cumulative and secondary effects of
           present day decisions on special areas, it is generally necessary
           to make permit decisions case-by-case. Management of special
           coastal ecosystems such as estuaries and embayments is fragmented
           and unfocused as a result.

                Heritage Coastal Areas -- Heritage Coastal areas are areas
           "containing an assemblage of geological, botanical, zoological,
           historical or scenic features of exceptional state or national
           significance (MRSA Title 5 ï¿½312 Section 3316)."  Established as

                                          6









        part of the Critical Areas Program in the State Planning Office,
        Heritage Coastal Area designation is a potential tool for
        identifying coastal areas with state significance. Several
        Heritage Coastal Areas have been nominated to the Critical Areas
        Advisory Board. The expense of the requirement that the State
        Planning Office notify each landowner in the proposed area 60
        days before designation has prevented any designations.

              Coastal Watershed Districts -- In 1990, the state legisla-
        ture passed an act allowing the formation of coastal watershed
        districts. The purpose of coastal watershed districts is "to
        protect, restore and maintain water quality and aquatic resources
        of coastal harbors, bays, estuaries and other coastal waters and
        to manage and conserve the land and water resources of coastal
        watersheds within the jurisdiction of these districts."

              Responsibilities of coastal watershed districts include
        initiating and coordinating research on aquatic resources and
        coastal environments, planning restoration projects to improve
        water quality within the district; working to coordinate ordi-
        nances and regulation within the watershed district; and adoption
        and implementation of coastal protection, management and restora-
        tion plans. No coastal watershed districts have been formed to
        date. Comprehensive Land Use Planning and Land Use Regulation
        Law -- This law requires municipalities to develop comprehensive
        plans for State approval. Growth management guidelines, issued
        by the Office of Comprehensive Planning (OCP) to assist
        municipalities with meeting the provisions of the act, en@,ourage
        the inclusion of regional policies in local comprehensive plans.
        Coordination of land use ordinances and resource protection
        measures around estuaries and embayments thus are potential plan
        features.

              Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) -- Regional planning
        commissions and councils of government are quasi-governmental
        agencies funded by federal, state and local governments. They are
        accountable to the Department of Economic and Community
        Development/Office of Comprehensive Planning for State-funded
        activities. The RPCs were created under state statute to advise
        local governments and promote regional planning and
        intergovernmental cooperation. RPC boundaries may not necessarily
        correspond with the boundaries of special areas such as estuaries
        or aquifers.

              8.43 Possible Options for Improvement

              Develop protocols for coordinated review of all
              environmental permits within designated special management
              areas.


        4     Develop model regional zoning regulations for special
              management areas.



                                           7









                Develop and add a coastal natural resource database to the
                State Geographic Information System (GIS).


           8.5  Available Information/Studies

                Fraser River Estuary Management Program. "A Guide to the
           Coordinated Review Process".
                Jacobson, B. 1987. 11 US/UK Exchange Quoddy Area Consulta-
           tion, Roosevelt-Campobello International Park External Threats
           Report," Maine Coast Heritage Trust, National Park Service, U.S.
           Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
                McPhee, M.W., 1989. "Implementing Area Designations in the
           Fraser River Estuary," Coastal Zone'89, Vol. 1, pp 245-257.
                Olsen, S. and V. Lee, 1984. "Rhode Island's Salt Pond
           Region: A Special Area Management Plan," The Coastal Resources
           Center, University of Rhode.Island, prepared for the Coastal
           Resources Management Council, Providence, RI.
                Reed & D'Andrea, 1973. "Protection Priorities Plan," Pre-
           pared for The Nature Conservancy, Reed & D'Andrea, Land and Space
           Planning, South Gardiner, ME.
                Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission, 1984. "Wells
           National Estuarine Sanctuary, draft Management Plan," prepared
           for the Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.
                St. Croix International Waterway Commission, 1990. "St.
           Croix International Waterway", SCIWC, St. Stephen, New Brunswick.
                Wells National Estuarine Reserve Management Plan, 1990
           update.
                Woodward, S., A. Hutchinson, and M. McCollough, 1987. "The
          .Penobscot Bay Conservation Plan", Endangered and Nongame Wildlife
           Project of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
           prepared for Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.

           Inventories of Coastal Resources requiring protection:
                Fefer, S.I. and P.A. Schettig eds., 1980."Characterization
           of Coastal Maine," Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and
           Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA.FWS/OBS-80/29.
                MIFW, 1989. "Significant Fish and Wildlife Resources of Mid-
           Coastal Maine", Significant Fish and Wildlife Resources of York
           County," Maine Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife, Augusta,
           ME.
                The Nature Conservancy, 1988. "An Atlas of Coastal Maine's
           Endangered and Rare Features, Historic and Archeological Sites,
           Significant Wildlife Habitats," Maine Coastal Program, Maine
           State Planning Office, Augusta, ME.











                                           8











                                                                      3 6668 14103 5388